North Coast Rivers Alliance v. Westlands Water District

NORTH COAST RIVERS ALLIANCE et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. WESTLANDS WATER DISTRICT, Defendant and Respondent.

C092233

California Court of Appeals, Third District, Shasta

June 28, 2021

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Super Ct. No. 192958

DUARTE, J.

Respondent Westlands Water District (Westlands) entered into identical stipulated judgments resolving three related lawsuits seeking to prohibit its participation in a federal project to raise Shasta Dam. Following the entry of judgment, petitioners and appellants North Coast Rivers Alliance and San Francisco Crab Boat Owners Association (collectively NCRA [and will subsequently be referenced in plural form]) filed a motion requesting attorney fees under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5.^[1] The trial court denied NCRA's motion, concluding that NCRA failed to satisfy their burden to show that they rendered services that were necessary to the success that was achieved in the litigation.

NCRA appeal the trial court's order and contend that they provided substantial evidence demonstrating their entitlement to attorney fees. We conclude that the court's order was not an abuse of discretion and affirm the order.

FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS

Litigation Background

On May 13, 2019, ^[2] the Attorney General filed a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief and petition for writ of mandate alleging Westlands violated the California Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (Rivers Act), Public Resources Code section 5093.542.^[3] The Attorney General alleged that Westlands had issued an initial study/notice of preparation to commence environmental review, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), to assist it in deciding whether to help fund the United States Bureau Reclamation's potential project to raise Shasta Dam. That same day, Friends of the River filed a similar complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief and petition for writ of mandate against Westlands, also alleging a violation of the Rivers Act.^[4]

On June 12, the Attorney General moved for a preliminary injunction. That same day Westlands filed motions to transfer the actions of the Attorney General and Friends of the River from Shasta County to Fresno County.

On July 5, NCRA filed their petition for writ of mandate and complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief, which alleged violations of the Rivers Act based on Westlands' conducting environmental review pursuant to CEQA, the public trust doctrine, and the Delta Reform Act; the complaint also alleged that Westlands was a state agency as defined by Water Code section 11102.^[5]

On July 29, the trial court granted the Attorney General's request for a preliminary injunction, enjoining Westlands from “taking any action that constitutes planning for or the construction of the Shasta Dam Raise Project, pending trial of this matter” and enjoining Westlands' CEQA process initiated in November 2018. On August 12, Westlands filed a petition for writ of mandate in this court seeking review of the preliminary injunction.

On July 30, the trial court denied Westlands' motions to transfer Friends of the River's action, and on August 9 it denied the motion to transfer the Attorney General's action. Westlands filed petitions for writ of mandate seeking review in this court.

On August 22, Westlands filed yet another motion to transfer venue to Fresno, this time as to NCRA's action. On August 29, we denied Westlands' petitions for writ of mandate regarding the two previous denials of the motions to transfer venue to Fresno. We also denied the writ petition regarding the grant of the preliminary injunction.^[6]

NCRA's opposition to Westlands' motion to transfer venue observed that the trial court had already denied Westlands' motion in the cases brought by Friends of the River and the Attorney General, and this court had denied Westlands' petitions seeking writ relief. In reply Westlands informed the trial court it no longer sought to transfer the action and did not object to denial of its motion. The court denied the motion, recognizing that “transfer of venue is no longer being sought.”

On September 25, our Supreme Court denied Westlands' petition for review of our denial of its petition for writ of mandate regarding the preliminary injunction. On September 30, Westlands formally withdrew its initial study/notice of preparation.

Westlands and NCRA entered a stipulation for entry of judgment, and NCRA's case was dismissed on November 12. The substance of the stipulated judgment is identical to the stipulated judgments entered in the two cases brought by the Attorney General and Friends of the River, which were also dismissed on November 12.^[7] Each stipulated judgment states in part that the judgment “does not decide the merits of any claim or issue raised in this case, and as such, does not constitute any evidence against or admission by any party to this case or any third party regarding any issue of fact or law....” The stipulated judgment only prohibits Westlands from undertaking certain actions “to the extent doing so would violate Public Resources Code section 5093.542.”

NCRA's Motion for Attorney Fees

NCRA filed a motion seeking more than $303, 835 in attorney fees pursuant to section 1021.5.^[8] NCRA's motion asserted that they were successful parties in the litigation that they had enforced important rights affecting the public interest, that a significant benefit was conferred on a large class of persons, and private enforcement was necessary and the case posed an undue financial burden. NCRA contended that they provided “ ‘necessary and significant services of value to the public' ” in four respects: (1) they alleged that Westlands is a state agency under Water Code section 11102, which the Attorney General did not allege;^[9] (2) they alleged causes of action under the public trust doctrine and the Delta Reform Act which were not alleged by the Attorney General; (3) they meaningfully participated in settlement negotiations; and (4) NCRA could not assume that the Attorney General or Friends of the River would prosecute the litigation to the complete remedy that was obtained.

Westlands opposed NCRA's motion. It asserted that NCRA was not a successful party, that private enforcement was not necessary because NCRA did not advance significant nonduplicative factual or legal theories adopted by the court or produce substantial evidence significantly contributing to the court's judgment, and they did not confer any significant public benefit.

Trial Court Ruling

The trial court issued a tentative ruling denying NCRA's motion and adopted the tentative ruling following a hearing. The court recognized that NCRA was a successful party because “the parties” achieved a significant public benefit in securing the stipulated judgment, and it agreed with NCRA that the stipulated judgment represented a significant benefit. However, the court concluded that NCRA failed to satisfy their burden to show that they rendered services that were necessary to the success that was achieved. The court expressly noted the arguments NCRA raised in support of their motion, and it found that NCRA's evidence “simply does not rise to the level of meeting the burden to show necessary and significant services rendered.” It found that the mere assertion of different theories of liability, in addition to the cause of action that was duplicative of the Attorney General's was not sufficient to meet the applicable test. The court also found that NCRA “provided nothing to show that they produced any evidence, let alone substantial evidence, contributing to the judgment, or any evidence that was not produced by the [Attorney General].”

The trial court further observed that it considered the timing of the filing of NCRA's action, although it did not make its determination solely on that basis. The court observed that at the time NCRA filed their complaint, the Attorney General had already demonstrated his ability and willingness to prosecute the matter. Specifically, by the time NCRA filed their complaint, the Attorney General had filed his complaint and issued the summons, Westlands had moved to change venue, and the Attorney General had petitioned for preliminary injunction.

NCRA timely appealed the trial court's order.

DISCUSSION

I

NCRA's Motion for Attorney Fees

NCRA challenge the trial court's finding that their participation in the litigation did not constitute a necessary and significant contribution to the successful joint prosecution of the three related proceedings. As we will explain, we conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that NCRA's contribution to the evidence did not rise to the level required to support an attorney fees award.

A. Standard of Review

“ ‘The determination whether a party has met the requirement for an award of fees and the reasonable amount of such an award are matters best decided by the trial court in the first instance. [Citation.] That court “ ‘ “must realistically assess the litigation and determine from a practical perspective whether the statutory criteria have been met.”' ” [Citation.] We will uphold the trial court's decision to award attorney fees under section 1021.5 unless the trial court abused its discretion. [Citation.] In making this determination we review the entire record, noting the trial court's stated reasons for awarding fees and whether it applied the proper standards of law in reaching its decision. [Citation.]' [Citation.] We will reverse the trial court's determination only if the resulting injury ‘ “ ‘ “is sufficiently grave to amount to a manifest miscarriage of justice, ”' ” and “ ‘no reasonable basis for the action is shown.' ” [Citation.]' [Citation.]” (Early v Becerra (2021) 60...