Hall v. Dep't of Motor Vehicles

26 Cal.App.5th 182

236 Cal.Rptr.3d 756

Branden Lee HALL, Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES, Defendant and Respondent.

D072278

Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division 1, California.

Filed July 20, 2018

Law Office of A. P. Zmurkiewicz and A. P. Zmurkiewicz for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Chris A. Knudsen, Assistant Attorney General, Christine Mersten and Alice Q. Robertson, Deputy Attorneys General, for Defendant and Respondent.

NARES, Acting P. J.Branden Lee Hall appeals from an order denying his motion for attorney fees he incurred in litigation culminating in Hall v. Superior Court (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 792, 208 Cal.Rptr.3d 186 ( Hall I ). The superior court determined that Hall was not a successful party because Hall I did not provide him with any relief that was not already granted to him by the trial court and available from the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV). We agree with the superior court's ruling and affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. Hall's Arrest

In March 2014, after the car Hall was driving rear-ended another car stopped at a red traffic signal, police arrested Hall for driving under the influence. ( Hall I , supra , 3 Cal.App.5th at p. 797, 208 Cal.Rptr.3d 186.) One of Hall's minor children, a passenger in the back seat of his car, told police that Hall had been drinking and that several people tried to stop Hall from driving because he "drank too much." ( Id. at p. 798, 208 Cal.Rptr.3d 186.) The arresting officer noticed a strong odor of alcohol on Hall's breath and that Hall's eyes were bloodshot and he was slurring his speech. ( Ibid . ) After his arrest, Hall refused to submit to a chemical test for blood alcohol. After obtaining a warrant, police obtained a blood sample from him anyway. ( Ibid . ) The officer's statement indicates that Hall's blood alcohol level was 0.08 percent or more.

B. License Suspension Hearing

Because Hall refused to submit to a blood alcohol test, police seized his driver's license, notified him that his license would be suspended or revoked by the DMV in 30 days, and advised him of his right to request a DMV hearing to show that the suspension or revocation was not justified. ( Hall I , supra , 3 Cal.App.5th at p. 798, 208 Cal.Rptr.3d 186.) Hall requested a hearing, which was conducted by Alva Garrido Benavidez, a DMV-appointed hearing officer. ( Ibid . ) At the hearing, the DMV offered documentary evidence including an "Officer's Statement" indicating that police arrested Hall on "3-22-14"; however, the reverse side of the form, containing the admonishment police gave to Hall about the consequences of his failure to submit to a blood alcohol test, is dated "9-27-14." ( Id . at p. 799, 208 Cal.Rptr.3d 186.) Hall's attorney objected to this document, asserting the date discrepancy "renders the document not an official record" under Evidence Code section 1280. ( Hall I, at p. 799, 208 Cal.Rptr.3d 186.) However, Benavidez overruled these objections, ruling that the date discrepancy was a clerical error, and she sustained the revocation of Hall's driver's license. ( Ibid . )

C. Writ Petition

In July 2015 Hall filed a petition for a writ of mandate in the superior court. Hall argued that the date discrepancy was not a clerical error, rendering the document inadmissible.¹ The court set a hearing date on the writ petition.

D. Amended Petition

Before the hearing on Hall's writ petition, Benavidez was charged with conspiring with certain attorneys to accept bribes in exchange for unlawfully issuing temporary driver's licenses to persons charged with driving under the influence. ( Hall I , supra , 3 Cal.App.5th at pp. 799-800, 208 Cal.Rptr.3d 186.) In light of these charges, the superior court granted Hall leave to amend his writ petition.

After Benavidez pleaded guilty, Hall filed an amended writ petition, which in addition to the original date discrepancy allegation, also alleged that the DMV violated his due process right to a fair hearing because Benavidez took bribes in other cases. ( Hall I , supra , 3 Cal.App.5th at p. 800, 208 Cal.Rptr.3d 186.) Although there was no evidence that Benavidez had asked for a bribe in Hall's case, Hall's attorney insisted that the lack of an impartial hearing officer constituted a constitutional violation that required the DMV to reinstate Hall's driver's license. ( Ibid . )

After conducting a hearing, the court granted Hall's amended petition on due process grounds, but denied Hall the relief he requested. Instead, the court remanded the matter to the DMV to conduct a new hearing with an impartial hearing officer. ( Hall I , supra , 3 Cal.App.5th at p. 806, 208 Cal.Rptr.3d 186.)

The DMV advised Hall that he had "been granted a denovo [sic ] hearing" at a "mutually agreeable" date and time. Later that month, the DMV attempted to contact Hall's attorney to schedule a hearing; however, he did not return calls. The DMV set Hall's new hearing for July 31, 2015; however, on July 20 Hall filed a notice of appeal from the superior court's order and the DMV cancelled the hearing.

