In Make UC A Good Neighbor v. Regents of University of California (2025) 117 Cal.App.5th 282, the First District Court of Appeal affirmed the denial of a motion for attorneys’ fees. The Third District found that the petitioner was not a successful party under the law because the Legislature’s amendment to CEQA abrogated its claims while on appeal, resulting in the Supreme Court’s reversal and denial of the petitioner’s claims.
Key Takeaway
- A party is not “successful” for purposes of recovering attorney fees under the private attorney general doctrine where intervening legislation and a subsequent Supreme Court decision eliminate the claims and relief sought in the petition.
Background
In 2021, UC Berkeley certified an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for its Long-Range Development Plan and a student housing project at People’s Park. Make UC a Good Neighbor (Good Neighbor) filed suit alleging violations of CEQA. The trial court denied the petition.
On appeal, however, the First District Court of Appeal reversed in part. The court held that the EIR did not adequately analyze the project’s social noise impacts and failed to consider alternative locations for the People’s Park housing project. Both parties sought review in the California Supreme Court on the issues they had lost, and the Supreme Court granted review of the two issues on which Good Neighbor had prevailed.
While the case was pending before the Supreme Court, the Legislature enacted AB 1307. Among other things, AB 1307 clarified that noise generated by residents of housing projects—including student housing—is not a significant environmental effect under CEQA. The legislation further provides that public higher education institutions need not consider alternative locations for proposed residential and mixed-use housing projects under CEQA if certain statutory conditions are met.
In light of this intervening legislation, the Supreme Court concluded that the EIR was not inadequate for failing to analyze student-generated noise or for failing to consider alternative locations for the housing project. The Supreme Court therefore reversed the First District and instructed the lower courts to enter judgment in favor of the Regents.
Following entry of judgment for the Regents, Good Neighbor moved for an award of more than $1 million in attorney fees under the private attorney general doctrine. Good Neighbor argued that it was a “successful party” because the First District’s earlier rulings on social noise and alternative site analysis purportedly remained “good law” for nonresidential projects and therefore conferred a public benefit.
The trial court denied the fee motion, concluding that Good Neighbor was not a successful party on any of its claims. Good Neighbor appealed.
Appellate Decision
To recover attorney fees under the private attorney general doctrine, as Good Neighbor sought here, a party must establish—among other public interest requirements—that it was a “successful party” in the litigation. A party is considered “successful” if it prevails on a significant issue in the case and achieves some of the benefit sought in bringing the suit.
Good Neighbor argued that it met this standard despite the Supreme Court’s decision in favor of the Regents. According to Good Neighbor, the First District’s earlier opinion still had binding precedential effect with respect to the analysis of social noise impacts for nonresidential projects.
The First District disagreed. The appellate court explained that the Supreme Court had unambiguously disapproved the portions of the First District’s earlier opinion on which Good Neighbor claimed success. In reversing those holdings, the Supreme Court concluded that the Legislature had amended CEQA specifically to abrogate the First District’s rulings regarding social noise and alternative site analysis. As a result, the First District explained that its prior analyses on those issues were now “smoldering ruins, not citable precedent.”
The court did note, however, that other portions of its earlier opinion that were not reviewed by the Supreme Court remain precedential and continue to be “good law.”
Because the issues on which Good Neighbor claimed success had been expressly disapproved, the First District concluded that Good Neighbor did not obtain a favorable judgment or vindicate the legal principles on which it brought the action. Accordingly, the court held that Good Neighbor was not a successful party and affirmed the trial court’s denial of Good Neighbor’s motion for attorney fees.