Court Opinion

ID: 9914275
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-29 21:02:35.468344+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:10:53.963100
License: Public Domain

Filed 12/29/23

                       CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

             COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                   DIVISION ONE

                           STATE OF CALIFORNIA

 GROSSMONT UNION HIGH SCHOOL                D080295
 DISTRICT,

        Plaintiff and Appellant,
                                            (Super. Ct. No. 37-2015-
        v.                                  00033720-CU-WM-CTL)

 DIEGO PLUS EDUCATION
 CORPORATION et al.,

        Defendants and Respondents;

 WESTERN EDUCATIONAL
 CORPORATION et al.,

        Real Parties in Interest and
        Respondents;

 SAN DIEGO UNIFIED SCHOOL
 DISTRICT,

        Intervener and Appellant.

       APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County,
David J. Danielsen, Judge. (Retired Judge of the San Diego Sup. Ct.
assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.)
Conditionally reversed and remanded with directions.
      Orbach Huff & Henderson, Sarah Sutherland and Whitney N. Antrim
for Plaintiff and Appellant.
      Blank Rome, Gregory M. Bordo and Christopher J. Petersen for
Defendants, Real Parties in Interest and Respondents.
      Higgs Fletcher & Mack, John Morris, Steven M. Brunolli; San Diego
Unified School District, Andra Greene for Intervener and Appellant.

      This case, which involves a dispute regarding public charter schools
operating within the geographic boundaries of Grossmont Union High School
District (Grossmont Union) and San Diego Unified School District (SDUSD)
is before us for a second time. Specifically, this appeal concerns the trial
court’s order requiring that Grossmont Union and SDUSD pay attorney fees

pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.51 to the charter school
corporate entities who prevailed in the appeal that we decided in 2021.
(Grossmont Union High Sch. Dist. v. Diego Plus Education Corp. (Feb. 19,
2021, D076221) [nonpub. opn.] (Grossmont 2021).) Those charter school
corporate entities are Diego Plus Education Corporation (Diego Plus),
Western Educational Corporation (Western Educational), Lifelong Learning
Administration Corporation (Lifelong Learning) and Educational
Advancement Corporation (EAC) (collectively, “the Charter School Corporate
Entities”). In Grossmont 2021, we reversed the trial court’s orders
(1) enjoining the Charter School Corporate Entities from operating any
charter school within the geographic boundaries of Grossmont Union and

1    Unless otherwise indicated, all further statutory references are to the
Code of Civil Procedure.
                                        2
SDUSD, and (2) ordering the issuance of writs of mandate requiring that
Julian Union Elementary School District (Julian Union) revoke the charter of
Diego Valley East Public Charter School (Diego Valley East) and that Dehesa
Elementary School District (Dehesa) revoke the charter of Diego Hills
Central Public Charter School (Diego Hills Central).
        Grossmont Union and SDUSD contend that the trial court erred in
ordering them to pay the attorney fees incurred by the Charter School
Corporate Entities while successfully litigating the issues we addressed in
Grossmont 2021 because the prerequisites for an award under section 1021.5
are not present. Grossmont Union and SDUSD further contend that the trial
court abused its discretion in determining the amount of attorney fees to be
paid.
        We conclude that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to
evaluate one issue relevant to the Charter School Corporate Entities’
entitlement to an award of attorney fees, namely, whether “the . . . financial
burden of private enforcement . . . [is] such as to make the award
appropriate.” (§ 1021.5, subd. (b).) Accordingly, a remand is required so that
the trial court may properly exercise its discretion on that issue, applying the
appropriate legal standard. We further determine that, assuming the
Charter School Corporate Entities are entitled to a fee award, the trial court
did not abuse its discretion in determining the amount of the award.
        Accordingly, we conditionally reverse the order requiring Grossmont
Union and SDUSD to pay attorney fees pursuant to section 1021.5, with
specific directions that the trial court apply the proper legal standard in
examining whether the “financial burden of private enforcement . . . [is] such
as to make the award appropriate.” (§ 1021.5, subd. (b).) We express no view
on how the trial court should rule on that issue. Our reversal of the order

                                         3
awarding attorney fees shall remain in place unless the trial court
determines, on remand, that an attorney fee award is warranted. In such a
case, the trial court shall reinstate the order awarding attorney fees in the
original amount of $582,927 to the Charter School Corporate Entities, along
with any additional attorney fees reasonably incurred in this appeal or on
remand. (See Conservatorship of Whitley (2010) 50 Cal.4th 1206, 1226, fn. 5
(Whitley) [“[I]t is well established that the attorney fees for work necessary to
recover those fees, such as reasonable effort expended on the present appeal,
are to be included in the fee award.”].)
                                           I.
              FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
      Much of the relevant factual and procedural background is set forth in

