Ebbetts Pass Forest Watch v. Department of Forestry & Fire Protection

*379 Opinion

This case presents the issue of what constitutes a “successful party” under the private attorney general doctrine contained in Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5.

Sierra Pacific Industries (SPI) submitted and California’s Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF) approved three timber harvest plans (Plans) for logging in Tuolumne County. Two conservation groups, Ebbetts Pass Forest Watch and the Central Sierra Environmental Resource Center (plaintiffs) sought to overturn the approvals contending that CDF had not followed the law in approving the Plans. The California Supreme Court upheld the Plans finding they “d[id] not suffer from the asserted legal flaws plaintiffs identify” and plaintiffs were not entitled to relief. (Ebbetts Pass Forest Watch v. California Dept. of Forestry & Fire Protection (2008) 43 Cal.4th 936, 958 [ 77 Cal.Rptr.3d 239 , 183 P.3d 1210 ] (Ebbetts Pass).) Despite this defeat, plaintiffs contend they are the “successful party” entitled to attorney fees of $250,819 under the private attorney general doctrine contained in Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5. 1 The trial court disagreed and denied the fee request. We will affirm. In…

Dissenting. — I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that Ebbetts Pass Forest Watch and Central Sierra Environmental Resource Center (plaintiffs) were not “qualitatively” successful parties in this litigation. I believe they were partially successful, which is enough. 1 I also believe their success involves issues of significant concern both to the general public and to those who seek to enforce the goals of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.) and its incarnation applicable to forest lands, the Z’berg-Nejedly Forest Practice Act of 1973 (Pub. Resources Code, § 4511 et seq.). For those reasons, as more fully explained below, and to encourage a vigilance toward protection both of the environment and informed self-government, I believe plaintiffs are entitled to recover some of their attorney fees.

I. Background

Plaintiffs won three legal issues decided by the California Supreme Court in Ebbetts Pass Forest Watch v. California Dept. of Forestry & Fire Protection (2008) 43 Cal.4th 936 [ 77 Cal.Rptr.3d 239 , 183 P.3d 1210 ] (Ebbetts Pass II), but obtained no actual relief. The reason plaintiffs obtained no relief was that both…

Morrison & Foerster, Edgar B. Washburn and William M. Sloan for Real Party in Interest and Respondent.

This case presents the issue of what constitutes a "successful party" under the private attorney general doctrine contained in Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5.

Sierra Pacific Industries (SPI) submitted and California's Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF) approved three timber harvest plans (Plans) for logging in Tuolumne County. Two conservation groups, Ebbetts Pass Forest Watch and the Central Sierra Environmental Resource Center (plaintiffs) sought to overturn the approvals contending that CDF had not followed the law in approving the Plans. The California Supreme Court upheld the Plans finding they "d[id] not suffer from the asserted legal flaws plaintiffs identify" and plaintiffs were not entitled to relief. ( Ebbetts Pass Forest Watch v. California Dept. of Forestry & Fire Protection (2008) 43 Cal.4th 936, 958 [ 77 Cal.Rptr.3d 239 , 183 P.3d 1210 ] ( Ebbetts Pass ).) Despite this defeat, plaintiffs contend they are the "successful party" entitled to attorney fees of $250,819 under the private attorney general doctrine contained in Code…