Friends of Spring Street v. Nevada City, No. C086563 (D3 Apr. 4, 2019)
Plaintiffs challenged both a local zoning ordinance and a City’s decision to permit an Applicant to run a B&B in a residential area—a nonconforming use under that ordinance. Plaintiffs lost the facial challenge, but—after an intervening appeal—won the as-applied. They seek to recover their costs, see Code of Civil Procedure § 1032, and their attorneys’ fees under the private attorney general doctrine, see§ 1021.5. The trial court denied both, finding that the split decision meant there was no prevailing party.
So far as costs go, when a plaintiff obtains only non-monetary relief, § 1032(a)(4) permits the court to decide who is the prevailing party for cost award purposes. Generally, the court looks to “whether the party succeeded at a practical level by realizing its litigation objectives . . . and the action yielded the primary relief sought in the case.” Because Plaintiffs were successful in getting the decision approving the B&B reversed, they met that standard and should have been awarded costs. The fact that Applicant could potentially re-apply to the City at some point in the future does not change that fact.
Similarly, Plaintiffs should not have been denied their fees under § 1021.5. Plaintiffs conveyed an important benefit on the public. Generally, they vindicated the application of local zoning law. And in particular, they obtained a ruling that upheld the intent of a local ballot initiative that was the basis of their as-applied challenge. But the trial court made no finding on the other element of § 1021.5—whether the necessity and financial burden of private enforcement make a fee award appropriate—so it will need to decide that on remand.
Reversed and remanded.
Plaintiffs challenged both a local zoning ordinance and a City’s decision to permit an Applicant to run a B&B in a residential area—a nonconforming use under that ordinance. Plaintiffs lost the facial challenge, but—after an intervening appeal—won the as-applied. They seek to recover their costs, see Code of Civil Procedure § 1032, and their attorneys’ fees under the private attorney general doctrine, see§ 1021.5. The trial court denied both, finding that the split decision meant there was no prevailing party.
So far as costs go, when a plaintiff obtains only non-monetary relief, § 1032(a)(4) permits the court to decide who is the prevailing party for cost award purposes. Generally, the court looks to “whether the party succeeded at a practical level by realizing its litigation objectives . . . and the action yielded the primary relief sought in the case.” Because Plaintiffs were successful in getting the decision approving the B&B reversed, they met that standard and should have been awarded costs. The fact that Applicant could potentially re-apply to the City at some point in the future does not change that fact.
Similarly, Plaintiffs should not have been denied their fees under § 1021.5. Plaintiffs conveyed an important benefit on the public. Generally, they vindicated the application of local zoning law. And in particular, they obtained a ruling that upheld the intent of a local ballot initiative that was the basis of their as-applied challenge. But the trial court made no finding on the other element of § 1021.5—whether the necessity and financial burden of private enforcement make a fee award appropriate—so it will need to decide that on remand.
Reversed and remanded.