Grossmont 2021.2 (Grossmont 2021, supra, D076221.) In presenting the
background pertinent to this appeal, we will summarize or quote from
selected portions of Grossmont 2021. As we did in Grossmont 2021, we begin
with an overview of the applicable law governing charter schools in
California.
A.    The Charter Schools Act
      The operation of charter schools in California is governed by the
Charter Schools Act of 1992 (Ed. Code, § 47600 et seq.) (Charter Schools Act).
In 2002, the Charter Schools Act was amended to add stringent geographic
restrictions for the operation of charter schools. (See Ed. Code, §§ 47605,
subd. (a)(1), 47605.1; Stats. 2002, ch. 1058, §§ 6, 7; see also California School
Bds. Assn. v. State Bd. of Education (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 1298 (California

2    On November 14, 2022, Grossmont Union and SDUSD filed an
unopposed request that we take judicial notice of the appellate record filed in
connection with the appeal that we decided in Grossmont 2021. We grant the
request.
                                           4
School Bds. Assn.) [summarizing the statutory framework applicable to
public charter schools].)
      As we explained in Grossmont 2021, during the period when this case
was litigated, the Charter Schools Act set forth several exceptions to the
general rule that a charter school must locate within the geographic
boundaries of the school district that approves its charter. (Grossmont 2021,
supra, D076221.) Specifically, Grossmont 2021 identified two relevant
exceptions. The first exception applied, in general, when a charter school was
unable to locate within the geographic boundaries of the chartering school
district. (Former § 47605.1, subd. (d); Stats. 2016, ch. 186, § 46.) In
Grossmont 2021, we referred to that provision as “the Unable-to-Locate
exception.” (Grossmont 2021, supra, D076221.) Second, the Charter Schools
Act’s geographic limitations “do not apply to a charter school that provides
instruction exclusively in partnership with” the federal Workforce Innovation
and Opportunity Act (29 U.S.C. § 3101 et seq.) or certain other federal and
state programs that are not relevant here. (Former § 47605.1, subd. (g), now
codified as § 47605.1, subd. (f).) In Grossmont 2021, we referred to that
provision as “the WIOA exception.” (Grossmont 2021, supra, D076221.)
B.    The Initial Phase of the Underlying Litigation, in Which the Trial Court
      Enters Judgment in Favor of Grossmont Union and SDUSD but Stays
      the Issuance of Writs of Mandate
      In 2015, Grossmont Union filed a lawsuit against several entities,
alleging that Diego Plus violated the Charter Schools Act by operating Diego
Valley Public Charter and Diego Hills Public Charter School within
Grossmont Union’s geographic boundaries. (Grossmont 2021, supra,
D076221.) The charter of Diego Valley Public Charter was approved by
Julian Union, and the charter of Diego Hills Public Charter School was
approved by Dehesa. Grossmont Union sought a writ of mandate and

                                        5
declaratory and injunctive relief against Diego Plus and the school districts
that approved the schools’ charters. (Ibid.)
      SDUSD filed a complaint in intervention in the litigation initiated by
Grossmont Union. (Grossmont 2021, supra, D076221.) SDUSD sought a writ
of mandate and declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging that Diego Plus
also operated Diego Hills Public Charter School within the geographic
boundaries of SDUSD in violation of the Charter Schools Act. (Grossmont
2021, supra, D076221.)
      While the litigation was pending, Anderson Union High School Dist. v.
Shasta Secondary Home School (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 262 (Anderson) was
issued, resolving a dispute concerning the Charter Schools Act’s geographic
restrictions. (Grossmont 2021, supra, D076221.) Anderson held that even if
a charter school operates through resource centers rather than through
classroom-based instruction (as was the case with respect to the Diego Plus’s
charter schools at issue in this litigation), the school’s operations must be
restricted to the boundaries of the chartering school district unless the school
falls into one of the statutory exemptions that allow a charter school to
operate outside the geographic boundaries of the chartering school district,
such as the Unable-to-Locate exception (former § 47605.1, subd. (d)) and the
WIOA exception (§ 47605.1, subd. (f)). (Anderson, at pp. 275-277, 283.)
      Following the Anderson opinion, the trial court granted the petition for
writ of mandate filed by Grossmont Union, concluding that the charter of
Diego Valley Public Charter must be revoked for failure to comply with the
geographic restrictions in the Charter Schools Act. (Grossmont 2021, supra,
D076221.) Before judgment was entered, the State Board of Education
granted a temporary waiver that allowed Diego Valley Public Charter to
operate until June 30, 2018. (Ibid.) In light of that waiver, on August 2,

