Jacob B. v. County of Shasta

Filed 5/5/06 Jacob B. v. County of Shasta CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Shasta)

----

This is an action for invasion of privacy arising from the disclosure of confidential juvenile law enforcement information. The subject of the disclosure, plaintiff Jacob B., appeals here from an order denying his motion for attorney fees under the private attorney general doctrine of Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5 (section 1021.5). We affirm the order.

Background

In 1993, Laura B. (Laura) and her then-husband Charles B. (Charles), plaintiff's brother, accused plaintiff of molesting their son B.B. in 1991 when plaintiff was 13 and B.B. was three. The matter was investigated and Laura and Charles obtained benefits for B.B. from a victim assistance program. Plaintiff was never charged; the investigating officer believed that B.B. would be unable to testify.

Laura and Charles later divorced. As part of their dissolution agreement, they agreed that B.B. would not have contact with plaintiff.

Laura subsequently married Todd B. (Todd), who was divorced from Stephanie B. (Stephanie). Stephanie in turn married Charles.

In 2003, Laura learned that Stephanie had moved the Tehama County Superior Court to modify a visitation order; this would possibly allow B.B. visitation with plaintiff. Based on this information, Laura obtained from defendants (Shasta County and its employee, Stephanie Lloyd; hereafter defendants) a letter--to be submitted only in Stephanie's motion proceedings--verifying the accusation against plaintiff involving B.B., the investigation, and the receipt of victim benefits by B.B.^[1] The defendants' informational system did not indicate that plaintiff was a minor at the time of the alleged incident involving B.B. The defendants assumed plaintiff was an adult at that point because he was B.B.'s uncle. A minor's law enforcement records generally are confidential. (See Welf. & Inst. Code, § 827.)

Plaintiff sued defendants for defamation, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and invasion of privacy. Plaintiff's first two counts fell victim to the litigation privilege and various governmental statutory immunities. (See e.g., Civ. Code, § 47, subd. (b).) The invasion of privacy count--based on the state constitutional right to privacy--survived, and netted plaintiff a jury verdict of $30,000 in damages.

Plaintiff then moved unsuccessfully under section 1021.5 for about $55,000 in attorney fees, to be multiplied by a 1.5 lodestar enhancement. The trial court ruled that plaintiff had not shown that his lawsuit conferred a significant benefit on the general public or a large class of persons, or that his financial burden in maintaining the lawsuit was out of proportion to his individual stake in the matter. This appeal followed.^[2]

Discussion

1. Section 1021.5 and the Standard of Review

As relevant here, to obtain attorney fees under section 1021.5--which codifies the private attorney general doctrine--a plaintiff must show that the litigation (1) vindicated an important public right; (2) conferred a significant benefit on the general public or a large class of persons; and (3) imposed a financial burden on the plaintiff which was out of proportion to his or her individual stake in the matter. (Families Unafraid to Uphold Rural El Dorado County v. Board of Supervisors (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 505, 511 (Families Unafraid).) Section 1021.5, in short, acts as an incentive for the pursuit of public interest-related litigation that might otherwise be too costly to bring. (Ibid.)

The trial court found that plaintiff had not shown factors (2) and (3) listed above. The trial court's determination regarding these criteria lies within its discretion. (Families Unafraid, supra, 79 Cal.App.4th at p. 511.) â€