No Entitlement to Attorneys’ Fees Where Successful Claims Were Nullified by Legislation and California Supreme Court Decision

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.