First District, Division Three Affirms Denial of Fee Request under CCP section 1021.5.
In Rural Media Arts and Education Project v. Hildreth, Case No. A123740 (1st Dist., Div. 3 Aug. 25, 2009) (unpublished), nonprofit organization—headquartered in the old Masonic Hall in the downtown historic Mariposa district—applied for a grant of funds under the California Cultural and Historical Endowment Act, which furthers activities to ensure historic and cultural activities related to California’s varied past. Due to a computer glitch, its application was rejected, which triggered nonprofit’s action against various entities and affiliates responsible for processing the endowment application. Eventually, the case settled, with the nonprofit allowed to present its proposal to the endowment’s governing board but with no obligation that it would be granted or funded. The board, however, later on did approve a $1.3 million grant for the project. Nonprofit moved for attorney’s fees under California’s private attorney general statute.
The trial court said “no,” and the appellate court said “no.”
No important public right was involved because the settlement did not result in the modification of any endowment policies or procedures. Rather, nonprofit only got a second chance to overcome a computer glitch that bogged down the system. The appellate panel also distinguished Choi v. Orange County Great Park Corp., 175 Cal.App.4th 524, 531 (2009) (the Great Park dispute discussed in our July 1, 2009 post), finding that the dispute before it “did nothing … to ensure the integrity of the process by which the endowment awards grants”—unlike Choi‘s result in allowing the council members to check on the integrity of the Great Park CEO search. (Slip Opn., at p. 8 n.4.)
No significant benefit was conferred because the settlement did not guarantee funding to the nonprofit’s project, but only made sure that the glitch was corrected so the application could be considered. Nothing indicated that the nonprofit’s project would not have been funded by the simple expedient of resubmitting the application rather than turning to litigation to correct a techno-error.