Plaintiffs are "Prevailing Parties" Under California Code Of Civil Procedure § 1021.5 Where the Action Enforces an Important Public Right

Posted on July 14, 2009 by David J. McMahon

In Choi v. Orange County Great Park Corp., California Courts of Appeal 2009 DJDAR 9790, (June 30, 2009) the Fourth Appellate District reversed the decision of the trial court, denying a fee application submitted pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5, California’s “Private Attorney General” statute.

The defendant in the case was a public benefit nonprofit corporation called Orange County Great Park Corp. (OCGPC). The entity was created to develop a former U.S. Marine Air Station property in Orange County, California. Over $400 million in public money was committed to the project. OCGPC had a nine‑member board that consisted of the Irvine City Council (ICC) and four outside directors. Steven Choi and Christina Shea (collectively, Choi) were two of the outside directors. After the CEO of OCGPC resigned, a search committee consisting of four directors was formed to find a replacement.

The plaintiff, one of the outside directors, was not included on the search committee and her request to see the resumes of the applicants was refused. Choi petitioned for a writ of mandate to compel defendant to produce the requested documents. Prior to the hearing, the parties entered into a stipulation whereby OCGPC agreed to let Choi view the documents. Choi filed a motion to recover attorney fees as the “prevailing party” under Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5. The petition was summarily denied by the trial court.

The trial court’s decision was reversed by the Court of Appeal. The court noted that Section 1021.5 permits recovery of attorney fees for a “prevailing party…when its action has resulted in the enforcement of an important right affecting the public interest [and] a significant benefit has been conferred on the general public.” It is not necessary for a party to have received a “final favorable judgment” but rather, the “critical fact is the impact of the action, not the manner of its resolution.” 

The court concluded that Choi was the prevailing party as she received the desired end result. Her lawsuit resulted in the enforcement of an important public right to review candidates who would ultimately control a significant amount of public money.

Ninth Circuit Overrules "Prevailing Party" Decision

Posted on July 10, 2009 by David J. McMahon

In Cadkin v. Loose, 2009 DJDAR 9552, US Court of Appeals - Ninth Circuit, No. 08-55311 (June 26, 2009), the Ninth Circuit reviewed and reversed a decision rendered by the district court holding that the defendant was the “prevailing party” entitled to an award of fees where the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the action without prejudice.

In Cadkin, the plaintiff initiated a lawsuit alleging copyright infringement, as well as other claims. Ultimately, plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the action without prejudice and the defendant sought to recover its reasonable attorney’s fees expended in defense of the litigation. The district court granted the fee application based on “controlling circuit precedent” holding that a defendant is entitled to an award even where the plaintiff has voluntarily dismissed the action without prejudice. See Corcoran v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc., 121 F.2d 575, 576 (9th Cir. 1941).

The Ninth Circuit reviewed the lower court’s decision in light of the Supreme Court’s holding in Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home, Inc., v. W. Va. Dep’t of Health and Human Res., 532 U.S. 598, 604 (2001). In that case, in the context of the Fair Housing Amendments Act (FHAA) the United States Supreme Court stated that the determination of prevailing party status should be determined on whether “a material alteration of the legal relationship of the parties” has occurred. In applying Buckhannon to the Cadkin case the court also explicitly cited to recent Ninth Circuit case law holding that dismissals without prejudice do not “alter the legal relationship of parties” for attorney’s fee award purposes. See Oscar v. Alaska Dep’t Of Educ. & Early Dev. 541 F.3d 978, 981 (9th Cir. 2008)

The court noted that Copyright Act Section 505 authorizes a court to award “reasonable attorney’s fees to the prevailing party.” However, the panel concluded that the Corcoran opinion holding that a defendant is the prevailing party upon voluntary dismissal without prejudice was “clearly irreconcilable” with the controlling Supreme Court authority set forth in Buckhannon. Thus, this court reversed the attorney’s fee award, finding that plaintiff’s voluntary dismissal without prejudice still afforded the plaintiff the ability to refile its copyright claims against defendant. Accordingly, defendant was not a prevailing party and was not entitled to an award of attorney’s fees.