Serrano v. Stefan Merli Plastering Co., Inc.
262 P.3d 568
| Cal. | 2011Background
- Serrano et al. object to an expedited transcript fee charged to nonnoticing parties by Coast Court Reporters, Inc.
- Trial court found Coast’s expediting fee unreasonable but could not regulate fees; ordered refund to plaintiffs.
- Stefan Merli Plastering Co., Inc. v. Coast Court Reporters (Stefan I) held trial courts can regulate deposition fees and ordered refunds where unreasonable.
- On remand, the trial court refunded the disputed expedited fee; plaintiffs sought attorney fees under §1021.5, arguing public-interest enforcement and public benefit.
- Court of Appeal majority held Joshua S. v. Adoption of Joshua S. controlled and barred §1021.5 fees; dissent would have allowed them.
- Supreme Court reverses, concluding Joshua S. does not bar the fee request and the action involved public-interest considerations and a valid private attorney general theory.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Joshua S. bars §1021.5 fees here | Joshua S. controls; private dispute with no public impact | Joshua S. governs public-interest requirement | No; Joshua S. does not apply to this case |
| Whether the action enforced an important public right | Stefan I involved public-interest issues in deposition regulation | Not a public-right enforcement case; private dispute | Yes; action satisfied the public-interest/enforcement elements |
| Whether Coast had a private attorney general interest | Coast acted with institutional interest affecting fees | Coast had no public- interest stake | Coast had institutional public-interest stake; not merely private |
| Whether Stefan I constitutes public-interest litigation under 1021.5 | Stefan I resolved important issues of court authority over deposition fees | Stefan I did not broaden public rights | Yes; Stefan I addressed matters of public importance and statutory interpretation |
Key Cases Cited
- Adoption of Joshua S., 42 Cal.4th 945 (Cal. 2008) (limits §1021.5 to public-interest enforcement; private-loss cases not eligible)
- Stefan Merli Plastering Co., Inc. v. Coast Court Reporters, Inc. (Stefan I), 162 Cal.App.4th 1014 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (trial court may regulate deposition fees; public-interest framing in 1021.5 context)
- Urban Pacific Equities Corp. v. Superior Court, 59 Cal.App.4th 688 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997) (deposition reporters’ fees not statutorily limited; court rejected broad market freedom view)
- Woodland Hills Residents Assn., Inc. v. City Council, 23 Cal.3d 917 (Cal. 1979) (articulates §1021.5 public-benefit and burden concepts)
- Connerly v. State Personnel Bd., 37 Cal.4th 1169 (Cal. 2006) (statutory-construction guidance for §1021.5 analysis)
- Stefan Merli Plastering Co., Inc. v. Stefan Merli Plastering Co. (Stefan I), 162 Cal.App.4th 1014 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (establishes trial court authority to regulate deposition fees in public-interest framework)