Watch v. County of San Luis Obsipo

Full title: EDNA VALLEY WATCH et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. COUNTY OF SAN LUIS…

Court: California Court of Appeals, Second District, Sixth Division

Date published: Sep 1, 2011

2d Civil B223653 (Cal. Ct. App. Sep. 1, 2011)

Opinion

Page 1234b

198 Cal.App.4th 1234b __ Cal.Rptr.3d __ EDNA VALLEY WATCH et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBSIPO et al, Defendants and Respondents. 2d Civil No. B223653 California Court of Appeal, Second District, Sixth DivisionSeptember 1, 2011

San Luis Obispo County No. CV080636

ORDER MODIFYING OPINION AND DENYING REHEARING

THE COURT:

IT IS ORDERED that the opinion filed herein on August 2, 2011, (197 Cal.App.4th 1312;___Cal.Rptr.3d___) be modified as follows and petition for rehearing is DENIED:

The third full paragraph on page 6 [197 Cal.App.4th 1320, advance report, 1st full par.], commencing with "The County argues there is scant evidence," is modified to read as follows:

"The County argues there is scant evidence of Edna's participation in the administrative proceedings. But we are only deciding that the administrative proceedings are part of the "action" within the meaning of section 1021.5. To even qualify for the court's consideration of attorney's fees, the participation of a "successful party" must have conferred a significant benefit on the public or a large class of persons. Once this condition is met, the trial court must consider the extent of the parties' participation in the administrative proceeding and the cost and time necessary to reasonably prepare for a challenge to these proceedings. The fees the court deems appropriate may range from no fees to reasonable fees under the circumstances."

There is no change in the judgment.

Respondents' petition for rehearing is denied.