SAN JOSE — A Salinas-based land trust will not receive the more than $1.2 million in attorney's fees that it had been awarded in a dispute over a defunct water desalination project, following a state appeals court's ruling earlier this month.
California's Sixth District Court of Appeal found that Ag Land Trust, in litigation with Marina Coast Water District over a defunct water desalination project, failed to establish that the lawsuit had motivated Marina Coast "to provide the primary relief sought" in the lawsuit.
"In its lawsuit, Ag Land Trust sought to have Marina Coast set aside its approval of the Regional Desalination Project and prepare a new environmental impact report for the project under the California Environment Quality Act, but there was no evidence that Marina Coast undertook any of these actions," the appeals court said in its decision. "Further, although Marina Coast stopped proceeding with the project, the undisputed evidence reflects that this was due to Cal-Am's withdrawal from the project."
Sixth District Appeals Court Justice Patricia Bamattre-Manoukian
Sixth District Appeals Court Justice Patricia Bamattre-Manoukian wrote the court's 20-page decision issued Oct. 15. Justice Franklin Elia and Justice Nathan Mihara concurred in the decision.
"This is the third appeal in this action," Bamattre-Manoukian wrote in the appeals court's decision. "Relevant here, in the underlying litigation Ag Land Trust brought a CEQA challenge to Marina Coast's approval of the Regional Desalination Project, a project that also involved other entities including the California American Water Company (Cal-Am). Ag Land Trust initially prevailed in the CEQA action involving the project, and Marina Coast appealed."
Cal-Am withdrew its support for the desalination project, which then became defunct, the court decision said. In a Marina Coast appeal also pending at the time, the appeals court reversed a postjudgment order that awarded more than $1.2 million in attorney's fees to Ag Land Trust.
Ag Land Trust had argued that, despite the reversal, it remained entitled to the attorney' fees based on the catalyst theory, which generally allows a litigant who prevails based on voluntary change in another litigant's conduct to still collect fees.