United Homeowners Assn. v. Peak Capital Investments CA2/4

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 24, 2022B308682California5,708 words

Opinion

Opinion

Collins, J.

INTRODUCTION

United Homeowners Association II (UHA) filed a petition for writ of mandate under CEQA1 challenging approval of a condominium project proposed by real parties in interest Peak Capital and The Bedford Group (Peak/Bedford). UHA was successful on one part of its challenge, in that the superior court issued a writ of mandate and ordered the County of Los Angeles and the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors (collectively, the County) to withdraw approval of the project and complete a limited environmental impact report (EIR) with respect to traffic impacts. The superior court rejected UHA’s additional CEQA challenges, including those involving air quality, hazardous waste, and aesthetics. The court then granted UHA’s motion for attorney fees under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5, and awarded UHA fees of $118,089.00. Peak/Bedford appeals that award, asserting that (1) UHA is not entitled to fees because it neither enforced an important right affecting the public interest nor conferred a significant benefit on a large class of persons, and (2) the court erred by failing to clearly show how it reached the figure of $118,089.00. We find no error and affirm.

…

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.