No Substantial Benefit Conferred on Public, Reviewing Court Determines.
In Morgan v. Imperial Irrig. Dist., Case Nos. D060146/D061087 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Jan. 17, 2014) (unpublished), plaintiffs lost a contention that the Imperial Irrigation District did not comply with Proposition 218 in its passage of new water rates. District won, but the lower court still awarded the individual plaintiffs fees under the private attorney general statute on the theory that they had provided benefit to the public by helping trigger revocation of certain fees under an Equitable Distribution Plan (EDP).
The appellate court reversed the fee award.
What was missing was a causal link: the District deleted some proposed fees from the DEP before trial and before the filing of the complaint, with nothing in the lower court’s Statement of Decision indicating that plaintiffs won on the 218 compliance issue. Given this lack of benefit to the public or indication that plaintiffs were a “catalyst,” the fees award was overturned.