E. Hall I

Unsatisfied with a de novo DMV hearing, Hall appealed, asserting the court should instead have ordered the DMV to reinstate his driver's license. ( Hall I , supra , 3 Cal.App.5th at p. 797, 208 Cal.Rptr.3d 186.) In Hall I we agreed with Hall that a hearing officer "who admits to taking bribes for nearly a decade does not meet the constitutional standard of impartiality." ( Ibid . ) However, we rejected Hall's argument that this due process violation required the DMV to reinstate his license, and instead held that the court "correctly ordered a new administrative hearing." ( Id. at p. 797, 208 Cal.Rptr.3d 186.) We did not address whether the date discrepancy on the admonishment form required the DMV to reinstate Hall's license because that issue was to be decided in the first instance by the hearing officer. ( Id . at p. 811, 208 Cal.Rptr.3d 186.) We awarded costs to Hall, but did not state we were doing so because he was the "prevailing party."² ( Ibid. )

F. Attorney Fee Motion

After Hall I became final, Hall's attorney filed a motion in the superior court seeking $145,044 in attorney fees under Code of Civil Procedure 3 section 1021.5. This consisted of a lodestar of $72,522 based on 183.6 hours at $395 per hour, which Hall asserted should be doubled. Alternatively, Hall sought the maximum under Government Code section 800.⁴ His principal argument was that Hall I enforced an important right affecting the public interest, entitling him to attorney fees under the private attorney general doctrine, codified in section 1021.5. Opposing the motion, the DMV asserted that Hall was not successful in the litigation because the DMV offered to provide him with a new hearing—Hall was the one who rejected that relief and lost on that point in Hall I .

After conducting a hearing, the court denied Hall's attorney fee motion. The court determined Hall was not successful because "the remedy that [the] trial court imposed was proper and affirmed on appeal[,] while Hall's argument on the proper remedy, i.e. suspension revoked, was rejected." The court noted that Hall was "trying ... to portray his case as one imposing a significant benefit to the general public, even though he was unsatisfied with the remand remedy from the very start." The court also determined that Hall's litigation did not result in any public benefit regarding the admissibility of documents in a DMV hearing because Hall I declined to decide that issue.

DISCUSSION

I. THE COURT CORRECTLY DENIED HALL'S ATTORNEY FEE MOTION

A. Section 1021.5

Generally, parties in litigation pay their own attorney fees. ( Gray v. Don Miller & Associates, Inc. (1984) 35 Cal.3d 498, 504, 198 Cal.Rptr. 551, 674 P.2d 253.) Section 1021.5 is an exception to that rule. This statute codifies the private attorney general doctrine and acts as an incentive to pursue " ‘ "public-interest litigation that might otherwise have been too costly to bring." ’ " ( Save Our Heritage Organisation v. City of San Diego (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 154, 159, 217 Cal.Rptr.3d 360 ( Save Our Heritage ).)

Section 1021.5 provides in part: "[A] court may award attorneys' fees to a successful party against one or more opposing parties in any action which has resulted in the enforcement of an important right affecting the public interest if: (a) a significant benefit ... has been conferred on the general public or a large class of persons, (b) the necessity and financial burden of private enforcement ... are such as to make the award appropriate, and (c) such fees should not in the interest of justice be paid out of the recovery, if any."

Thus, to obtain fees under section 1021.5, the moving party must establish all of the following: (1) he or she is a "successful party," (2) the action has resulted in the enforcement of an important right affecting the public interest, (3) the action has conferred a significant benefit on the public or a large class of persons, and (4) an attorney fees award is appropriate in light of the necessity and financial burden of private enforcement. ( Sagaser v. McCarthy (1986) 176 Cal.App.3d 288, 313, 221 Cal.Rptr. 746.)

B. The Standard of Review

Generally, we review the trial court's determination of whether the requirements under section 1021.5 have been satisfied for abuse of discretion. ( Espejo v. Copley Press, Inc. (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 329, 378, 221 Cal.Rptr.3d 1.)

C. Analysis Under Section 1021.5

Asserting the court erred in denying attorney fees under section 1021.5, Hall contends that important due process rights were vindicated by Hall I , supra , 3 Cal.App.5th 792, 208 Cal.Rptr.3d 186. However, before considering the nature of the rights vindicated, to qualify for fees under section 1021.5, Hall must first establish he is a "successful party." ( Urbaniak v. Newton (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 1837, 1842, 24 Cal.Rptr.2d 333 ( Urbaniak ).)

" ‘The term "successful party," as ordinarily...