Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 21STCP01969, Date: 2024-11-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCP01969    Hearing Date: November 15, 2024    Dept: 47

Tentative Ruling

Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47

HEARING DATE:     November 15, 2024               JUDGMENT: October 1, 2024

CASE:                         NASA Services, Inc., et al. v. City of Montebello, et al.

CASE NO.:                 21STCP01969

MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS

MOVING PARTY:               Respondents City of Montebello; City Council of the City of Montebello

RESPONDING PARTY(S): Petitioners NASA Services, Inc. and 1701 Gage Road, LLC.

CASE HISTORY:

·       06/21/21: Petition for Writ of Mandate filed.

·       10/04/22: Complaint-in-Intervention filed in opposition to Petition.

·       05/30/23: Petition for Writ of Mandate denied.

·       08/07/24: Request for dismissal as to remaining causes of action in Petition filed.

·       10/01/24: Judgment entered.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

            This was a petition for writ of mandate challenging the City of Montebello’s denial of a conditional use permit for the operation of a solid waste transfer station.

Respondents move for attorney’s fees as the prevailing parties on the petition.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Respondents move for attorney’s fees as the prevailing parties on the petition.

The Petition in this action asserted four causes of action: (1) petition for writ of mandate under California Code of Civil Procedure sections 1094.5 and 1085; (2) denial of due process rights; (3) denial of equal protection; and (4) declaratory relief. (See generally Petition.) As relevant here, Petitioners’ second and third causes of action were grounded in section 1983 of title 42 of the United States Code. This statute authorizes claims against any person who, under color of law, deprives another of their constitutional or statutory rights, privileges, or immunities. (42 U.S. Code § 1983.) For any action under section 1983, subject to exceptions not relevant here, “the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party, other than the United States, a reasonable attorney’s fee as part of the costs[.]” (42 U.S. Code § 1988(b).) However, a court may only award attorney’s fees under section 1988 if it finds that the plaintiff’s action is “meritless in the sense that it is groundless or without foundation.” (Hughes v. Rowe (1980) 449 U.S. 5, 14.)

Although Respondents assert that they are entitled to attorney’s fees as the prevailing parties, they make no effort in their moving papers to address whether Petitioners’ claims were “groundless or without foundation” as required by the Supreme Court’s unequivocal holding.  Although it may have been served on Petitioner, Respondents did not file a reply brief in support of their motion; nor did they submit the requisite courtesy copy of any reply brief to the Court. Moreover, according to Petitioner’s surreply, it appears that Respondents’ reply still fails to reckon with the frivolousness standard that is required for a defense fee award under section 1988.  As Petitioners argue, the dismissal of Petitioners’ claims in the face of a summary judgment motion does not render them frivolous. This is particularly true here where Judge Chalfant ruled that three of the City’s four findings for the conditional use permit Petitioners sought were unsupported by substantial evidence.  Given these procedural deficiencies, the Court cannot find Petitioners’ contentions that the City violated their constitutional rights to substantive due process and equal protection to be wholly frivolous.  Respondents have therefore failed to demonstrate that they are entitled to attorney’s fees under federal law.

Accordingly, Respondents’ Motion for Attorney’s Fees is DENIED.

Moving Parties to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:  November 15, 2024                            ___________________________________

                                                                                    Theresa M. Traber

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court

            Any party may submit on the tentative ruling by contacting the courtroom via email at Smcdept47@lacourt.org by no later than 4:00 p.m. the day before the hearing. All interested parties must be copied on the email. It should be noted that if you submit on a tentative ruling the court will still conduct a hearing if any party appears. By submitting on the tentative you have, in essence, waived your right to be present at the hearing, and you should be aware that the court may not adopt the tentative, and may issue an order which modifies the tentative ruling in whole or in part.