Los Angeles Police Protective League v. City of Los Angeles

Bad Law
188 Cal. App. 3d 1·1986 Cal. App. LEXIS 2364·232 Cal. Rptr. 697
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 19, 1986B017862California6,191 words

Opinion

Opinion

Johnson, J.

In this case we issued a published opinion and remanded for the trial court to consider whether attorney fees should be awarded to the prevailing party under the “private attorney general” statute (Code Civ. Proc., § 1021.5). The trial court denied the request for fees and the prevailing party in the earlier appellate proceeding appeals that denial, (la) We conclude an appellate court owes only limited deference to a trial court determination on this issue when the successful legal action resulted in a published appellate opinion and, in any event, find this trial court had “no reasonable basis” for denying a fee award to the prevailing party for its efforts in the appellate court and thus abused its discretion. Consequently, we reverse that portion of the judgment which denies attorney fees to appellant for its work on the first appeal.

Facts and Proceedings Below

This is the second time this case has been before our court. In 1985 we reversed the trial court for denying the appellant Los Angeles Police Protective League (League) a writ of mandate against the City of Los Angeles (City). (Los Angeles Police Protective League v. City of Los Angeles (1985) 166 Cal.App.3d…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.