Robinson

Plaintiff appeals from (1) an order denying him attorney fees under California’s private attorney general doctrine, which is set forth in Code *387 of Civil Procedure section 1021.5 1 and (2) an order applying section 998 to limit his recovery of costs to those incurred prior to defendants’ May 7, 2007, offer to compromise.

We conclude that this litigation, which resulted in a published decision regarding the meaning and application of Government Code section 3304, subdivision (c) (Robinson v. City of Chowchilla (2011) 202 Cal.App.4th 368 [ 134 Cal.Rptr.3d 687 ]), enforced an important right affecting the public interest and conferred a significant benefit on the general public and a large class of persons. Thus, we will reverse the denial of the motion for attorney fees and remand to the trial court for it to determine whether the “financial burden of private enforcement” justifies an award of attorney fees under section 1021.5 using the cost-benefit analysis recently approved by the California Supreme Court in Conservatorship of Whitley (2010) 50 Cal.4th 1206 [ 117 Cal.Rptr.3d 342 , 241 P.3d 840 ].

We also conclude that (1) substantial evidence supports the trial…