Opinion ID: 2244131
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Significant Public Benefit

Text: Litigation which enforces constitutional rights necessarily affects the public interest and confers a significant benefit upon the general public. ( City of Fresno v. Press Communications, Inc. (1994) 31 Cal.App.4th 32, 44, 36 Cal. Rptr.2d 456, citing Press v. Lucky Stores, Inc. (1983) 34 Cal.3d 311, 318, 193 Cal. Rptr. 900, 667 P.2d 704 (Press).) While these rights are by nature individual rights, their enforcement benefits society as a whole. ( Press, supra 34 Cal.3d at p. 319, 193 Cal.Rptr. 900, 667 P.2d 704.) The evidence of the size of the population benefited by a private suit is not always required. The substantial benefit may be conceptual or doctrinal, and need not be actual and concrete, so long as the public is primarily benefited. ( Planned Parenthood, Inc. v. Aakhus (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 162, 171, 17 Cal.Rptr.2d 510, citing Braude v. Automobile Club of Southern Cal. (1986) 178 Cal.App.3d 994, 1011, 223 Cal.Rptr. 914.) Not all constitutional rights are sufficiently important to warrant the award of fees. ( Press, supra, 34 Cal.3d at pp. 319-320, fn. 7, 193 Cal.Rptr. 900, 667 P.2d 704, citing Pacific Legal Foundation v. California Coastal Com, (1982) 33 Cal.3d 158, 188 Cal.Rptr. 104, 655 P.2d 306.) Here, however, the fundamental importance of the right to a jury trial in our system of jurisprudence is well established. (See Badie, supra, 67 Cal.App.4th at p. 804, 79 Cal.Rptr.2d 273; Titan Group, Inc. v. Sonoma Valley County Sanitation Dist. (1985) 164 Cal.App.3d 1122, 1127, 211 Cal.Rptr. 62.) Furthermore, it is not necessary, as appellant contends, that the order denying appellant's petition be binding precedent in order to confer a significant benefit on the general public. In Press, a labor group obtained an injunction against a store that had ordered them to stop circulating petitions. Although the injunction was obtained against only one store in a large supermarket chain, it was found to confer a significant benefit on the general public, in part because it deterred the supermarket chain from preventing plaintiffs' access to other stores as well. (See Press, supra, 34 Cal.3d at pp. 320-321, 193 Cal.Rptr. 900, 667 P.2d 704.) Likewise, although the April 10, 2006 order does not formally enjoin appellant from enforcing the arbitration agreement against other customers, it should effectively deter appellant from doing so at least with regard to customers similarly situated to respondent. [2]