The Committee of 1000 v. Palm Springs Unified School Dist.
Filed 8/31/09 The Committee of 1000 v. Palm Springs Unified School Dist. CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE COMMITTEE OF 1000, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. PALM SPRINGS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant and Appellant. | E046422 (Super.Ct.No. INCR465472) OPINION |
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Harold W. Hopp, Judge. Reversed.
Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud & Romo, Terry T. Tao, Jeremy K. Brust and Ryan T. Christensen for Defendant and Appellant.
Johnson & Sedlack, Raymond W. Johnson, Abigail A. Broedling and Veera Tyagi for Plaintiff and Respondent.
1. Introduction
This appeal involves an award of attorneys fees and costs made in a CEQA[1]case brought by the Committee of 1000 (the Committee) against the Palm Springs Unified School District (the District). In our recent decision in an earlier related appeal, case No. E045414, we decided the CEQA issues in favor of the District and reversed the judgment in favor of the Committee. Therefore, we also reverse the order granting attorneys fees and costs to the Committee, which is no longer the prevailing party.
2. Factual and Procedural Background
The background of this case, in which the Committee challenged the Districts proposed location for a new high school and elementary school, is discussed fully in our previous opinion, case No. E045414, pages 3-5.
On June 26, 2008, the trial court granted the Committees motion for attorneys fees and costs in the amounts of $58,461 and $2,006. The District filed a notice of appeal on August 7, 2008. Briefing in the present appeal was not completed until June 8, 2009.
In the meantime, on May 19, 2009, this court rendered its opinion reversing the trial courts judgment in favor of the Committee and holding in favor of the District.
3. Discussion
The Districts appeal of the award of fees and costs initially argued that the Committee had not shown it was entitled to the award and the amount of the award was unreasonable. The Committee responded by asserting that enforcement as a private attorney general was necessary, the non-pecuniary interest outweighed the cost of litigation, and the discretionary award was appropriate.
In its reply brief, filed after the opinion in case No. E045414, the District persists in its earlier arguments but acknowledges that our previous opinion changes the outcome of the CEQA case so that the Committee is no longer entitled to recover attorneys fees as the prevailing party.
As explained in National Parks & Conservation Assn. v. County of Riverside (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 234, 238: [Code of Civil Procedure section] 1021.5 authorizes a court to award attorney fees to a successful party when the action resulted in the enforcement of an important right affecting the public interest, a significant benefit has been conferred, and the necessity of private enforcement makes the award appropriate. ( 1021.5; see County of San Diego v. Lamb (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 845, 852 [73 Cal.Rptr.2d 912].) To recover fees under this statute, a claimant must show he or she was successful in the action. [Citations.] [] Thus, where an appellate court reverses a judgment ordering issuance of a writ of mandate, [i]t follows that the trial courts section 1021.5 attorney fees award must also be reversed. (Kimble v. Board of Education (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 1423, 1430; accord, Save Our Residential Environment v. City of West Hollywood (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 1745, 1754; City of Sacramento v. State Water Resources Control Bd. (1992) 2 Cal.App.4th 960, 978.)
4. Disposition
We reverse the trial courts order granting an award of fees and costs to the Committee. The District is entitled to its costs as the prevailing party on appeal.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
s/Gaut
J.
We concur:
s/McKinster
Acting P. J.
s/Miller
J.
Publication courtesy of San Diego pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Poway Property line attorney.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com
[1] CEQA is the California Environmental Quality Act. (Pub. Resources Code, 21000-21177.)
