Nestande

Nestande v. Watson

Good Law
111 Cal. App. 4th 232·2003 Cal. App. LEXIS 1241·2003 Daily Journal DAR 9146·4 Cal. Rptr. 3d 18·2003 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7341
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 14, 2003D040605California4,062 words

Opinion

Opinion

Aaron, J.

I

INTRODUCTION

Real parties in interest Allan Songstad et al. appeal from the trial court’s orders (1) denying their motion for attorney fees as to former Orange County Registrar of Voters, Roslyn Lever, and former Orange County Counsel, Laurence M. Watson; and (2) granting Lever and Watson’s motion to strike costs. Appellants contend that the trial court erred in finding they were not “opposing” or “prevailing” parties against “the county” within the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure sections 1021.5 and 1032. We affirm the trial court’s orders denying recovery of attorney fees and costs from “the county.”

n

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Real parties in interest Allan Songstad et al. (Songstad) are proponents of Measure W, a ballot initiative to amend the Orange County General Plan by designating the former El Toro Marine Corps Air Station (El Toro) for a nature preserve, park, and open space, and to repeal an earlier measure which designated El Toro for civil aviation use. On June 14, 2001, Songstad submitted a request to the Orange County Registrar of Voters for a ballot title and summary, pursuant to Elections Code section 9105. On June 29, 2001, Lever issued…

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.