Law School Case Brief
Conservatorship of Whitley - 50 Cal. 4th 1206, 117 Cal. Rptr. 3d 342, 241 P.3d 840 (2010)
The necessity and financial burden requirement of Code Civ. Proc., § 1021.5, examines two issues: whether private enforcement was necessary and whether the financial burden of private enforcement warrants subsidizing the successful party's attorneys. The necessity of private enforcement looks to the adequacy of public enforcement and seeks economic equalization of representation in cases where private enforcement is necessary. On the other hand, an award of attorney fees is not appropriate when the public rights in question were adequately vindicated by governmental action. The second prong of the inquiry addresses the financial burden of private enforcement. In determining the financial burden on litigants, courts have quite logically focused not only on the costs of the litigation but also any offsetting financial benefits that the litigation yields or reasonably could have been expected to yield. An award on the private attorney general theory is appropriate when the cost of the claimant's legal victory transcends his personal interest, that is, when the necessity for pursuing the lawsuit placed a burden on the plaintiff out of proportion to his individual stake in the matter. This requirement focuses on the financial burdens and incentives involved in bringing the lawsuit.
Virginia Maldonado has served for over 25 years as conservator for her brother, Roy Whitley, who is a developmentally disabled adult with epilepsy, mild cerebral palsy, and profound mental retardation. The trial court denied Maldonado’s request for Code Civ. Proc., § 1021.5, attorney fees for her successful objection to a decision by a regional center to move Whitley to a smaller community-based facility. In a prior proceeding, the trial court held an evidentiary hearing in accordance with procedures set forth in the settlement of an unrelated federal case. Maldonado challenged the trial court's jurisdiction and obtained a ruling on appeal that she was entitled to an administrative fair hearing on her brother's behalf. The trial court, in denying fees after the case was remanded, ruled that the financial burden to the conservator of the litigation was not out of proportion to her personal interest in her brother's living arrangements; and that the litigation had failed to confer a substantial benefit on the general public or a large class of persons.
Were Maldonado’s subjective motivations regarding Whitley’s welfare disqualify her from receiving § 1021.5 fees?
The court held that Maldonado’s subjective motivations regarding Whitley’s welfare did not disqualify her from receiving § 1021.5 fees. The necessity and financial burden requirement of § 1021.5 focused on the financial burden of private enforcement. The necessity of private enforcement simply meant that public enforcement was not sufficiently available, and a strong nonfinancial motivation did not alleviate a litigant's financial burden. Only objective financial incentives were properly considered as to the financial burden inquiry under § 1021.5.
Access the full text case
Not a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.
Be Sure You're Prepared for Class