Concessions of Defendant and Plaintiff’s Financial Impact Declaration Cinch the Award.
The next case illustrates how a litigant’s own concessions on public interest and a plaintiff’s declaration about financial impact play important roles in establishing the elements necessary to justify a fee award under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5 (California’s private attorney general statute).
In Farahani v. San Diego Community College Dist., Case No. D054717 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Nov. 10, 2009) (unpublished), Mr. Farahani successfully petitioned for a mandate writ to invalidate the District’s “last chance agreement” under which he waived statutory due process rights in violation of Education Code section 87485. He was then awarded attorney’s fees of $50,300.34 under section 1021.5.
On appeal, District claimed he did not satisfy the 1021.5 elements, an argument that was unavailing. As to whether Mr. Farahani was enforcing an important public policy, the District itself had admitted in a petition filed with the appellate court that the “last chance agreements” are in widespread use in California’s community college system and involve a matter of great importance to the general public. “The irony was not lost on the trial court,” or for that matter the appellate court when sustaining the satisfaction of this 1021.5 requisite based on this concession. With respect to the financial burden element, Mr. Farahani provided a declaration indicating he had depleted assets and lost his home to foreclosure in pursing the litigation, a showing that was satisfactory and similar to the showing found sufficient in Mejia v. City of Los Angeles, 156 Cal.App.4th 151, 159 (2007). The fee award was affirmed.
Mr. Farahani tried to argue certain errors occurred which should have led to a higher award, but he never filed a cross-appeal. It was not sufficient to simply argue error in his respondent’s brief. (California State Employees’ Assn. v. State Personnel Bd., 178 Cal.App.3d 372, 382 n. 7 (1986).)