California Legal Brief

The Rule of Physicians for Social Responsibility – Los Angeles v. Department of Toxic Substances Control is that attorney fees cannot be awarded under the catalyst theory where a party has received a final adverse judgment on the merits before the defendant voluntarily provides the relief originally sought, under circumstances where the voluntary action occurs after the lawsuit has been fully litigated to a final judgment against the fee-seeking party.

Appeal from judgment after denial of motion for attorney fees in Superior Court, Sacramento County.

Defendant Appellant was Physicians for Social Responsibility – Los Angeles et al. — environmental organizations seeking attorney fees after DTSC included building demolition analysis in final EIR post-judgment.

Plaintiff Respondent was Department of Toxic Substances Control — state agency responsible for regulating chemical contamination cleanup at Santa Susana Field Laboratory.

The suit sounded in environmental law and attorney fee recovery. The underlying litigation challenged DTSC's failure to comply with CEQA regarding Boeing's demolition of buildings at the contaminated Santa Susana Field Laboratory site.

The key substantive facts leading to the suit were DTSC's alleged failure to conduct CEQA review of Boeing's planned demolition of four structures in Area IV of SSFL, a contaminated site requiring extensive remediation. After both trial and appellate courts ruled against appellants, DTSC voluntarily included the demolition analysis in its final EIR, prompting appellants' claim for catalyst theory attorney fees under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5.

The procedural result leading to the Appeal: The trial court denied appellants' motion for attorney fees, ruling that appellants could not show they were the successful party under the catalyst theory because they had already received adverse judgments and there was no "threat of victory" when DTSC took its voluntary action.

The key question(s) on Appeal: Whether appellants were entitled to attorney fees under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5 based on the catalyst theory when DTSC voluntarily included building demolition analysis in its final EIR after appellants had already lost on the merits in both trial and appellate courts.

The Appellate Court held that the catalyst theory does not apply to award attorney fees when the merits have been fully litigated to a final adverse judgment, as there is no "threat of victory" to motivate defendant's voluntary conduct, and voluntary post-judgment actions by defendants do not demonstrate the lawsuit had merit or was the catalyst for the relief.

The case is inapplicable when the defendant voluntarily provides relief before a final adverse judgment is entered against the plaintiff, or when litigation is dismissed or becomes moot before a judicial determination on the merits.

The case leaves open whether the catalyst theory might apply in situations involving partial victories or mixed judgments, and does not address the other elements required for section 1021.5 attorney fees beyond the successful party requirement.