In Hall v. DMV, published August 15, 2018, the Fourth District Court of Appeal, Division 1 affirmed a trial court order denying a petitioner's motion for attorney fees under the private attorney general fee statute, Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5. The petitioner was arrested for a suspected DUI. Because he refused to provide a blood test, his driver's license was seized. The petitioner challenged the seizure in a DMV hearing. At the hearing, he objected to a "officer's statement" that had a discrepancy as to the date of arrest and the date petitioner was admonished about the consequences of refusing a blood test. The hearing officer admitted the statement despite the discrepancy, ruled the discrepancy a clerical error, and sustained revocation of the license. The petitioner sought a writ of mandate in superior court, on the ground that the officer's statement was inadmissible. Before the hearing, the court allowed the petitioner to amend the petition based on a charge that the hearing officer had accepted bribes in other cases. After the hearing officer pleaded guilty, the petitioner contended that lack of an impartial hearing officer violated his due process rights. The trial court granted the petition on due process grounds, but did not grant the petitioner his requested relief of reinstating his license. Instead, it remanded the matter to the DMV for a new hearing before an impartial hearing officer. The DMV set the matter for a new de novo hearing. Before the hearing, the petitioner appealed the ruling. In a published decision, the Court of Appeal agreed that the petitioner had been deprived of due process, but rejected the requested relief and held that the trial court correctly ordered a new administrative hearing. The appellate court awarded the petitioner costs, but did not state the basis for doing so. The petitioner then sought over $145,000 in fees in the section 1021.5 motion. The trial court denied the motion on the ground that the petitioner was not successful.
The appellate court agreed. A section 1021.5 fee award requires that the petitioner be "successful." A petitioner is successful if he achieves his primary litigation goal. Here, the petitioner did not achieve his primary goal: license reinstatement. Instead, the result before the appeal was the same as the one afterward: He was offered a new administrative hearing, which he did not want. That the petitioner obtained a published decision that established an important right did not warrant fees if he was not successful. He was awarded costs in the previous appeal because of the interests of justice, not because he was successful. Further, he could not meet section 1021.5's test that the fee award is appropriate in light of the necessity and financial burden of private enforcement. He started the petition before the basis for the fee motion (the charge that the hearing officer took bribes) appeared, and his attorney incurred approximately as much in fees on the petition before the amendment as afterward. Further, once the trial court ruled that the petitioner was entitled to a new hearing, the litigation continued solely to vindicate the petitioner's personal goal of getting his license back.
Leave a Reply