Water Audit Cal. v. Nevada Irrigation Dist. CA3, C092877

Water Audit California filed a petition for writ of mandate and declaratory relief (Dec. 3, 2019) seeking remediation of the Hemphill Diversion as an unlawful obstruction/ diversion harming fish passage.
On Jan. 29, 2020 the parties executed a stipulation dismissing the litigation while the Nevada Irrigation District committed to pursue removal/retrofit of Hemphill, undertake CEQA analysis (draft EIR target April 1, 2021), and use "best efforts" to complete approvals and award a construction contract; the parties did not request retained jurisdiction or a judgment under the stipulation.
The court dismissed the action without prejudice after Water Audit refiled its dismissal request; no adjudication of the merits occurred.
Water Audit moved for attorneys’ fees under CCP § 1021.5 (Mar. 2, 2020), seeking nearly $130,000; the District opposed, arguing Water Audit was not a "successful party."
The trial court denied fees (Aug. 13, 2020), finding the District had already been actively pursuing Hemphill removal and CEQA work before the lawsuit, so Water Audit had not produced the judicially cognizable change or sufficient catalytic effect to justify fees.
The Court of Appeal affirmed, concluding the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying § 1021.5 fees.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Water Audit was a "successful party" under CCP § 1021.5 entitling it to attorneys’ fees	Stipulation and dismissal reflect a formal change and the lawsuit catalyzed remediation efforts, so Water Audit prevailed	District was already engaged in CEQA, engineering, and removal planning before suit; any acceleration or stipulation did not create a judicially recognized change or satisfy catalyst requirements	Court affirmed denial: Water Audit not a prevailing party; catalyst theory fails because District’s efforts predated suit and mere acceleration is insufficient

Friends of Spring Street v. Nevada City, 33 Cal.App.5th 1092 (2019) (standard of review for § 1021.5 fee determinations)
Tipton-Whittingham v. City of Los Angeles, 34 Cal.4th 604 (2004) (catalyst theory requirements for fee awards)
Graham v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 34 Cal.4th 553 (2004) (judicially recognized change in legal relationship required for traditional success)
Vasquez v. State of California, 45 Cal.4th 243 (2008) (statutory requirements for § 1021.5 awards)
La Mirada Ave. Neighborhood Assn. v. City of Los Angeles, 22 Cal.App.5th 1149 (2018) (background on private attorney general doctrine and fee awards)
Maria P. v. Riles, 43 Cal.3d 1281 (1987) (benchmarks for comparing situation before suit and after to assess prevailing-party status)