Sad Target Stays Sad, But the Lawyers Get Paid

La Mirada Ave. Neighborhood Assoc. of Hollywood v. City of L.A., No. B282137 (D2d2 May 3, 2018)

On the corner of Western and Sunset, there’s a Target that has been sitting half-completed for the better part of a decade. The project has been snaffled up in zoning litigation since basically its inception. Back in 2014, the Challengers—some neighborhood groups, or maybe just groups with names that make them sound like neighborhood groups—won a writ of mandate against the City of L.A., ruling that it had unlawfully granted Target a variance on neighborhood height restrictions. While that ruling was being appealed, the City amended its zoning laws, mooting the appeal. The appeal was dismissed but the underlying writ judgment left in place. There’s now a whole new round of litigation, which resulted in another writ against the City, which is currently on appeal.

But this appeal is about whether Challengers get their attorneys’ fees in the first case. The trial court awarded them almost $1 million under Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5, which codifies the private attorney general doctrine. Target and the City appeal both the award and its amount.

In the published part of the opinion, the Court of Appeal affirms the trial court’s findings that the Challengers prevailed and that their victory provided a benefit on behalf of the public by vindicating the city’s zoning laws. Moreover, the fact that litigation over the Target is ongoing in other cases doesn’t change that. You don’t need to solve a problem once and for all and forever to be the prevailing party under § 1021.5. Challengers obtained a final judgment in their first writ case, based on the law that existed at the time. That’s all they need.

Affirmed.