42 Cal.App.5th 290
Cal. Ct. App.2019Background
- The San Diego Union‑Tribune (Union) requested under the California Public Records Act (CPRA) records of participants in Metropolitan Water District’s (MWD) Turf Removal Rebate Program; MWD produced redacted data after consulting the Los Angeles Department of Water & Power (DWP). About 7,800 program participants were DWP customers.
- DWP filed a reverse‑CPRA writ of mandate against MWD to enjoin disclosure of customer names/addresses; Union intervened and filed a CPRA cross‑petition to compel disclosure. Three member water districts later intervened to block disclosure.
- The trial court denied DWP’s writ and granted Union’s CPRA cross‑petition, ordering disclosure of names/addresses.
- The court awarded Union CPRA fees against MWD for work on the CPRA cross‑petition and awarded additional attorney fees under Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5 (private‑attorney‑general) jointly against DWP and the Intervener Utilities for Union’s work opposing the reverse‑CPRA petition.
- DWP and the Intervener Utilities appealed the § 1021.5 award; Union cross‑appealed the court’s denial of fees for separate reply briefs. The Court of Appeal affirmed in part and modified the award, adding $12,350.33 for reply‑brief work (against DWP and the Intervener Utilities jointly).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Union) | Defendant's Argument (DWP / Intervener Utilities) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Availability of attorney fees for a requesting party in a reverse‑CPRA action | Fees are available: an intervening requester who brings a CPRA cross‑petition can recover CPRA fees and may recover § 1021.5 fees for work opposing a reverse‑CPRA writ | Reverse‑CPRA plaintiffs argued fees are never available to requesters in non‑statutory reverse actions (rely on Marken) | Fees are available; court follows PPOA and rejects a blanket bar to fees in reverse‑CPRA actions |
| Whether Union satisfied Code Civ. Proc. § 1021.5 requirements | Union enforced an important public right, conferred significant public benefit (oversight of public spending), and private enforcement was necessary | DWP/Interveners argued Union didn’t prevail causally over DWP, and relief was not a public benefit; some parties likened themselves to amici | Court found Union was prevailing party on disclosure, conferred public benefit, and met § 1021.5 criteria; no abuse of discretion |
| Whether DWP / Interveners are the type of losing parties exempt from § 1021.5 under Joshua S. (i.e., merely protecting private rights) | Union: public agencies defending broad withholding of records cannot claim the narrow Joshua S. exception | DWP/Interveners: they were protecting customers’ private interests and thus should not be treated as public wrongdoers for fee purposes | Court held Joshua S. exception inapplicable: agencies sought to restrict public access to information about large public expenditures, so fees appropriate |
| Compensability of work on unsuccessful collusion claim and separate reply briefs | Fees for reasonable hours related to the litigation (including unsuccessful intertwined theories and separate reply briefs) are compensable | DWP argued collusion work was unsuccessful and should be excluded; Interveners objected to multiple reply briefs | Court upheld fees for collusion work as reasonably related; reversed denial of reply‑brief fees and added $12,350.33 against DWP/Interveners |
Key Cases Cited
- Pasadena Police Officers Assn. v. City of Pasadena, 22 Cal.App.5th 147 (2018) (intervening requester in reverse‑CPRA may recover CPRA fees and § 1021.5 fees for opposing reverse actions)
- Marken v. Santa Monica‑Malibu Unified Sch. Dist., 202 Cal.App.4th 1250 (2012) (recognizes reverse‑CPRA writs but discusses limits on statutory fee remedies when requester is not an intervenor)
- Filarsky v. Superior Court, 28 Cal.4th 419 (2002) (public agency may not bring declaratory relief under CPRA; discusses limits of CPRA remedies)
- Adoption of Joshua S., 42 Cal.4th 945 (2008) (§ 1021.5 not intended to impose fees on litigants pursuing only private rights without affecting public interest)
- Serrano v. Unruh, 32 Cal.3d 621 (1982) (prevailing party under public‑interest fee doctrine entitled to reasonable hours, including intertwined claims)
- PLCM Group, Inc. v. Drexler, 22 Cal.4th 1084 (2000) (lodestar approach and factors for attorney‑fee awards under California law)
- International Federation of Professional & Technical Engineers v. Superior Court, 42 Cal.4th 319 (2007) (governmental openness is essential; public benefit from disclosure supports fee awards)
- Campaign for Family Farms v. Glickman, 200 F.3d 1180 (8th Cir. 2000) (federal reverse‑FOIA context recognizing statutory basis for third‑party challenges)