Healdsburg Citizens for Sustainable Solutions v. City of Healdsburg
206 Cal. App. 4th 988
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- This CEQA matter challenged EIR certification and project approvals for the Saggio Hills Resort; SLR owned the project site and the City held a wetlands parcel.
- The trial court found the EIR defective on water-demand analysis, aesthetic impacts, and range of feasible alternatives, while upholding other CEQA findings.
- HCSS sought attorney fees under §1021.5; the court awarded $382,189.73 after 40% reductions and a 1.5x multiplier for one attorney but no multiplier for Grattan or another attorney.
- Grattan was a named party and a member of HCSS who worked as a contingent-fee hired attorney alongside lead counsel; she had a stake in the litigation.
- The court concluded Grattan’s fees were permissible under the private attorney general doctrine; it distinguished Trope and related cases and found an attorney‑client relationship existed between Grattan and petitioners; the decision was affirmed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Grattan may recover under §1021.5 as a party/member of the organization. | Grattan should recover as a private attorney general. | Trope and related standards bar recovery when a party is self‑represented or intermingled interests. | Yes; Grattan may recover under §1021.5. |
| Whether there was an attorney‑client relationship between Grattan and petitioners justifying fee recovery. | Grattan was a hired attorney with an ongoing attorney‑client relationship. | No true attorney‑client relationship existed due to shared organizational interests. | There was an attorney‑client relationship supporting fees. |
| Whether the trial court properly denied a multiplier for Grattan’s services. | Grattan’s contingent work justified a multiplier. | Grattan’s personal involvement disqualified a multiplier. | No multiplier awarded to Grattan; discretionary denial affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Trope v. Katz, 11 Cal.4th 274 (Cal. 1995) (limits on in propria persona fee recovery; Trope informs equitable discretion under 1021.5)
- Families Unafraid to Uphold Rural El Dorado County v. Board of Supervisors, 79 Cal.App.4th 505 (Cal. App. 2000) (attorney member of organization can recover under 1021.5 with safeguards)
- Kern River Public Access Com. v. City of Bakersfield, 170 Cal.App.3d 1205 (Cal. App. 1985) (recovery advances public policy; public access rationale)
- Ramona Unified School Dist. v. Tsiknas, 135 Cal.App.4th 510 (Cal. App. 2005) (attorney‑client relationships among co‑defendants influence fee awards)
- Gorman v. Tassajara Development Corp., 178 Cal.App.4th 44 (Cal. App. 2009) (fees where interests are not interchangeable; Trope applied)
- Consumers Lobby Against Monopolies v. Public Utilities Comm., 25 Cal.3d 891 (Cal. 1979) (public interest fee theories; common fund context)
- Woodland Hills Residents Assn., Inc. v. City Council, 23 Cal.3d 917 (Cal. 1979) (establishes private attorney general doctrine in 1021.5 context)
- Serrano v. Priest, 20 Cal.3d 25 (Cal. 1977) (foundation for public policy enforcement by private action)