237 Cal. App. 4th 99
Cal. Ct. App.2015Background
- APRL petitioned for writ of mandate against City of San Diego and Planning Commission over year-round rope guideline at La Jolla pool.
- City confessed error three months after answer, agreeing to writ relief setting aside denial and reinstating findings.
- FOCP sought participation as amicus; court allowed FOCP to oppose entry of judgment and to file amicus brief.
- Trial court granted writ and entered judgment directing relief; APRL sought private attorney general (PAG) fees under CCP §1021.5.
- Trial court awarded APRL $82,717.50 (fees and costs) with pre-litigation hours included; costs of $555 later stricken on remand.
- City appeals arguing it was not an opposing party and arguing improper pre-litigation fee award; court affirms as modified and remands for appellate fees.)
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether City qualifies as an opposing party under CCP §1021.5 | APRL argues City fits opposite party under Connerly. | City argues it was never adverse and confessed error, not opposing. | Yes; City qualifies as opposing party under Connerly. |
| Whether pre-litigation attorney fees were permissible | APRL contends pre-litigation work was necessary to obtain relief. | City contends such work not tied to case success. | No abuse; trial court properly awarded pre-litigation fees. |
| Whether costs award was proper given missing memorandum of costs | APRL incurred costs recoverable under §1021.5. | Memorandum of costs not filed; costs should be stricken. | Costs award stricken; appellate fees to be determined on remand. |
| Whether appellate attorney fees should be awarded on remand | APRL seeks appellate fees as prevailing party on appeal of fee issue. | N/A (no separate challenge described). | Appellate fees remain to be determined by trial court on remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- Connerly v. State Personnel Bd., 37 Cal.4th 1169 (Cal. 2006) (defines opposing party for §1021.5; standard of review de novo where appropriate)
- Carver v. Chevron USA, Inc., 97 Cal.App.4th 132 (Cal. App. 2002) (standard for abuse of discretion in fee awards; statutory construction matters de novo when necessary)
- Nestande v. Watson, 111 Cal.App.4th 232 (Cal. App. 2003) (opposing party definition; ad hoc adversarial position in §1021.5 context)
- McGuigan v. City of San Diego, 183 Cal.App.4th 610 (Cal. App. 2010) (applies in context of municipal defense and appellate fees; settlement context)