 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Harrahill v. City of Monrovia6/22/2004
ate the issues which were reserved by the trial court."
As the Court of Appeal noted in Macias v. Municipal Court (1986) 178 Cal.App.3d 568, 580), a litigant who is not satisfied with the outcome of a case and consequently pursues his appellate remedies cannot be said to have achieved his goals in the trial court. In Macias, an indigent defendant pleaded guilty to driving under the influence of alcohol, but sought a writ of mandate to compel the court to furnish attorney counseling services at his arraignment. The trial court denied the writ but suggested that the parties meet and confer, as a result of which the defendant court agreed to modify its arraignment procedures. Macias then sought attorney fees as a successful party, claiming that his suit led to the discussions which in turn produced the arraignment modifications. The trial court awarded attorney fees. Macias appealed the denial of the writ, and the Municipal Court appealed the award of fees.
The Court of Appeal upheld the denial of the writ and reversed the fee award, finding that Macias had not actually achieved his goals and noting that " either the statute nor the case law authorize the award of attorney fees to a party who has been adjudicated the loser." (Macias v. Municipal Court, supra, 178 Cal.App.3d at p. 580.) The appellate court noted that while "arraignment procedures may have been modified, the changes in fact did not satisfy" Macias, who "pursued his appellate remedy." (Id. at p. 579.) In the present case, there is no question that plaintiffs were not satisfied with the results in Harrahill I - they filed an amended and supplemental complaint and continued to litigate the matter not only in the trial court and in this court, but indeed, sought review in the California Supreme Court.
In short, we conclude that the trial court acted well within its discretion in determining that plaintiffs were not the successful party in Harrahill I and thus not entitled to an award of fees under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5.
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
We concur:
GRIGNON, Acting P.J.
MOSK, J.
Page 1 2 3 4 California DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|