Mundy

Mundy v. Neal

Good Law
111 Cal. Rptr. 3d 551·186 Cal. App. 4th 256·2010 Cal. App. LEXIS 1020
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 30, 2010B219711California1,287 words

Opinion

Opinion

Ashmann-Gerst, J.

Thomas Mundy (Mundy) appeals the denial of his Civil Code section 55 motion for attorney fees in connection with a suit to force a landowner to install a designated van-accessible disabled persons parking space. Even though he filed a dismissal with prejudice when the landowner installed the parking space, Mundy argues that he is entitled to his attorney fees under a catalyst theory because his lawsuit motivated corrective action that inures to the public benefit. We affirm because he did not attempt to settle prior to filing suit and was not the prevailing party under Graham v. DaimlerChrysler Corp. (2004) 34 Cal.4th 553, 577 [ 21 Cal.Rptr.3d 331 , 101 P.3d 140 ] (Graham).

FACTS

Mundy sued Orlene L. Neal as trustee of the Orlene L. Neal Family Trust (Neal) for violating various state and federal laws designed to protect the civil rights of people with disabilities and alleged Mundy is wheelchair bound and the trust owns a parking lot that accommodates an automotive service station. On December 1, 2008, Neal refused to provide Mundy and his class of disabled individuals with a designated van-accessible disabled persons parking spot.

Neal entered a general denial.

In…

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.