The Trial Court Concluded Plaintiffs Failed To Establish Any Of The Three Requirements Affecting Eligibility For A Fees Award Under Section 1021.5, But Their Failure To Meet The Required Showing That The Financial Burden Of Private Enforcement Made The Award Appropriate Was Alone A Sufficient Basis For Denial.
In Boppana v. City of Los Angeles, Case No. B304823 (2d Dist., Div. 7 March 12, 2021) (unpublished), two neighbors were locked in litigation for years over walls, fences, tree disputes, and surveillance of each other. Eventually, plaintiff couple successfully filed a petition for writ of mandate to compel the City of Los Angeles to revoke other neighbor’s permit for a fence, gate and wall the neighbor had built along his front yard and a public right-of-way situated between the dueling neighbors’ properties. Plaintiff couple then moved for $88,500 in Code Civ. Proc. § 1021.5 attorney’s fees. The trial court denied – concluding plaintiffs had not met any of the three required showings under § 1021.5 for an award of fees.
The 2/7 DCA found no abuse of discretion and affirmed in Boppana v. City of Los Angeles, Case No. B304823 (2d Dist., Div. 7 March 12, 2021) (unpublished). The panel questioned whether plaintiffs had met the first two required showings – (1) that their action resulted in the enforcement of an important right affecting the public interest, and (2) that a significant benefit had been conferred on the general public or a large class of persons. However, because plaintiffs had clearly failed to meet the third showing – (3) that the necessity and financial burden of private enforcement made the award appropriate – a determination on the first two requirements was not necessary. Plaintiffs claimed neighbor’s structures caused them $400,000 in damages, and expected to recover at least that amount through litigation. To address this issue at the hearing for plaintiffs’ request for fees, their counsel proposed a discount factor of 75% to the amount of plaintiffs’ expected compensatory damages – resulting in a reduction from $400,000 to $100,000. In comparing the $100,000 figure to the $88,500 in attorneys’ fees that plaintiffs incurred, the trial court properly concluded the cost of the mandamus litigation did not transcend plaintiffs’ financial incentive.