ARTICLE
16 January 2026

No Entitlement To Attorneys' Fees Where Successful Claims Were Nullified By Legislation And California Supreme Court Decision

PC
Perkins Coie LLP

Contributor

Perkins Coie is a premier international law firm with over a century of experience, dedicated to addressing the legal and business challenges of tomorrow. Renowned for its deep industry knowledge and client-centric approach, the firm has consistently partnered with trailblazing organizations, from aviation pioneers to artificial intelligence innovators. With 21 offices across the United States, Asia, and Europe, and a global network of partner firms, Perkins Coie provides seamless support to clients wherever they operate.

The firm's vision is to be the trusted advisor to the world’s most innovative companies, delivering strategic, high-value solutions critical to their success. Guided by a one-firm culture, Perkins Coie emphasizes excellence, collaboration, inclusion, innovation, and creativity. The firm is committed to building diverse teams, promoting equal access to justice, and upholding the rule of law, reflecting its core values and enduring dedication to clients, communities, and colleagues.

Petitioners were not "successful parties" entitled to attorneys' fees under Code of Civil Procedure 1021.5 after the Legislature abrogated their legal victories by statute and the Supreme Court...
United States California Real Estate and Construction
Geoffrey L. Robinson’s articles from Perkins Coie LLP are most popular:
  • within Real Estate and Construction topic(s)
  • in United States

Petitioners were not "successful parties" entitled to attorneys' fees under Code of Civil Procedure 1021.5 after the Legislature abrogated their legal victories by statute and the Supreme Court reversed the judgment. Make UC A Good Neighbor v. Regents of University of California, __ Cal. App. 5th __, 2025 WL 3687803 (2025).

Petitioners challenged the University of California, Berkeley's 2021 long-range development plan and a student housing project at People's Park. They alleged the University violated CEQA by failing to analyze potential noise impacts from student parties and failing to consider alternative locations for the housing project.

The Court of Appeal originally ruled in favor of petitioners on the noise and alternative location issues. However, while the case was pending before the California Supreme Court, the Legislature passed Assembly Bill No. 1307, which specified that noise from occupants of a residential project is not a significant environmental effect and exempted certain higher education housing projects from analyzing alternative locations. Based on AB 1305, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal's decision.

The petitioners argued they were nonetheless "successful parties" because their litigation established important legal precedents that remained "good law" for non-residential projects.

The Court of Appeal disagreed, holding that the Supreme Court's reversal constituted an unambiguous disapproval of the previous holdings on noise and alternative locations—the two issues on which petitioners had prevailed. Petitioners therefore failed the "pragmatic" test for success under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5. Because the litigation ultimately led to a final judgment in favor of the University, petitioners neither vindicated the principles of their action nor achieved their strategic objectives.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

[View Source]

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More