Samantha C. v. State Department of Developmental Services
207 Cal. App. 4th 71
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Samantha C. appeals a trial court denial of attorney fees under CCP 1021.5 after winning a published opinion against DDS and HRC enforcing a public-right right under the Lanterman Act.
- The underlying action challenged HRC and DDS determinations that Samantha was not developmentally disabled and not entitled to Lanterman Act services.
- The published Samantha C. v. State Dept. of Developmental Services (2010) held HRC misinterpreted Welfare and Institutions Code 4512(a) fifth category and Samantha was entitled to benefits.
- We held the misinterpretation affected the public interest and that the action conferred a significant public benefit, justifying fees not payable from the recovery.
- The court reversed the fee denial and remanded to determine an appropriate fee against HRC and DDS; DDS joined in opposition below.
- Samantha sought at least $243,817.50 in fees; the trial court denied them, prompting this appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 1021.5 fees are available | Samantha were successful party; public-benefit qualifies fee award. | No public-benefit; no fee award because not against a private foe. | Yes; fee award allowed |
| Whether the action conferred a significant public benefit | Our published decision enforces an important public right affecting many. | Benefit is not shown to extend to a large class or general public. | Significant public benefit established |
| Whether private enforcement necessity supports the award | Private enforcement was necessary due to agencies involved and burden on Samantha. | No necessity or disproportionate burden shown. | Necessity and financial burden support award |
| Against whom fees may be assessed | DDS and HRC both responsible; DDS joined in opposition below. | Fee should be against HRC only as DDS did not conduct the adverse action directly. | Fees awardable against both HRC and DDS |
| Standards of review for 1021.5 when a published opinion provides basis | De novo or independent review appropriate given published basis. | Ordinary abuse-of-discretion review suffices. | De novo/independent review appropriate here |
Key Cases Cited
- Adoption of Joshua S., 42 Cal.4th 945 (2008) (fee-shifting for public-interest enforcement)
- Ebbetts Pass Forest Watch v. Department of Forestry & Fire Protection, 187 Cal.App.4th 376 (2010) (precedes fee-balance under 1021.5; success analysis)
- Conservatorship of Whitley, 50 Cal.4th 1206 (2010) (necessity/financial burden of private enforcement)
- Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California, 47 Cal.3d 376 (1988) (standards for when fees may be awarded under 1021.5)
- Vasquez v. State of California, 45 Cal.4th 243 (2008) (abuse-of-discretion review for fee determinations)
- Wilson v. San Luis Obispo County Democratic Central Committee, 192 Cal.App.4th 918 (2011) (de novo/independent review when published opinion provides basis)