Bottom Line Was Important Shopping Center Store Lost Interest.
Ya know, some cases boil down to very simple principles, if not all of them. The next one is a case in point.
In Coalition For A Sustainable Future In Yucaipa v. City of Yucaipa, Case No. E057589 (4th Dist., Div. 2 June 8, 2015) (unpublished), petitioner lost a CEQA challenge to a shopping center, with its interim appeal deemed moot after the project died when Target backed out of the project. Petitioner moved for CCP § 1021.5 fees, arguing it was a “catalyst” for what happened.
The trial and appellate courts disagreed. The litigation was not a catalyst. Instead, Target lost interest in the project, such that petitioner did not satisfy the “successful party” much less causation elements of section 1021.5. Fee denial affirmed.