Millview Co. Water Dist. v. State Water Resources Control Bd.
A145428M
| Cal. Ct. App. | Nov 3, 2016Background
- Millview County Water District licensed (2001) then purchased (2009) a 1914 appropriative water right (the "Waldteufel claim") from Hill and Gomes for $2.1315 million ($500,000 down), with purchase price contingent on any court order limiting diversion.
- The State Water Resources Control Board issued a proposed cease-and-desist order (CDO) in 2009 limiting diversion to 15 acre-feet/year; after hearings the Board entered a CDO in 2011 restricting diversion.
- Millview, Hill, and Gomes obtained a writ vacating the CDO; this court affirmed (Millview I), finding the Board applied the wrong legal standard on forfeiture and remanding options for the Board.
- Plaintiffs moved for attorney fees under Code Civ. Proc. § 1021.5 (private attorney general), seeking fees for trial and appellate work; the trial court awarded only appellate fees and denied pre-appeal fees.
- On appeal, the Board challenged the appellate fee award; plaintiffs cross-appealed denial of earlier fees. The appellate court reversed the award of appellate fees and affirmed denial of earlier fees, holding plaintiffs failed to show litigation costs outweighed their financial incentives.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiffs were entitled to § 1021.5 fees for appellate work | Plaintiffs prevailed (CDO vacated), conferred public benefit by clarifying forfeiture law, and had insufficient personal financial incentive—no monetary judgment—so fees appropriate | Board: plaintiffs had substantial pecuniary incentives (preservation of purchase proceeds and asset value); therefore § 1021.5 award inappropriate | Reversed appellate fee award; plaintiffs failed to show costs transcended their personal financial stake |
| Whether plaintiffs could recover pre-appeal fees | Plaintiffs sought earlier fees as part of renewed motion | Board argued lack of jurisdiction and plaintiffs were not prevailing parties entitled to fees | Trial court denial of pre-appeal fees affirmed; even if jurisdiction existed, financial-burden failure bars recovery |
| Proper test for § 1021.5 financial-burden inquiry | Plaintiffs urged a LA Police-style expected-value calculation focusing on monetary award | Board urged courts must consider all financial incentives/offsetting benefits, not just actual monetary recovery | Court rejected literal LA Police application; adopted Whitley/Summit Media approach focusing on financial incentives and whether litigation cost was out of proportion to personal stake |
| Whether nonpecuniary motives affect § 1021.5 financial-burden analysis | Plaintiffs cited nonfinancial motives (offense at complaint, public clarification) | Board argued irrelevant compared to pecuniary incentives | Court held nonpecuniary motives are irrelevant to the financial-burden element; focus is on financial incentives and burdens |
Key Cases Cited
- Whitley v. Superior Court, 50 Cal.4th 1206 (2010) (supreme‑court framework: § 1021.5 requires balancing litigation costs against offsetting financial benefits; nonpecuniary motives irrelevant)
- Millview County Water Dist. v. State Water Resources Control Bd., 229 Cal.App.4th 879 (2014) (appellate decision vacating Board's CDO on forfeiture standard error)
- Summit Media, LLC v. City of Los Angeles, 240 Cal.App.4th 171 (2015) (financial-burden inquiry examines whether plaintiff had sufficient personal financial stake to justify litigation)
- Davis v. Farmers Ins. Exch., 245 Cal.App.4th 1302 (2016) (§ 1021.5 inappropriate where plaintiff expected substantial financial recovery)
- Children & Families Com. of Fresno County v. Brown, 228 Cal.App.4th 45 (2014) (denial of § 1021.5 fees where plaintiff stood to lose significant funding—pecuniary incentive defeats award)
- Norberg v. California Coastal Com., 221 Cal.App.4th 535 (2013) (burden on fee claimant to prove § 1021.5 elements, including that litigation costs transcend personal stake)
- Los Angeles Police Protective League v. City of Los Angeles, 188 Cal.App.3d 1 (1986) (earlier illustrative expected-value test for weighing monetary benefits against costs; not adopted literally by Whitley)