 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Harrahill v. City of Monrovia6/22/2004
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
Plaintiffs appeal the trial court's order denying them attorney fees under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5. Plaintiffs conclude the trial court erred in finding that they were not successful litigants for purposes of section 1021.5, since the City amended its daytime curfew ordinance in response to the trial court's grant of summary judgment and issuance of a permanent injunction against enforcement of the ordinance as originally enacted. We discern no error, and thus affirm the trial court.
FACTS
In 1994, the City of Monrovia (the "City") adopted an ordinance (the "Ordinance") which prohibited school-age children who are subject to the compulsory education laws from being in public places other than school between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 1:30 p.m. on days when school is in session. In 1997, two home-schooled students and three private school students, together with their parents, challenged the ordinance on various federal and state constitutional grounds.
On January 27, 1999, Judge Kuhl issued an "opinion on cross motions for summary judgment," ruling that portions of the Ordinance contradicted state law by not including exemptions contained within the state Education Code. We refer to this ruling as "Harrahill I." Judge Kuhl expressly declined to reach the "substantial and difficult" constitutional issues presented by both parties. Following the grant of summary judgment, Judge Kuhl also awarded attorney fees and expenses to plaintiffs in the amount of $266,581.25 based on her ruling granting plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment. The City appealed both the judgment and the fee award and prevailed on both appeals when this court reversed the judgment in an opinion filed January 13, 2000 (B131441) and reversed the fee award after the parties stipulated to vacate that order (B133079, March 20, 2000).
On remand, plaintiffs filed a second amended and supplemental complaint ("Harrahill II"), reasserting many of their original allegations and again seeking to have the Ordinance declared unconstitutional. The trial court denied plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and granted the City's motion, upholding the constitutionality of the Ordinance. That judgment was affirmed on appeal by this Court in Harrahill v. City of Monrovia (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 761. Appellants' petition for review was denied by the California Supreme Court on March 19, 2003 (S113313).
After the issuance of the remittitur, plaintiffs "renewed" their motion for the attorney fees previously awarded, but did not seek any additional fees for prosecution of the supplemental complaint. Plaintiffs argued that they were entitled to the original award of fees as successful parties who were the catalyst causing the City to amend the original ordinance, which amendment conferred a benefit on a large class of the public. The City maintained that plaintiffs were not successful parties because they had not prevailed on the supplemental complaint and had not changed the status quo. The trial court denied the motion, concluding that "with respect to the totality of the circumstances, I don't believe that the plaintiffs were indeed the successful party. . . . I also don't think that this was an important right to the level of significant benefit." Plaintiffs timely appealed that order.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Page 1 2 3 4 California DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|