Private Attorney General? Not Without Showing A Benefit To The Public At-Large.

On November 18, 2013, the California Court of Appeal for the Fourth District in Norberg v. California Coastal Commission [G047522] reversed an award of attorney’s fees against the State holding the plaintiff, who established that the California Coastal Commission disregarded the Coastal Act by forcing the plaintiff to waive certain rights, could not recover private attorney general fees under California Code of Civil Procedure 1021.5 because the action did not confer a public benefit. 

The plaintiff's litigation sought to invalidate permit conditions affecting residential improvements on his privately owned oceanfront property.  Proving the Coastal Commission had not followed the law, which the court acknowledged was an important right, did not justify an award of attorney fees.  Because the plaintiff’s lawsuit concerned only the plaintiff’s property, the court ruled a significant benefit had not been conferred on the public at large.  In addition, the Norberg court found the financial burden of filing the lawsuit was not out of proportion to the plaintiff’s individual stake in the matter and therefore it was reasonable for the plaintiff to assume the financial burden of pursuing the case.

The case does not really break new ground but instead serves as a reminder that shifting the cost of litigation as a "private attorney general" can prove to be a difficult task.

A complete copy of the Norberg opinion can be obtained at www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/G047522.PDF.