Trial Court Failed To Recognize The Significance Of The Constitutional Due Process Rights Effectuated By Plaintiff’s Action.
A party seeking attorney’s fees under Code Civ. Proc. § 1021.5 must show that: (1) he/she/it is the successful party in an action; (2) the action resulted in the enforcement of an important right affecting public interest; (3) the action conferred a significant benefit on the general public or a large class of persons; and (4) the necessity and financial burden of the private enforcement make the award appropriate.
In Doe v. Regents of the University of Cal., Case No. B293153 (2d Dist., Div. 6 June 5, 2020) (unpublished), the trial court found plaintiff had satisfied the first and second prongs above, but failed to satisfy the third and fourth prongs, and denied his section 1021.5 fees request.
Plaintiff was an incoming freshman to UC Santa Barbara. Before classes began, he was arrested based on an edited video post made by his then girlfriend following a verbal argument. The post – which was seen and reported on by a UCSB student – made it appear that plaintiff had hit girlfriend, and included a comment that she was posting the video to protect other women from being battered. Ultimately, all criminal charges against plaintiff were dismissed, and girlfriend admitted that plaintiff had never hit her.
Meanwhile, UCSB had issued an interim suspension order barring plaintiff from entering the campus on the ground that he posed a threat to the safety of the campus community, and notified Plaintiff that the relationship violence allegation against him would be investigated by UCSB’s Title IX office. When this investigation was not completed within the time frame set forth by UCSB’s own policies for such investigations, plaintiff sued – seeking termination of the interim suspension and reinstatement as a student. He ultimately prevailed, but the trial court denied his section 1021.5 fee request seeking $265,508 (including a 1.6 multiplier) concluding that plaintiff had failed to demonstrate that his action conferred a significant benefit to the general public or large class of persons because the relief sought was inherently personal in nature. Additionally, the trial court found questionable whether the necessity and financial burden of private enforcement made the award appropriate.
On appeal, the 2/6 DCA agreed with plaintiff’s contention that he was denied fees due to the trial court’s misinterpretation of section 1021.5 – wherein it focused on plaintiff’s personal interest in bringing the action and had failed to recognize the significance of the constitutional due process rights that were effectuated and the extent of the public interest. The appellate panel – citing Indio Police Command Unit Assn. v. City of Indio, 230 Cal.App.4th 521, 543 (2014) – held that section 1021.5 “fees may not be denied merely because the primary effect of the litigation was to benefit the individual rather than the public.” In fact, Plaintiff’s action had caused another student dealing with Title IX investigation delays, which were prolonging her interim suspension, to fight by complaining to the Dept. of Education. That complaint led to UCSB entering into a Resolution Agreement with the Department wherein it agreed to promptly resolve future Title IX investigations, provide documentation to prove compliance, and provide training for its employees on compliance with the time limits for Title IX allegations. The 2/6 DCA acknowledged that this Resolution Agreement – requiring UCSB to comply with its own policies in student misconduct cases and thereby providing a significant benefit to all UCSB students – had not been disclosed to the trial court.
BLOG UPDATE: Doe v. Regents of the University of Cal.was certified for publication on June 29, 2020. However, The California Supreme Court, on September 30, 2020, denied review and ordered the decision depublished on its own motion such that this opinion is no longer citable.