Vasquez

Under the so-called private attorney general statute (Code Civ. Proc., § 1021.5, sometimes hereafter section 1021.5), a court may award attorney fees to the successful party in an action that has resulted in the enforcement of an important right affecting the public interest. In Graham v. DaimlerChrysler Corp. (2004) 34 Cal.4th 553, 560 [ 21 Cal.Rptr.3d 331 , 101 P.3d 140 ] (Graham), we held the “catalyst theory” permits a court to award attorney fees under section 1021.5 “even when litigation does not result in a judicial resolution if the defendant changes its behavior substantially because of, and in the manner sought by, the litigation.” In so holding, we also adopted “sensible limitations on the catalyst theory” (Graham, at p. 575) to discourage meritless suits motivated by the hope of fees, “without putting a damper on lawsuits that genuinely provide a public benefit” (ibid.).

Today we revisit one of the “limitations on the catalyst theory” adopted in Graham, supra, 34 Cal.4th 553 , 575-—specifically, the rule that the plaintiff in a “catalyst case,” to recover attorney fees under section 1021.5, “must have engaged in a reasonable attempt to settle its dispute with…