Summary
The California Supreme Court considered whether advocacy organizations redesignated as real parties in interest could be liable for private attorney general fees under California Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5. The court held that the organizations were not "opposing parties" because they lacked a direct interest in the litigation and were not responsible for enacting or enforcing the challenged statutes, despite their active participation in the defense. The court therefore reversed the Court of Appeal's judgment imposing fees on those organizations.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether a litigant initially appearing as amicus curiae and later designated a real party in interest, but lacking a direct interest in the challenged statutes or programs, is an opposing party liable for attorney fees under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5.
- Whether active participation in litigation, without a direct legal interest in the litigation's outcome, is sufficient to make an amicus curiae an opposing party under section 1021.5.
- What standard of review applies to the determination whether a litigant qualifies as an opposing party under section 1021.5.
Holdings
- The California Business Council was not an opposing party within the meaning of section 1021.5 and could not be held liable for Connerly's private-attorney-general fees because it was neither responsible for enacting or enforcing the challenged statutes nor an authentic real party in interest with a direct interest in the litigation.
- Active participation in litigation, even participation exceeding that of a typical amicus curiae, does not by itself make a litigant an opposing party liable for section 1021.5 fees.
- The question whether a litigant qualifies as an opposing party under section 1021.5 is reviewed de novo when the material facts are largely undisputed and the dispute concerns statutory construction.
Key quotations
“Thus, only an opposing party can be liable for attorney fees under section 1021.5.” (at 793)
“No court has held that active participation alone, without a direct interest in litigation, can be grounds for awarding section 1021.5 fees.” (at 797)
“We therefore hold that the California Business Council may not be held liable for section 1021.5 fees.” (at 799)
Factual background
The underlying litigation challenged five state affirmative-action programs and statutes after Proposition 209 added article I, section 31 to the California Constitution. The California Business Council and affiliated advocacy groups initially appeared as amici curiae, but they actively participated in the litigation, including seeking removal to federal court, challenging the trial judge, pursuing discovery, and briefing the merits. Although the groups were designated real parties in interest, they had not enacted or enforced the challenged statutes and participated primarily to advocate an ideological and policy position. The trial court awarded Connerly $488,067.64 in section 1021.5 attorney fees and allocated one-sixth of the award to the California Business Council.
Procedural history
Governor Pete Wilson initiated a writ-of-mandate action challenging affirmative-action statutes and programs under Proposition 209. The California Business Council and related organizations initially appeared as amici curiae, were later named as real parties in interest, and actively defended the challenged programs. After the underlying judgment invalidated most of the statutory schemes, the trial court awarded Connerly attorney fees under section 1021.5 and ordered the California Business Council to pay one-sixth; the Court of Appeal affirmed. The California Supreme Court granted review and reversed as to the fee liability of the California Business Council.