Scilacci v. PlacerCountyBd. of Supervisors
Plaintiffs appeal from an order denying their motion for attorney fees under the private attorney general doctrine (Code Civ. Proc., 1021.5; hereafter section 1021.5) after they were partially successful in challenging a project to move a residence, clubhouse, and bird growing facilities for a hunting club and to construct a shooting range on the Coon Creek hunting and fishing preserve. They contend they met the statutory requirements for attorney fees under section 1021.5 and the trial court abused its discretion in denying an award of attorney fees without articulating any special circumstances.
Court find no abuse of discretion. Although the evidence as to the Scilacciss pecuniary interest in pursuing the lawsuit was conflicting, there was substantial evidence from which the trial court could determine the costs of litigation were not out of proportion to the Scilacciss individual stake. The Scilaccis had purchased neighboring property at below market value before the lawsuit commenced and had taken actions that indicated an interest in developing that property and therefore an interest in challenging the proposed project.
Comments on Scilacci v. PlacerCountyBd. of Supervisors