Judge: Nathan R. Scott, Case: Spitzer v. Page, Date: 2022-07-29 Tentative Ruling

Petitioner Todd Spitzer’s motion for attorney fees is denied.

“Not every election contest confers ‘a significant benefit to the electorate.’”  (Early v. Becerra (2021) 60 Cal.App.5th 726, 738.) 

While petitioner prevailed on his petition, doing so did not enforce “‘“an important right affecting the public interest”’” or confer “‘“a significant benefit . . . on the general public or a large class of persons.”’”  (Early, supra, 60 Cal.App.5th at p. 736.) 

Prevailing on this petition did not protect the voters’ right to vote for a legally qualified candidate.  (Early, supra, 60 Cal.App.5th at pp. 739-740.)  It did not protect candidates’ rights “to communicate vital information about their views and positions to voters” or the voters’ rights “to receive information essential to thoughtful decisionmaking and democratic self-government.”  (Sandlin v. McLaughlin (2020) 50 Cal.App.5th 805, 831.)  It did not result in a published opinion clarifying that candidate statements may include the candidate’s views on the issues.  (Hammond v. Agran (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 115, 132-134.)

Instead, it merely struck two sentences from a candidate statement in which a challenger criticized the incumbent’s alleged mismanagement.

Thus, “the benefit of the court's decision was largely confined to the prevailing candidate” and “of little consequence to the rights of voters” (Early, supra, 60 Cal.App.5th at p. 738), who did not gain any significant clarity about the candidates and their views.

“The litigation regarding the petition more closely resembles the mundane squabbles over the factual accuracy of a statement peculiar to one candidate's personal history.”  (Willard v. Kelley (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 1049, 1057 [no attorney fees for defending ballot designation that “did not shed light on [the respondent’s] views as a candidate”].) 

Real party in interest’s request for judicial notice is granted.

Petitioner shall give notice.