Shoval v. City of Poway
Menachem and Peggy Shoval (together the Shovals) brought a motion for attorney fees and costs against the City of Poway (City) under the private attorney general statute (Code Civ. Proc.,[1] 1021.5) after successfully challenging the City's resolution to install a vehicle access gate across Mina de Oro Road.[2] The court denied the Shovals' motion, finding that: (1) the Shovals did not provide sufficient evidence to support their fee claim; and (2) the Shovals did not satisfy the requirements of section 1021.5 because they were primarily motivated by their own interests, rather than the public's, in pursuing the action. The Shovals contend that the court erred by not applying the requisite legal standard under 1021.5, subdivision (b) (section 1021.5(b)). They assert that the court should have determined whether the costs they incurred in challenging the City's resolution transcended their personal stake in the matter, not whether they were primarily motivated by their own interests in challenging the City.
Comments on Shoval v. City of Poway