Background

• Maldonado, the conservator for her developmentally disabled brother Roy Whitley, challenged a community-placement decision under Lanterman Act procedures after Whitley’s move from a state center.
• Whitley I held the Lanterman Act procedures govern objections to community placement, not the Richard S. settlement procedures.
• Maldonado sought attorney fees under CCP 1021.5 claiming the Whitley litigation created a public benefit and imposed a private financial burden.
• The trial court denied fees, and the Court of Appeal affirmed on the basis that the case did not meet the 1021.5 “necessity and financial burden” requirement.
• This Court reversed, holding nonpecuniary, personal motives cannot disqualify a claimant under 1021.5 and remanded for consideration of substantial public-benefit and fee issues.
• The decision centers on interpretation of the “necessity and financial burden” prong and proper valuation of benefits and costs in private attorney general actions.

Issues

Key Cases Cited

• Woodland Hills Residents Assn., Inc. v. City Council, 23 Cal.3d 917 (Cal. 1979) (private attorney general doctrine; necessity and burden balancing)
• Lyons v. Chinese Hospital Assn., 136 Cal.App.4th 1331 (Cal. App. 2006) (necessity and burden; public/private enforcement balance)
• Press v. Lucky Stores, Inc., 34 Cal.3d 311 (Cal. 1983) (focus on financial incentives and burdens, standing not relevant to abstract motives)
• Phipps v. Saddleback Valley Unified School Dist., 204 Cal.App.3d 1110 (Cal. App. 1988) (fee eligibility where no pecuniary stake; public policy emphasis)
• Hammond v. Agran, 99 Cal.App.4th 115 (Cal. App. 2002) (nonfinancial, personal interests may limit or separate fee entitlement by issue)