In Raptors Are the Solution v. CropLife America (2026) 120 Cal.App.5th 237, the First District Court of Appeal held that two trade associations that had intervened in the case were jointly and severally liable for attorney fees awarded to the Respondent (“Raptors”).
Key Takeaways
- Trade organizations with a direct interest in the subject litigation can be “opposing parties” for the purposes of Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5.
- Entities considering intervention should recognize that participation can carry financial consequences. Where an intervenor has a direct stake in the outcome and actively litigates the merits, it may face joint and several liability for a prevailing party’s attorney fees.
Background
In 2017, in response to the Department of Pesticide Regulation’s (“DPR’s”) proposed decision to renew rodenticide registrations, Raptors requested that DPR initiate the reevaluation proceedings, arguing that the products posed significant risks to wildlife. DPR declined to do so and renewed the registrations, prompting Raptors to file a petition for a writ of mandate alleging violations of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and DPR’s own regulations.
While the litigation was ongoing, DPR agreed to reevaluate some of the challenged rodenticides. Raptors subsequently narrowed its claims in an amended petition to focus on the remaining rodenticides that are not undergoing reevaluation. CropLife America and Western Plant Health Association (“Intervenors”)—trade associations representing pesticide manufacturers and distributors—successfully moved to intervene based on their members’ economic interest in the products at issue.
In 2020, the trial court denied the amended petition, and Raptors appealed. The Court of Appeal reversed, directing DPR to reconsider its decision not to place diphacinone into reevaluation. Following remand, DPR agreed to reevaluate diphacinone, and the Legislature later enacted a moratorium on the use of the challenged rodenticides pending completion of the reevaluation process.
Raptors then sought attorney’s fees under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5 after unsuccessfully attempting to negotiate a settlement with DPR and Intervenors. The trial court granted the motion in significant part, concluding that Raptors was the prevailing party and that the litigation had enforced important public rights and conferred a significant public benefit.
Appellate Decision
On appeal, Intervenors argued they were not “opposing parties” subject to liability for attorney’s fees under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5, that Raptors was not successful against them, and that the trial court should have reduced or apportioned the fee award.
The appellate court rejected those arguments. As an initial matter, it declined to accept Intervenors’ characterization of their involvement in the case as “limited,” noting that the trial court’s findings were entitled to deference and were supported by substantial evidence—including Intervenors’ own assertions that they had direct economic interests in the litigation.
Relying on Connerly v. State Personnel Board (2006) 37 Cal.4th 1169, Intervenors argued they could not be considered “opposing parties” because they neither enacted nor enforced the challenged regulatory decisions. The court disagreed, explaining that the Supreme Court’s holding in Connerly did not limit opposing-party status to those responsible for the challenged action. Rather, Connerly also recognized that parties with a direct pecuniary interest in the outcome of litigation may qualify as opposing parties under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5. Because the Intervenors actively participated in the litigation to protect their members’ economic interests, the court concluded they fell within that category.
Finally, the court found no abuse of discretion in the amount of the fee award, noting that the trial court had substantially reduced the requested fees. It also upheld the imposition of joint and several liability, emphasizing that Intervenors cited no authority requiring apportionment.
Accordingly, the court affirmed the attorneys’ fee award against all opposing parties, including Intervenors.