Rogel

It is well settled that a trial court is vested with wide discretion in fixing the amount to be awarded to a prevailing party for attorneys’ fees, and that a court’s award will not be disturbed on appeal unless the record discloses an abuse of discretion. (See Serrano v. Priest (1977) 20 Cal.3d 25, 49 [ 141 Cal.Rptr. 315 , 569 P.2d 1303 ] (Serrano III).) The primary question here is whether the trial court abused its discretion by applying a negative multiplier in setting the amount of an attorneys’ fees award against a government agency based on the conclusion that it would be “better” for less money to be paid to the prevailing parties for their attorneys’ fees so as to leave the agency with more money for its ongoing governmental operations. We find this is not an appropriate factor upon which to reduce otherwise documented attorneys’ fees.

*1322 FACTS

The Statutory Setting for the Litigation

The community redevelopment law (CRL; Health & Saf. Code, § 33000 et seq.) 1 is a comprehensive statutory scheme intended to help local governments revitalize blighted areas. To accomplish this end, the CRL allows for the financing of redevelopment projects through “tax…