Procedural Posture

Petitioner city appealed the judgment of the Alameda County Superior Court (California), by way of a petition for a writ of mandate and prohibition, which granted summary adjudication in favor of real parties in interest, beverage retailer coalition and others, who filed an action challenging a nuisance ordinance regarding alcoholic beverage establishments.

Overview

Petitioner city enacted an ordinance regulating nuisances associated with alcoholic beverage establishments. Real parties in interest, beverage retailer coalition and others, filed an action against petitioner for a declaratory judgment that the ordinance was invalid and for an injunction precluding its enforcement. The rules of court license tax Mental illness, Insanity and Insane Defense California law . The trial court granted summary adjudication, concluding that the city ordinance illegally regulated holders of alcoholic beverages licenses and taxed the licensees in violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 23790. Petitioner applied for a writ of mandate and prohibition to compel the trial court to vacate its summary adjudication order. The court issued the writ of mandate, directing the lower court to vacate its order of summary adjudication and enter summary adjudication in favor of petitioner city, holding that petitioner's ordinance did not constitute an impermissible license tax and did not conflict with the state's power to regulate alcoholic beverage sales. The conduct regulated by the ordinance did not fall within § 23790, and petitioner retained the right to abate nuisances, even in the face of grandfather rights.

Outcome

The court issued the writ of mandate, directing the lower court to vacate its order of summary adjudication and enter summary adjudication in favor of petitioner city, holding that petitioner's ordinance regulating nuisances associated with alcoholic beverage establishments did not constitute an impermissible license tax and did not conflict with the state's police power to regulate alcoholic beverage sales.

Procedural Posture

Appellant business sought review of a decision of the Superior Court of Sacramento County (California), which granted respondent administrative office a judgment on the pleadings in an independent action for attorney fees under Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 1021.5 following an administrative process in which appellant was the nominal winner.

Overview

Appellant business successfully challenged a regulation that had been proposed by respondent administrative office. It thereafter filed an independent action in a court to recover its attorney fees under Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 1021.5. The lower court granted respondents' motion for judgment on the pleadings because the alleged independent action, as such, did not exist. The court affirmed and held that § 1021.5 did not create a separate cause of action for attorney fees arising out of an administrative or quasi-judicial process. The plain language of the statute compelled a decision that § 1021.5 did not authorize such a procedure because fees could only be awarded upon motion, such as in conjunction with a pending court matter. Since no such matter existed, appellant was precluded from recovering attorney fees under the statute.

Outcome

The court affirmed the judgment of the trial court that appellant business was not entitled to attorney fees from respondent administrative office under the codified private attorney general doctrine because the relevant statute by its terms contemplated an award of attorney fees arising out of a court action rather than an administrative proceeding and did not create an independent cause of action for such fees.