City Looked Like It Made Changes Regardless of Lawsuit.
Under CCP § 1021.5, public interest litigants—if satisfying multiple levels of necessary elements—can be awarded attorney’s fees for vindicating public interests under a catalyst theory. This usually means that the litigants inspired change by a government entity such that a bounty should be awarded. However, the catalyst theory is often factually intensive, as Plata v. City of San Jose, Case No. G060382 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Jan. 3, 2022) (unpublished) illustrates.
In this one, a lower court denied fees for a Proposition 218 and related claims because it was skeptical the City made changes to the water tiered-rate system based on a lawsuit based on a much publicized, much regaled Capistrano decision. The appellate court agreed. The timeline of events showed that Capistrano inspired a review (as it did for many municipalities), with the litigation only having some influence. But, in these situations, whether the lawsuit was a substantial factor in the change was a factual call by the lower court, as Acting Presiding Justice Bedsworth observed as the author of the opinion, when sustaining the denial of fees.