Qualified Patients Assn. v. City of Anaheim CA4/3

DISCUSSION

This appeal has nothing to do with medical marijuana, preemption, or other

topics, but rather turns solely on the requirements of section 1021.5. Section 1021.

authorizes fees for “a successful party against one or more opposing parties,” when the

action “has resulted in the enforcement of an important right affecting the public

interest,” provided certain criteria are met. (§ 1021.5, italics added.) Those criteria

include: (1) a significant benefit conferred on the general public or a large class of

3 persons; (2) the necessity and financial burden of enforcement, particularly private

enforcement, must make the award appropriate; (3) and the interest of justice precludes

payment of fees out of the successful party‟s recovery, if any. (Ibid.) In any event, the

party seeking fees must be “„“successful,”‟” which is synonymous with “„“prevailing”‟”

or otherwise achieving its litigation objectives. (Graham v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.

(2004) 34 Cal.4th 553, 570-571 (Graham).)

The burden is on the claimant to demonstrate it is entitled to fees, including

that its litigation costs transcend its personal interest in the litigation and should be

shifted in the…