Fiscal Recovery Financing Auth. v. Fullerton Assn. of Concerned Taxpayers

Filed 3/6/06 Cal. Fiscal Recovery Financing Auth. v. Fullerton Assn. of Concerned Taxpayers 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

(Sacramento)

----

In this action, which sought to validate certain state budget deficit bonds, the defendant Fullerton Association of Concerned Taxpayers (FACT) appeals from the order denying its request for attorney fees under the private attorney general doctrine of Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5, and from the order taxing its costs. (Norman I. Krug Real Estate Investments, Inc. v. Praszker (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 35, 46 [appealable orders].)

In its ruling on the motion for attorney fees, the trial court found that the electoral process, rather than FACT's litigation efforts, resolved the issues in this action. We conclude that substantial evidence supports the trial court's findings, and affirm the orders.

Background

In the spring and summer of 2003, California faced a large and growing state budget deficit of over $10 billion as well as political ferment with an attempted recall of then-Governor Gray Davis.

To address the deficit, the Legislature considered using bonds to finance it. Looming large over this consideration, however, was article XVI, section 1 of the California Constitution, of which, the record shows, the Legislature was apprised. That constitutional provision prohibits the Legislature from creating any public finance â€