Friends of Spring St. v. Nev. City, 245 Cal. Rptr. 3d 592

Background

In 2014 Real Parties sought to resume operating a bed-and-breakfast (Kendall House) in a single‑family residential zone; the planning commission denied, the city council reversed, concluding the use remained permitted under the municipal code.
Plaintiff (Friends of Spring Street) sued the City seeking writ of mandate, declaratory and injunctive relief challenging the council’s decision and later challenged City ordinances amending discontinuance/revocation procedures (2015 non‑urgency ordinance).
The Court of Appeal (Friends I) held Measure G (1994 initiative) converted preexisting B&Bs into nonconforming uses and reversed the trial court’s upholding of the city council’s reversal; it affirmed the validity of the 2015 ordinance.
On remand the trial court entered judgment granting the writ and directed the City to set aside its decision; the City complied by adopting a resolution vacating its prior decision.
Plaintiff filed a memorandum of costs under CCP §1032 and a fee motion under CCP §1021.5; the trial court struck costs and denied fees. Plaintiff appealed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether plaintiff is the prevailing party for costs under CCP §1032(a)(4)	Plaintiff obtained its primary objective (writ setting aside council decision) and thus is prevailing	City/Real Parties stressed plaintiff only won 1 of 5 causes of action and appellate order that parties bear their own costs	Plaintiff is the prevailing party; remand to determine amount of recoverable costs
Whether plaintiff waived costs by failing to obtain a prior court order designating prevailing party	No waiver; trial court should decide prevailing party on the merits despite procedural filings	Real Parties claimed untimeliness and procedural deficiency	No waiver rule cited; court reached merits and rejected the timeliness argument as unsupported
Whether plaintiff is a "successful party" and met CCP §1021.5 elements (important public right; significant benefit)	Plaintiffs vindicated voters’ Measure G and preserved zoning integrity, conferring substantial nonpecuniary benefit to city residents	City argued the effect was not a broad public benefit and that the action didn’t finally resolve reopening rights; also noted plaintiff's private interest	Trial court abused discretion in denying §1021.5 relief; plaintiff was successful on an important public right and conferred a substantial benefit; remanded to assess necessity/financial burden and fee amount
Scope/effect of Friends I and practical result of litigation	Friends I substantively construed Measure G, producing the practical result plaintiff sought (planning commission denial left intact)	City argued Friends I was only jurisdictional and left substantive questions unresolved, so plaintiff didn’t achieve practical result	Court held Friends I decided the substantive issue binding on the City in this action; plaintiff realized its primary litigation objective

Key Cases Cited

DeSaulles v. Community Hospital of Monterey Peninsula, 62 Cal.4th 1140 (costs are incident-of-success reimbursements)
Charton v. Harkey, 247 Cal.App.4th 730 (trial court discretion to determine prevailing party under CCP §1032(a)(4))
On‑Line Power, Inc. v. Mazur, 149 Cal.App.4th 1079 (compare relief sought with relief obtained to identify prevailing party)
Wohlgemuth v. Caterpillar, Inc., 207 Cal.App.4th 1252 (practical level success test for prevailing party)
City of Santa Maria v. Adam, 248 Cal.App.4th 504 (plaintiff is prevailing when lawsuit yields primary relief sought)
La Mirada Ave. Neighborhood Assn. v. City of Los Angeles, 22 Cal.App.5th 1149 (zoning enforcement vindicating municipal code can confer significant public benefit under §1021.5)
Maria P. v. Riles, 43 Cal.3d 1281 ("successful party" defined as party achieving its objectives; framework for §1021.5 assessment)
Woodland Hills Residents Assn. v. City Council, 23 Cal.3d 917 (public‑interest fee doctrine; significant benefit requirement)