Soco West v. Cal. EPA CA4/3

DISCUSSION

1. Denial of Fee Motion a. Introduction As a preliminary matter, we reject DTSC‟s claim we should not reach the merits of Soco‟s appeal because the order appealed from is not contained in the joint

2 appendix. Soco filed the order along with its reply brief and we deem it part of the record on appeal. Soco contends the issue of whether the court misconstrued section 1021.5 is a question of law subject to de novo review. We agree. In determining whether a party has met the statutory requirements for section 1021.5 fees, “„we focus on whether the court applied the proper legal standards under section 1021.5 and, if so, whether the result was within the range of the court‟s discretion.‟ [Citation.]” (Vargas v. City of Salinas (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1331, 1339.) We review de novo whether a court applied the correct legal standard. (People v. Brunette (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 268, 276; In re Marriage of David & Martha M. (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 96, 100-101.) If it did, we review the court‟s ruling for abuse of discretion. (Vargas v. City of Salinas, supra, 200 Cal.App.4th at p. 1339.) To recover fees under section 1021.5, the applicant must show, inter alia, “„“the necessity…