La Mirada Ave. Neighborhood Ass'n of Hollywood v. City of L. A.
22 Cal. App. 5th 1149
| Cal. Ct. App. 5th | 2018Background
- Target proposed a 163,862 sq. ft. Super Target in Hollywood that violated SNAP Subarea C zoning (height, design, parking, delivery, and free-delivery rules); the City granted eight variances ("exceptions").
- Neighborhood groups La Mirada and Citizens petitioned for writs challenging CEQA compliance and the variances; the trial court invalidated six of eight variances and enjoined construction, but denied CEQA and hearing claims.
- The City amended the SNAP while appeals were pending to create a new Subarea F to accommodate the Project; this prompted further litigation and an earlier appellate dismissal as moot (La Mirada I) leaving the trial judgment intact.
- Plaintiffs moved under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1021.5 for attorney’s fees for vindicating zoning law; the trial court awarded fees to both plaintiffs after finding they were "successful" and conferred a "significant benefit," applying a 1.4 multiplier.
- Target and the City appealed the fee awards arguing plaintiffs were not "successful" or had not conferred a significant public benefit because the amended zoning could still validate the Project, and that the fee amounts were excessive.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiffs were "successful" under §1021.5 | Plaintiffs achieved their litigation objective by obtaining a judgment invalidating six variances and prompting corrective action by the City | Target: success is not established because Project may still be approved under the amended SNAP | Plaintiffs were "successful": judgment invalidated variances and the suit catalyzed a legislative fix; interim success suffices |
| Whether plaintiffs conferred a "significant benefit" on the public | Enforcement of zoning rules preserves significant public policy and benefits a large class (residents of SNAP area/LA) | Target: any benefit is speculative because Project validity under new law is unresolved | Benefit is significant: judicial enforcement of zoning furthers important public policy and aids a broad class; substantial benefit need not be great |
| Effect of the City's amendment to the SNAP on fee entitlement | Amendment does not erase the plaintiffs’ validated victory under the law as it existed when judged | Target: amendment makes plaintiffs’ victory unsecured; fees should await final resolution under new law | Amendment does not defeat fee award; plaintiffs prevailed under existing law and §1021.5 permits awards for complete interim benefits |
| Whether the fee amount was an abuse of discretion | Trial court reasonably calculated hours, rates, and applied a multiplier based on necessity and results | Target: award excessive | Court affirmed: amount and multiplier were within discretion (review for abuse of discretion) |
Key Cases Cited
- Graham v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 34 Cal.4th 553 (definition of "successful party" and pragmatic approach to success)
- Woodland Hills Residents Assn., Inc. v. City Council, 23 Cal.3d 917 (importance of protecting local general plan and selectivity for public-interest fee awards)
- Folsom v. Butte County Assn. of Governments, 32 Cal.3d 668 (analysis of "success" and when a benefit is secure)
- Press v. Lucky Stores, Inc., 34 Cal.3d 311 (statutory elements for §1021.5 fee awards)
- La Mirada Avenue Neighborhood Assn. of Hollywood v. City of Los Angeles, 2 Cal.App.5th 586 (appellate disposition referenced; prior opinion dismissing appeals as moot while leaving judgment intact)