California Public Records Research, Inc. v. County of Yolo
4 Cal. App. 5th 150
Cal. Ct. App.2016Background
- CPRR sued Yolo County and the County Recorder after being charged $10.00 for first page and $2.00 for each subsequent page for recorded-document copies (later reduced to $7.35/$2.00 and then $7.50/$2.00). CPRR alleged fees exceeded permissible cost recovery under Gov. Code § 27366, Proposition 26, and common law, and sought writs, declarations, damages, and class relief.
- In 2009 the County adopted a Master Fee Resolution based on consultant and in‑house fee studies that used a “staff billing rate” (aggregate per‑hour productive cost covering salary, overhead, IT, equipment, etc.) multiplied by time-per-page to set $10/$2 fees.
- CPRR challenged inclusion of indirect costs (overhead/administration) in the fee calculation and argued fees effectively were special taxes requiring voter approval under Prop. 26.
- The County moved for summary judgment, submitting declarations and the fee studies; CPRR offered no expert evidence and relied mainly on pleading allegations. The trial court granted summary judgment for the County and denied CPRR’s request for Code Civ. Proc. § 1021.5 attorney fees (catalyst theory).
- On appeal the court reviewed statutory meaning of “direct and indirect costs” in § 27366, mandamus standards, Prop. 26, and the catalyst fee doctrine, and affirmed judgment and denial of fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Meaning of “direct and indirect costs” in Gov. Code § 27366 | §27366 limits recoverable costs to those actually incurred producing copies; indirect costs that would be incurred regardless are not recoverable | §27366 authorizes recovery of a broad range of direct and indirect costs (including overhead and admin) as commonly defined in accounting practices | Court held §27366 unambiguous: “indirect costs” includes overhead/operating costs not specifically traceable to each copy; Board may recover such costs |
| Mandamus to compel limiting fees (ministerial duty) | Board had a mandatory duty to limit fees to avoidable costs; mandamus appropriate | Setting fees requires significant discretion by the Board; no ministerial duty exists | Court held no ministerial duty under §§27360/27366 or common law; mandamus unavailable |
| Abuse of discretion in fee adoption | Fees were arbitrary and sought to recover unrelated overhead; methodology flawed | Fees were based on consultant methodology and reviewed by County accountant; Board’s exercise of discretion had evidentiary support | Court held County met burden; CPRR produced no admissible evidence to raise triable issue; no abuse of discretion |
| Prop. 26 (special tax) challenge | Fees exceed “reasonable costs” and thus are special taxes requiring voter approval | Fees fall within statutory cost‑recovery exception and were set before/consistently with §27366; County bore burden to show not a tax | Court assumed Prop.26 could apply but found CPRR failed to show fees violated §27366; summary adjudication of constitutional claim affirmed |
| §1021.5 attorney fees (catalyst theory) | Lawsuit prompted County to reduce first-page fee; CPRR is a successful party and should get fees | Fee reduction resulted from lower labor costs/retirements, not change in County methodology; CPRR did not obtain primary relief sought | Court held CPRR failed catalyst test: it did not obtain the primary relief (change in fee methodology); denial of fees affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- North County Parents Org. v. Dep’t of Educ., 23 Cal.App.4th 144 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994) (interpreting “direct cost of duplication” narrowly to exclude ancillary staff/retrieval time)
- California Public Records Research, Inc. v. County of Stanislaus, 246 Cal.App.4th 1432 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016) (court found ambiguity in “indirect costs” in a similar challenge)
- Cal. Ass’n of Prof. Scientists v. Dep’t of Fish & Game, 79 Cal.App.4th 935 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000) (discussing regulatory vs. user fees and relationship to reasonableness)
- County of Yolo v. Los Rios Cmty. Coll. Dist., 5 Cal.App.4th 1242 (Cal. Ct. App. 1992) (statutory interpretation limiting charges to costs actually incurred for specific activities)