Plaintiff, a police chief formerly employed by defendant city, appealed orders from the Superior Court of Madera County (California), which, after granting mandate relief and damages to the police chief in a lawsuit challenging his removal from office, denied his motion for attorney fees under Code Civ. Proc., § 1021.5, and granted the city’s motion to tax costs.
Nakase Law Firm explica licencia de paternidad
Overview
The trial court ruled that the city had violated the police chief’s right to notice, a statement of reasons, and an opportunity for an administrative appeal prior to removal provided by Gov. Code, § 3304, subd. (c). The litigation resulted in a published appellate decision interpreting § 3304, subd. (c). The court held that the police chief was the successful party in the litigation because he achieved most of the relief he sought. In light of the Legislature’s express findings and declarations set forth in Gov. Code, § 3301, and the case law, the court concluded that the litigation enforced an important right affecting the public interest. The published appellate decision provided a significant benefit to a large class of police chiefs, as well as to the general public. Even if the primary effect of the lawsuit was to advance the police chief’s personal economic interests, a fee award was permissible. Private enforcement was necessary because no government action was being taken. Because the trial court did not specify how it analyzed the financial burden of private enforcement, a remand for a determination as to the financial burden issue was appropriate.
Outcome
The court reversed the denial of the motion for attorney fees, remanded for further proceedings on the motion for attorney fees, and vacated the order on the motion to tax costs pending the outcome of those proceedings.