Thursday, August 16, 2018
Page 3
Court of Appeal:
Granting Costs Didn’t Establish Litigant as ‘Prevailing Party’
By a MetNews Staff Writer
The Fourth District Court of Appeal has declared that in ordering costs in favor of the appellant in a former appeal, it did not determine him to be the prevailing party.
Acting Presiding Justice Gilbert Nares of Div. One wrote the opinion, filed July 30 and certified for publication yesterday. It affirms an order by San Diego Superior Court Judge Tamila E. Ipema denying attorney fees to Branden Lee Hall in connection with his 2016 appeal in Hall v. Superior Court, decided in a published opinion.
The 2016 opinion, also authored by Nares, rejected Hall’s contention that he was entitled to restoration of his driver’s license—yanked because he refused to submit to a chemical test of his blood after being arrested for drunk driving. His ground was that the Department of Motor Vehicles (“DMV”) hearing officer who upheld the revocation had since been convicted in federal court of taking bribes in other cases.
“We hold that a DMV hearing officer who admits to taking bribes for nearly a decade does not meet the constitutional standard of impartiality,” Nares said in the 2016 opinion. “Accordingly, we conclude the court correctly ordered a new administrative hearing.”
‘Inherently Contradictory’
In an action the Office of Attorney General characterized as “inherently contradictory,” Ipema had denied Hall’s petition for writ of administrative mandamus, but ordered a new DMV hearing. Nares’s opinion directed that a writ of mandate be granted ordering a new hearing and said, “Costs are awarded to Branden Lee Hall.”
Hall then sought $145,044 in attorney fees under the private attorney general statute, Code of Civil Procedure §1021.5.
In the July 30 opinion affirming Ipema’s denial of those fees, Nares said Hall was not entitled to them because he was not the prevailing party. He explained the awarding of costs by noting that under California Rules of Court, rule 8.493(a)(1)(B), “the court may award costs ‘[i]n the interests of justice.”
Reason for Costs
He wrote:
“Given the result in Hall I—i.e., we rejected Hall’s argument that his license must be reinstated—the only reasonable inference is we awarded Hall costs in the interests of justice because the DMV had not afforded him an impartial hearing officer.”
Nares explained:
“Under California law, a plaintiff may be deemed to have been successful under section 1021.5 by succeeding on any significant issue in the litigation which achieves some of the benefit plaintiff sought in bringing suit….However, the only relief, achievement, or success for Hall from this litigation was a remand to the DMV to conduct another hearing. This was not a significant issue; indeed, it was no issue at all because Hall’s strategic objective was to obtain a court order that he prevail as a matter of law by overturning the DMV’s decision to revoke his license. He did not achieve his only litigation objective. All Hall achieved was a do-over, something he did not seek, does not want, and in fact, when offered by both the trial court and later the DMV, a remedy he rejected.”
Even if Hall were a prevailing party, the jurist said, there would be no entitlement to attorney fees because he was merely seeking to vindicate his only interests, conferring no public benefit.
The case is Hall v. Department of Motor Vehicles, 2018 S.O.S. 3996.
Copyright 2018, Metropolitan News Company