Friday, January 30, 2026
Page 3
Court of Appeal:
$1.5 Million Fee Award Against L.A. Archbishop Is Upheld
Opinion Says Plaintiffs, Who Recovered Nothing Monetarily, Were Successful in Establishing That Entity Acted Deceptively by Spending Money Slated for Burial Plot ‘Care’ on Sex Abuse Claims
By a MetNews Staff Writer
Div. Five of this district’s Court of Appeal has upheld a public-interest attorney-fee award of $1.5 million against the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Los Angeles, which runs 11 cemeteries throughout the county, relating to claims that the office deceptively categorized a fee in burial contracts as one dedicated to the “care” of the properties when in fact $80 million of the funds were allegedly used to resolve sexual abuse claims in 2007.
Saying that the availability of the fee award was not gutted by the fact that the case was litigated to final judgment, under which the plaintiff recovered nothing and in which the defendant was declared the victor, the court reasoned, in Wednesday’s unpublished opinion by Justice Lamar Baker, that the litigation was proper under a “catalyst” theory of success because the litigation led to the defendant changing its contract terms to eliminate the “care” charge language.
At issue is Code of Civil Procedure §1021.5, which provides:
“Upon motion, a court may award attorneys’ fees to a successful party against one or more opposing parties in any action which has resulted in the enforcement of an important right affecting the public interest if: (a) a significant benefit, whether pecuniary or nonpecuniary, has been conferred on…a large class of persons, (b) the necessity and financial burden of private enforcement…are such as to make the award appropriate, and (c) such fees should not in the interest of justice be paid out of the recovery, if any.”
Class of Plaintiffs
Seeking the fee award was a certified class of plaintiffs who filed a putative collective action complaint against the religious office in March 2017, asserting that the defendant violated California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”) by failing to use funds attributable to the $337.50 fee included in burial contracts, which amounted to 15% of the total cost of buying a plot, for property maintenance.
Pointing out that cemeteries eventually run out of land on which to sell burial plots—and so rely on maintenance funds to keep up the property—the plaintiffs alleged that they would not have paid the charges if they had known that the archbishop was not required to spend the money on upkeep. The defendant said that collections associated with the fee were deposited in a designated “Care Fund” but did not regard the account as restricted in any way.
In their operative pleading, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendant improperly used money from the fund to resolve sexual abuse claims as part of a 2007 $660 million financial settlement with more than 500 alleged victims. Following an August 2022 bench trial, multiple parties were reluctant to testify that they had lost money and acknowledged that the defendant did perform some maintenance.
Deceptive Language
On Jan. 10, 2023, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Elihu M. Berle found that the language in the contracts was deceptive but that the plaintiffs “did not establish…that they are entitled to restitution because they did not offer evidence of any difference between what any class member paid and the value of what any class member received.” He also declared injunctive relief to be unnecessary because the defendant already altered its contracts.
After the defendant moved for a new trial and to vacate the judgment, arguing that the plaintiffs lacked standing under the UCL because they suffered no harm, Berle ordered the defendant to prepare a modified judgment indicating that “plaintiff is not the prevailing party” but said that he did so without prejudice to their ability to request fees.
In June 2023, he awarded the plaintiff $1.5 million in attorney fees, and a revised judgment was entered that October. Berle concluded that it was indisputable that the defendant revised its contract in March 2020 in response to the litigation and that “end[ing] this misleading practice…was the primary purpose for the lawsuit.”
Wednesday’s opinion, joined in by Presiding Justice Brian M. Hoffstadt and Justice Carl H. Moor, affirms the judgment.
Catalyst Theory
Saying that “the catalyst theory is rooted in a construction of the phrase ‘successful party’ in section 1021.5 to mean ‘the party to litigation that achieves its objectives,’ ” Baker noted that the California Supreme Court has laid out “limitations” on its application, including that the lawsuit must be a motivator for the defendant to opt to provide the primary relief sought, the action had merit, and that the plaintiffs reasonably attempted to settle before filing suit.
Addressing the defendant’s assertion that the award was precluded by the 2020 decision by Div. One of the First District Court of Appeal in Skaff v. Rio Nido Roadhouse, in which the court remarked that it was “not convinced that the catalyst theory should…apply” in cases “where the merits have been fully litigated to a final judgment,” Baker pointed out that the “observation” was “not a holding” and opined:
“Even if the concerns regarding judicial efficiency highlighted in Skaff may find purchase in some cases, they do not apply here. The litigation continued after defendant revised its burial contracts because plaintiffs sought additional relief in the form of restitution for class members….Moreover, conditioning the availability of catalyst attorney fees on plaintiffs settling for the minimum concession needed to trigger those fees would needlessly place the interests of class counsel in conflict with those of class members.”
Mistaken View
Reasoning that Berle’s conclusion that the defendant was entitled to vacatur of the initial judgment “rests on the mistaken view that because they did not establish they were entitled to restitution, they also lacked standing,” he rejected the “defendant’s attempt to cast this conclusion as a more general determination that the UCL claim lacked merit” and cited the jurist’s finding that the contracts were deceptive.
Acknowledging that the plaintiffs did not seek informal resolution with the defendant before filing a complaint in court, Baker commented:
“It is not clear that the pre-filing demand requirement practically maps well onto this case; plaintiffs may not have developed the theory that ultimately catalyzed the defendant’s remedial action when they filed their original complaint….More than a year passed between plaintiffs filing the [operative] complaint and defendant revising its burial contracts. The impetus for defendant’s remedial action was obviously class certification sought by plaintiffs and…there is no indication defendant would have changed its practice but for this development in the litigation.”
Large Class
As to whether the result affected a sufficiently large class of persons, he said:
“The scale of defendant’s cemetery operations—11 cemeteries, capable of generating tens of millions of dollars of care and maintenance fees—demonstrates this benefit extends to a large class of persons.”
Addressing the plaintiffs’ contention that Berle erred in denying them restitution under the UCL, the jurist wrote:
“Any tension between the trial court’s rulings that the burial contracts were deceptive but restitution was not warranted is resolved by the court’s finding that plaintiffs presented insufficient evidence concerning the difference in value between what class members paid for (essentially, burial contracts with funds earmarked for long-term maintenance) and what they received (burial contracts with no formal provision for long-term maintenance).”
The case is Howard v. The Roman Catholic Archbishop of Los Angeles, B333546.
Representing the plaintiffs were Jeffrey P. Spencer of the Irvine firm The Spencer Law Firm, Jeffrey and Macy Wilens of the Yorba Linda-based Lakeshore Law Center, as well as Huntington Beach attorney Scott Everett Schutzman.
Acting for the defendant were Alison Katherine Beanum, Douglas Joseph Collodel, and Alyssa Telles Wyatt of Los Angeles-based Clyde & Co. US LLP.
Copyright 2026, Metropolitan News Company