11 Cal. App. 5th 154
Cal. Ct. App.2017Background
- Plaza de Panama Committee (Committee) promoted a Balboa Park revitalization project that closed park roads and built a bridge and parking structure.
- City of San Diego approved the project; Save Our Heritage Organisation (SOHO) sued via a petition for writ of mandamus challenging environmental, historic-preservation, and land-use approvals.
- The superior court granted the petition in part and ordered the City to rescind project approval; the City did not appeal.
- The Committee appealed and prevailed in Save Our Heritage Organisation v. City of San Diego, reversing the trial judgment.
- The Committee moved under Code Civ. Proc. § 1021.5 for private-attorney-general fees for appellate work; the trial court denied the motion, concluding project proponents cannot obtain § 1021.5 fees.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding a project proponent can qualify for § 1021.5 relief generally, but fees cannot be imposed on SOHO because SOHO’s lawsuit sought to enforce public-interest protections rather than to harm them.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a project proponent may recover attorneys’ fees under § 1021.5 | Committee: § 1021.5 awards are to a "successful party," and Committee satisfied the three-prong test so it is eligible | SOHO: Allowing project proponents would undermine § 1021.5’s purpose of encouraging public-interest litigation | Court: Project proponents are not categorically barred; "successful party" can include defendants/real parties in interest if § 1021.5 factors are met |
| Whether fees may be imposed on SOHO (the petitioner) | Committee: Fees should be awarded against SOHO because Committee prevailed and the public benefited | SOHO: Its suit enforced public rights; imposing fees would penalize public-interest enforcement | Court: Fees may not be imposed on a litigant who did not adversely affect the public interest; SOHO sought to enforce public protections, so fees against it are inappropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Serrano v. Stefan Merli Plastering Co., Inc., 52 Cal.4th 1018 (explaining limits on imposing § 1021.5 fees and exception when target did nothing to harm the public interest)
- Joshua S., 42 Cal.4th 945 (holding § 1021.5 fees should not be imposed on parties who did not compromise public rights and discussing legislative intent)
- Save Our Heritage Organisation v. City of San Diego, 237 Cal.App.4th 163 (underlying appellate decision reversing trial court and vacating writ-based rescission of project approval)
- Graham v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 34 Cal.4th 553 (defining "successful party" for § 1021.5 purposes)
- Center for Biological Diversity v. County of San Bernardino, 188 Cal.App.4th 603 (describing § 1021.5 as incentive for public-interest enforcement)