Friends of B Street v. City of Hayward

In Friends of "B" Street v. City of Hayward (1980) 106 Cal. App. 3d 988, a citizen's group obtained a writ of mandamus to compel the city to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act. The court held that it was an abuse of discretion for the city council to adopt a negative declaration rather than a full environmental impact report. But the trial court refused to award attorney fees to the citizen's group. The appellate court found that the citizens group was entitled to an attorney fee award under the substantial benefit theory. After noting that the rule was intended to prevent unjust enrichment, the appellate court found that the litigation prevented the city from spending money on the "B" Street project illegally, i.e., without first preparing an environmental impact report. ( Id. at p. 996.) The court reversed the denial of attorney fees and remanded for reconsideration of the issue. ( Id. at pp. 1003-1004.) Although the opinion appears to assume that all of the residents of Hayward were benefited by the litigation, and that an award would therefore be justified against the city as the representative of those residents, the opinion does not discuss this issue. It only notes that stopping the illegal expenditure of funds could have been held to benefit the citizens of the city in another case. As to litigation instigated to carry out a statutory policy, the court said: "'The private attorney general doctrine rather than the substantial benefit theory is the appropriate basis for evaluating attorney fee requests arising from the effectuation of such statutory policies.' This is because the unjust enrichment justification for the substantial benefit rule is ill suited for application to benefits 'less tangible and more ephemeral in nature.' " ( Id. at p. 995.)