$1,800 For Unexplained Counsel Time to File Complaint Reduced From Fee Award.
Building Assn. of the Bay Area v. City of Santa Rosa, Case No. A132839 (1st Dist., Div. 5) (Jan. 15, 2013) (unpublished) involved a lower court’s fee award to a builders association invalidating an ordinance requiring property owners to waive their right to vote on the imposition of special taxes to obtain a development permit. Plaintiff received a $243,417.50 fee award pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5, reducing the fee award for $1,800 in travel by counsel to file a complaint.
Fee award affirmed.
The appellate court found no problem that the case conferred a significant benefit on the general public. Then, the financial burden prong of section 1021.5 had to be faced, but the reviewing court found that the voting rights aspect of the case alone (divorced from the fact that some of the association’s members had development rights interests) satisfied this important element–one that has probably gotten the lion’s share of attention in recent decisions after Whitley.
However, there were some other points made in this decision that we see all the time and points answered cogently by the appellate court.
The losing municipality complained about number of hours on a summary judgment memorandum, a contention rejected because “the length of the document is no gauge of the time needed to prepare it. The pithy pleadings that are most effective usually require more time to prepare than the endlessly discursive and digressive documents judges often receive.” (Children’s Hospital & Medical Center v. Bonta, 97 Cal.App.4th 740, 783 (2002).) Plaintiff could not justify the $1,800 charge by counsel to drive to court and file a complaint, especially where messengers or other means could accomplish this more efficiently. Time spent preparing for hearings is compensable, including moot court preparation for an important argument. (United Steelworkers v. Phelps Dodge Corp., 896 F.2d 403, 407 (9th Cir. 1990); Democratic Party of Washington State v. Reed, 388 F.3d 1281, 1286 (9th Cir. 2004).) Finally, the court did not have to consider taxpayer fiscal concerns by the on-the-hook party (meaning no requirement to consider this factor). (Serrano III, 20 Cal.3d at p. 49.)