Plaintiffs Could Not Surmount The Deferential Abuse Of Discretion Standard.
In Belemjian v. Becerra, Case No. F073507 (5th Dist. Mar. 29, 2018) (unpublished), plaintiffs/appellants filed an action challenging the regulatory process undertaken by the Attorney General, DOJ, and others to implement a firearm safety certificate program, although emergency regulations were ultimately adopted so as to moot the dispute. Plaintiffs moved for fee recovery under a CCP § 1021.5 “catalyst theory.” The trial judge denied it on two principal bases: (1) plaintiff only accelerated the regulatory adoption, but it was underway before the action was even filed so that plaintiffs were not catalysts; and (2) plaintiff did not attempt settlement resolution efforts before turning to litigation.
The Fifth District affirmed, based on the deferential abuse of discretion standard. Since the “catalyst” and “failure to settle” findings were factual in nature, the record supported them on the sequence of events such that the appellate court felt compelled to defer to the lower court’s findings under the governing standard of review.