Travis v. Brand, 91 Cal.App.5th 996

March 7, 2017 Redondo Beach election: Measure C (limits on waterfront redevelopment) passed; Bill Brand won mayor and Nils Nehrenheim later won a council seat.
Plaintiffs Arnette Travis and Chris Voisey (Opponents of Measure C) sued supporters (Rescue Our Waterfront P.A.C., its principal Wayne Craig, Brand, Nehrenheim, campaign committee and treasurer) alleging Political Reform Act violations: Rescue was a "primarily formed" committee for Measure C (misnamed and misreported) and Brand/Nehrenheim were controlling candidates.
At a five-day bench trial the court found Rescue was a general purpose committee, not candidate-controlled, entered judgment for defendants, and awarded defendants ~$862,700 in attorney fees under the Political Reform Act and Code Civ. Proc. §1021.5.
The Court of Appeal initially approved fee awards under the Act; the California Supreme Court reversed, holding a prevailing defendant may recover fees under the Act only if the plaintiff sued or maintained suit without foundation, and remanded for reconsideration.
On remand the Court of Appeal examined whether the plaintiffs’ suit was objectively without foundation and whether private attorney general fees under §1021.5 were appropriate, and concluded plaintiffs had a foundation and the §1021.5 criteria were not met, reversing the fee award.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Entitlement to attorney fees under the Political Reform Act (§ 91003)	Travis: suit was grounded in law and facts (Rescue looked primarily formed; expert and facts supported claims); fees inappropriate.	Defendants: plaintiffs’ claims were frivolous/groundless and funded by developers; prevailing defendants entitled to fees.	Reversed — plaintiffs had an objective foundation at filing; Act does not permit fees absent lack of foundation.
Entitlement to fees under Code Civ. Proc. §1021.5 (private attorney general)	Travis: case did not vindicate an important public right nor confer a broad public benefit; fees not warranted.	Defendants: defense vindicated free-speech/public-interest and deterred funded "shill" claims; fees appropriate.	Reversed — action did not enforce an important public right nor confer significant public benefit; §1021.5 criteria unmet.
Allocation of appellate costs from prior appeal	Travis: costs order against plaintiffs should be reversed except as to costs previously awarded to Waterfront, Bruning, and Wardy.	Defendants: sought costs on appeal against plaintiffs.	Modified — most prior costs awards reversed; Waterfront, Bruning, and Wardy retain their appellate costs against specified defendants; otherwise parties bear own costs.

Travis v. Brand, 62 Cal.App.5th 240 (Cal. Ct. App. 2021) (earlier appellate decision addressing merits and factual sufficiency)
Travis v. Brand, 14 Cal.5th 411 (Cal. 2023) (Supreme Court holding prevailing defendants recover Act fees only if plaintiff sued or maintained suit without foundation)
Woodland Hills Residents Assn. v. City Council, 23 Cal.3d 917 (Cal. 1979) (establishing the private attorney general fee criteria under §1021.5)
Willard v. Kelley, 238 Cal.App.4th 1049 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015) (denial of §1021.5 fees for narrow election dispute not conferring public benefit)
Sargon Enterprises, Inc. v. University of Southern California, 55 Cal.4th 747 (Cal. 2012) (expert opinion admissibility standard)
Connerly v. State Personnel Bd., 37 Cal.4th 1169 (Cal. 2006) (standard of review for fee awards and independent statutory construction review)
Sandlin v. McLaughlin, 50 Cal.App.5th 805 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020) (private attorney general fees where invalid challenge would have deprived voters of candidate information)
Early v. Becerra, 60 Cal.App.5th 726 (Cal. Ct. App. 2021) (§1021.5 fees where published appellate decision construed statutory right with broad public effect)
Press v. Lucky Stores, 34 Cal.3d 311 (Cal. 1983) (example of litigation vindicating expressive/petition rights conferring public benefit)