$70,000 Fee Request Rebuffed By Trial And Appellate Courts.
In Hillis v. City of Aliso Viejo, Case No. G051900 (4th Dist., Div. 3 June 2, 2016) (unpublished), plaintiff successfully contested a nonconforming traffic sign infraction against City, obtaining a dismissal of a criminal charge. Plaintiff’s father asked the City to remove the offensive sign, prompting plaintiff to file a class action to remove the sign. Eventually, the sign was removed.
Plaintiff then moved for attorney’s fees under the private attorney general statute based on his contention he was a catalyst for sign removal. He sought a little under $70,000 in fees, a request denied by the trial court.
The appellate court affirmed, in a 3-0 decision by Justice Thompson. Although the lower court agreed that plaintiff’s lawsuit was a catalyst for the sign removal, the problem was that no public benefit was vetted given that only one traffic sign was at issue. A cautionary message to the public entity is insufficient to satisfy the public benefit requirement of CCP § 1021.5. (Norberg v. California Coastal Com., 221 Cal.App.4th 535, 543 (2013).) The fee denial was sustained on appeal.