Plaintiffs’ attorneys who represented environmental groups that stopped a residential development should be considered for substantially more attorney fees than were originally awarded, a California appellate court ruled. The published opinion (pdf) could affect the calculation of certain attorney fees in California. The decision by the Fourth District Court of Appeals in San Diego, said San Bernardino County Superior Court Judge Donald Alvarez erred in two areas of fee consideration. On remand, Alvarez will have to re-examine supplemental fees as well as fees for appellate work.
The case, Center for Biological Diversity v. County of San Bernardino, pits environmental groups against San Bernardino County and Hawarden Development Co. over the 57-home development near Lake Arrowhead, known as Blue Ridge Estates in a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) action. Plaintiffs originally sought attorney fees under Code of Civil Procedure 1021.5, the private attorney general statute, based on their limited success at trial; they lost on two CEQA claims and won one non-CEQA claim. Plaintiffs sought fees of $98,615, a fee enhancement of $73,961 based on a multiplier of 1.75, costs of $4,352, and $14,800 for bringing the attorney fees motion (first fee motion). The trial court reduced the fee request “due to the limited relief granted” and awarded $50,000 in fees. Plaintiffs appealed.
On appeal, the court held the trial court erred by denying two CEQA claims. On remand, the case was re-assigned to a new trial judge. Plaintiffs then moved for an additional fee award (second fee motion). In addition to seeking attorney fees for the appeal, they argued their greater success on appeal entitles them to a supplemental award for work performed at the trial court level. Plaintiffs sought a total of $563,926 in fees, including $136,230 for trial work; $180,324 for appellate work; an augment of $256,967 based on a multiplier of 2.0 for the contingent portion of the representation, and $40,405 for bringing the motion for fees. The fee request included an offset of $50,000 for the first fee award. The trial court determined it lacked jurisdiction to consider plaintiffs’ request for supplemental fees for trial work because they had dismissed their appeal of the post-judgment order awarding $50,000 in fees and the order “has become final and cannot be altered.”
The appellate court disagreed, saying that successful CEQA plaintiffs are entitled to attorney fees if they meet the criteria of section 1021.5, and here plaintiffs were denied fees for CEQA work even though they ultimately succeed on the issues. The appeals court also directed the trial court to reconsider the market rates (home v. local rates), number of hours claimed (trial work v. appellate work), and the multiplier.