County Sanitation Dist. No. 2 v. Responsible Biosolds Mgmt.
Appellants contend that the superior court abused its discretion when it denied their motions for attorney fees brought under the private attorney general doctrine set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5. Appellants are four of the six parties that obtained a partial reversal in County Sanitation Dist. No. 2 v. County of Kern (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 1544. They argue their lawsuit enforced an important right and provided a significant benefit to the general public because this court ruled that Kern County violated the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Resources Code, 21000 et seq.) when it adopted a sewage sludge ordinance without preparing an environmental impact report (EIR).
In the first appeal, appellants obtained a victory with respect to (1) the CEQA violation and (2) this courts conclusion that the ordinances impact fee of $3.37 per ton of sewage sludge was invalid to the extent that the funds generated were used for purposes that violated Vehicle Code section 9400.8. Appellants lost other statutory and constitutional challenges that sought to invalidate the ordinance. After the first appeal was remanded, appellants filed their motions for attorney fees.
The superior court denied the motions after determining that each appellant entitys incentive to pursue the litigation was not out of proportion to its litigation costs. The primary issue raised on appeal concerns the application of the statutory requirement that the necessity and financial burden of enforcement are such as to make the award appropriate. ( 1021.5.)
Court conclude that the superior court correctly applied the necessity and financial burden requirement. Specifically, the financial burden requirement mandates an evaluation of a litigants financial stake in the outcome of the litigation measured by the results expected at the time of important litigation decisions, not the results actually achieved. In addition, we conclude that the superior court made findings of fact that were supported by substantial evidence. Therefore, it did not abuse its discretion.
Accordingly, the order denying the motions for attorney fees is affirmed.
Comments on County Sanitation Dist. No. 2 v. Responsible Biosolds Mgmt.