Carian

Carian v. Cal. Dept. of Fish and Wildlife CA4/1

Caution
185 Cal. Rptr. 3d 594·2015 Cal. App. LEXIS 279·235 Cal. App. 4th 806·2015 WL 1524341
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 9, 2015D066683California4,034 words

Opinion

Opinion

McDONALD, J.

Blaine Carian appeals a postjudgment order denying his motion for attorney fees pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5. The trial court found he did not make a reasonable attempt to settle his dispute before filing the instant action against the state Department of Fish and Wildlife (Department) and Kimberly Nicol, a Department manager (together Defendants). On appeal, Carian contends the trial court erred in denying his motion for attorney fees because he gave the Department notice before filing his action, any attempt to settle the dispute would have been futile, and he satisfied all of the other requirements for an award of attorney fees under section 1021.5.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In 1968, the Legislature enacted a statutory scheme to protect the state’s ecological reserves to, in turn, protect threatened or endangered native plants, wildlife, or aquatic organisms. (Fish & G. Code, § 1580 et seq.) Under Fish and Game Code section 1580, the Fish and Game Commission (Commission) has the authority to “adopt regulations for the occupation, utilization, operation, protection, enhancement, maintenance, and administration of [the state’s] ecological…

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.