Trope Prohibition Inapplicable to Public Records Act Request.
In Law Offices of Marc Grossman v. Victor Elementary School Dist., Case No. E059579 (4th Dist., Div. 2 June 26, 2015) (unpublished), a law firm representing a student of defendant elementary school sought public records reflecting the amount of money spent defending student’s assault action. The trial court denied the California Public Records Act request, but this was reversed by the appellate court in an earlier writ of mandate proceeding filed in the name of the law firm representing student. After issuance of the appellate remittitur, plaintiff’s law firm moved to recoup $16,327 in attorney’s fees under the CPRA’s fee-shifting provision (Govt. Code, § 6259(d)). The trial court granted a motion to tax the fee request, based on the ground that plaintiff (through the law firm) represented itself in the trial court.
Plaintiff again prevailed, obtaining a reversal in a 3-0 decision authored by Presiding Justice Ramirez.
Because the appeal presented a legal question appropriate for de novo review, the Fourth District, Division 2 panel found that the Trope v. Katz, 11 Cal.4th 274 (1995) prohibition—disallowing fee recovery to a law firm representing itself in a Civil Code section 1717 dispute—did not apply to a CPRA petition or to a law firm seeking disclosure of public information really for the benefit of its student client. Trope was found inapposite under the circumstances.