Summary of a Recent
Judicial Development in
Environmental Law

Reversal of Attorney Fee Award under the Private Attorney General Statute

Walt McCarter
National AgLaw Center Research Associate

Summary of Decision

In Madera Irrigation District v. Madera City Board of Supervisors, No. F054218, 2009 WL 783022 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 26, 2009), the California Court of Appeals held that the trial court had applied the incorrect standard when determining whether to grant a successful plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees pursuant to the private attorney general statute, Code Civ. Proc. § 1021.5, and thus reversed and remanded the issue for reconsideration under the correct standard.

Background

The trial court awarded $571,237 in attorney's fees to appellees under the "private attorney general" attorney's fee statute, Code Civ. Proc. § 1021.5, after they were successful in obtaining a writ of mandate setting aside the County of Madera's approval of a development project known as River Ranch Estates. Id. at *1. Regarding the appellees' motion for attorney's fees, the trial court stated, "The appropriate question is whether [their] beneficial interest is out of proportion to the beneficial interest to the public resulting from the relief." Id. The County of Madera and the Board of Supervisors of the County of Madera appealed the attorney's fee award. Id.

Arguments

The County claimed that the trial court used the wrong standard in granting the appellees' motion for attorney's fees, and argued that fees under § 1021.5 "are unavailable when the primary purpose in bringing suit was to pursue and protect petitioners' own property rights rather than to furnish a significant public interest." Id.

Analysis and Holdings

The appellate court agreed that the trial court had applied the wrong standard in determining whether to allow attorney's fees under the private attorney general statute, but pointed out that the appellants' suggested rule was also incorrect. Id. The court explained that fees under § 1021.5 are only available to "a successful party" and only if the action has "resulted in the enforcement of an important right affecting the public interest." Id. at *4. Also, the following conditions must be met:

(a) a significant benefit, whether pecuniary or nonpecuniary, has been conferred on the general public or a large class of persons, (b) the necessity and financial burden of private enforcement, or of enforcement by one public entity against another public entity, are such as to make the award appropriate, and (c) such fees should not in the interest of justice be paid out of the recovery, if any.
Id.

The court therefore reversed and remanded to the trial court for reconsideration under the correct standard. Id. at *7.

The case was decided on March 26, 2009.