Atherton

Eugene R. Atherton appeals from a superior court order denying his motion for attorneys’ fees under section 1021.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

In August of 1981, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Orange (County) approved an amendment to the Orange County general plan which, among other things, added certain corridors as proposed facilities to the transportation element of the plan. Atherton, a medical doctor, filed a pro se petition for writ of mandate in superior court challenging the amendment based on alleged noncompliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. His petition was denied. On appeal we affirmed the judgment insofar as it denied Atherton’s request to set aside certification of the environmental impact report, but reversed with respect to the findings made in connection with that report. (Atherton v. Board of Supervisors (1983) 146 Cal.App.3d 346 [ 194 Cal.Rptr. 203 ].)

Shortly thereafter, Atherton filed a motion in superior court requesting attorneys’ fees under section 1021.5 for successfully prosecuting the above mentioned litigation. His motion was denied and this appeal follows.

I

Atherton contends that under the “private…

Dissenting.—Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5 codifies the judicially developed “private attorney general” attorneys fee doctrine and “rests upon the recognition that privately initiated lawsuits are often essential to the effectuation of the fundamental public policies embodied in constitutional or statutory provisions, and that, without some mechanism authorizing the award of attorney[s] fees, private actions to enforce such important public policies will as a practical matter frequently be infeasible.” (Woo dland Hills Residents Assn., Inc. v. City Council (1979) 23 Cal.3d 917, 933 [ 154 Cal.Rptr. 503 , 593 P.2d 200 ].) Because this provision is intended to encourage plaintiffs to assert their civil rights, attorneys fees are appropriate even if the successful plaintiff was represented by public interest lawyers and did not actually incur any legal expenses. (Schmid v. Lovette (1984) 154 Cal.App.3d 466, 476 [ 201 Cal.Rptr. 424 ].)

Nevertheless, the majority here refuses to consider whether the litigation promoted a significant public policy simply because the successful plaintiff *439 was a nonattorney who represented himself. In my view, to interpret section 1021.5 as…

Eugene R. Atherton appeals from a superior court order denying his motion for attorneys' fees under section 1021.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure. [1]

In August of 1981, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Orange (County) approved an amendment to the Orange County general plan which, among other things, added certain corridors as proposed facilities to the transportation element of the plan. Atherton, a medical doctor, filed a pro se petition for writ of mandate in superior court challenging the amendment based on alleged noncompliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. His petition was denied. On appeal we affirmed the judgment insofar as it denied Atherton's request to set aside certification of the environmental impact report, but reversed with respect to the findings made in connection with that report. ( Atherton v. Board of Supervisors (1983) 146 Cal. App.3d 346 [ 194 Cal. Rptr. 203 ].)

Shortly thereafter, Atherton filed a motion in superior court requesting attorneys' fees under section 1021.5 for successfully prosecuting the above mentioned litigation. His motion was denied and this appeal follows.

(1) Atherton contends that under…