The Rule of Raptors Are the Solution v. CropLife America is that trade associations that intervene in litigation to protect their members' direct pecuniary interests in government registration decisions are "opposing parties" liable for private attorney general fees under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5, under circumstances where the intervenors actively participate in defending challenged government approvals that directly affect their members' economic interests.
Appeal from attorney fee award after judgment in favor of plaintiff in Superior Court, Alameda County.
Defendant Appellants were CropLife America/Responsible Industry for a Sound Environment (CropLife) and Western Plant Health Association — trade associations representing developers, manufacturers, formulators and distributors of pesticide products who intervened to defend the Department of Pesticide Regulation's rodenticide registration decisions.
Plaintiff Respondent was Raptors Are the Solution — an environmental organization founded to protect wildlife from toxic effects of pesticides that challenged the Department's renewal of rodenticide registrations without reevaluation.
The suit sounded in violation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and agency regulations. Raptors challenged the Department of Pesticide Regulation's decisions to renew certain rodenticide registrations without conducting reevaluation procedures.
The key substantive facts leading to the suit were Raptors' December 2017 request that the Department initiate reevaluation of seven anticoagulant rodenticides due to significant risks to wildlife, the Department's March 2018 decision to renew the registrations without reevaluation, and Raptors' June 2018 filing of a writ petition claiming CEQA violations.
The procedural result leading to the Appeal: The trial court granted Raptors' motion for attorney fees under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5 and awarded approximately $857,000 jointly and severally against the Department, real parties in interest, and the trade association intervenors, ruling that all parties were "opposing parties" with direct interests who actively participated in defending the challenged agency decisions.
The key question(s) on Appeal: Whether trade associations that intervened to defend government registration decisions affecting their members' products are "opposing parties" liable for private attorney general fees under section 1021.5.
The Appellate Court held that trade associations who intervened based on their members' "immediate, direct and substantial" and "pecuniary" interests in rodenticide registrations, actively participated in litigation beyond limited policy arguments, and defended government decisions that directly affected their members' economic interests are "opposing parties" under section 1021.5 and may be held jointly and severally liable for attorney fees.
The case is inapplicable when intervenors participate purely as amicus curiae with only ideological or policy interests rather than direct economic stakes, or when intervenors have no direct pecuniary interest in the outcome of challenged government decisions.
The case leaves open the precise boundaries of what constitutes sufficient "direct interest" to render an intervenor an opposing party, and whether fault or misconduct is ever required for opposing party status under section 1021.5.
Counsel
For Appellants: Venable, Tyler G. Welti and Michael T. Gluk; Kahn Soares & Conway, Ann Grottveit
For Respondent: Environmental Law Clinic, Mills Legal Clinic at Stanford Law School, Deborah A. Sivas and Amanda D. Zerbe; Michael W. Graf
Amicus curiae: Natural Resources Defense Council, Jared E. Knicley and Michael E. Wall