Bowman

Bowman v. City of Berkeley

Bad Law
131 Cal. App. 4th 173·2005 Cal. App. LEXIS 1115·2005 Daily Journal DAR 8754·31 Cal. Rptr. 3d 447·2005 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6413
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 20, 2005A105000California3,646 words

Opinion

Opinion

Kay, J.

The City of Berkeley and Affordable Housing Associates (AHA; AHA and the City of Berkeley are hereafter referred to collectively and severally as the City) appeal from postjudgment orders awarding Marie Bowman (Bowman) et al. (the Neighbors) a portion of their attorney fees and costs in this mandamus action. The fees and costs in question were incurred in setting aside the City’s approval of a housing project on due process grounds. We hold that it was not an abuse of discretion to award the fees and costs, even though the project was ultimately re-approved over the Neighbors’ objection, and they were otherwise unsuccessful in their suit. We therefore affirm the orders.

I. BACKGROUND

The panel is familiar with the background of this matter from the prior appeal in the case. The Neighbors’ mandate petition sought, among other things, to overturn the City’s approval of a housing project for senior citizens. As recounted in our prior opinion, the petition was successful in vacating the original approval of the project. (Bowman v. City of Berkeley (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 572, 579 [ 18 Cal.Rptr.3d 814 ].) The court found that the Neighbors did not receive a fair hearing when…

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.