                                        6
2017, the trial court entered judgment in favor of Grossmont Union, but
stayed the issuance of the writ of mandate. (Ibid.) The judgment stated that
the writ of mandate compelling Julian Union to revoke the charter of Diego
Valley Public Charter would be stayed during the period of the waiver
granted by the State Board of Education, and that “the writ will be issued
and become effective only if Diego Valley Public Charter continues to operate
resource centers in violation of the Education Code upon the expiration of the
waiver.” (Ibid.)
      Because SDUSD’s petition for writ of mandate presented the same
issues as Grossmont Union’s petition, and because the State Board of
Education had also granted a waiver to Diego Hills Public Charter School,
allowing it to operate until June 30, 2018, the parties stipulated that the trial
court would enter judgment in favor of SDUSD with respect to Diego Hills
Public Charter School based on the terms of Grossmont Union’s judgment.
(Grossmont 2021, supra, D076221.) Specifically, the judgment in favor of
SDUSD stated that a writ compelling Dehesa to revoke the charter of Diego
Hills Public Charter School would “be issued and become effective only if
Diego Hills [Public Charter School] continues to operate resource centers in
violation of the Education Code upon the expiration of the waiver.” (Ibid.)
      The trial court subsequently awarded attorney fees to Grossmont as a
successful party pursuant to section 1021.5. Among other things, the trial
court stated that an award of attorney fees under section 1021.5 was
warranted because the litigation “implicated the constitutional right to an
education” and its outcome impacted public school students.

                                        7
C.    Grossmont Union and SDUSD File Postjudgment Motions Requesting
      That the Trial Court Lift the Stay on the Issuance of the Writs of
      Mandate and That It Grant Relief Regarding Different Charter Schools
      In response to the Anderson opinion, Diego Plus decided to close down
both Diego Valley Public Charter and Diego Hills Public Charter School in
2018. (Grossmont 2021, supra, D076221.) However, Diego Plus implemented
a plan to continue certain charter school operations within the geographic
boundaries of Grossmont Union and SDUSD by creating two new charter
schools under the Unable-to-Locate exception: (1) Diego Valley East, whose
charter was approved by Julian Union; and (2) Diego Hills Central, whose
charter was approved by Dehesa. (Ibid.) Both Diego Valley East and Diego
Hills Central commenced operations and enrolled students. (Ibid.)
      In addition, after Diego Valley Public Charter and Diego Hills Public
Charter School closed, the facilities at two of the locations within the
geographic boundaries of Grossmont Union that were formerly used by the
now-closed schools were transitioned to use by another charter school, San
Diego Workforce Innovation High School (SDWIHS). (Grossmont 2021,
supra, D076221.) SDWIHS was operated by one of the Charter School
Corporate Entities—Western Educational—and its charter petition was
originally approved by the Borrego Springs Unified School District (Borrego
Springs Unified), effective July 1, 2016. (Ibid.)
      In June 2017, Borrego Springs Unified approved a revision to
SDWIHS’s charter, which added additional locations where the school would
operate resource centers. (Grossmont 2021, supra, D076221.) Within the
geographic boundaries of Grossmont Union, those new locations included
facilities where Diego Valley Public Charter and Diego Hills Public Charter
School had previously operated resource centers. (Ibid.) The revised charter
petition also listed a location within the geographic boundaries of SDUSD.

                                        8
(Ibid.) According to SDWIHS’s revised charter petition, it relied on the
WIOA exception (§ 47605.1, subd. (f)) to operate resource centers outside the
geographic boundaries of Borrego Springs Unified. (Grossmont 2021, supra,
D076221.)
      In December 2018, Grossmont Union filed a motion requesting that the
trial court lift its stay on the writ of mandate ordered in the 2017 judgment.
(Grossmont 2021, supra, D076221.) Grossmont Union argued that the
conditions to lift the stay had been satisfied, “as the [State Board of
Education] waivers have expired and Julian Union and Diego Plus continue
to operate out-of-district charter schools in violation of the [Charter Schools
Act].” (Ibid.) Grossmont Union argued that the stay should be lifted and a
writ of mandate should issue because “[d]efendants feigned compliance with
the Court’s decision and the [Charter Schools Act] by incorporating the same
students and the same illegal facilities under two ‘new’ charter schools
operated and overseen by the same persons while claiming to qualify for the
same statutory exceptions already rejected by this Court—perpetuating the
same illegal program.” (Ibid.) Further, Grossmont Union contended that
Diego Valley East was operating in violation of the Charter Schools Act
because it did not qualify for the Unable-to-Locate exception. (Grossmont
2021, supra, D076221.)
      Grossmont Union’s motion also challenged SDWIHS’s newly added
resource centers in Lakeside and Lemon Grove, operated by Western
Educational. (Grossmont 2021, supra, D076221.) Grossmont Union argued
that it was entitled to a “permanent injunction prohibiting . . . SDWIHS from
operating within [Grossmont Union’s] boundaries” because it allegedly did
not qualify for the WIOA exception, and because “[b]y sweeping the same

                                        9
illegal facilities and WIOA ineligible students into a new charter, Diego Plus
merely exchanged one illegal charter school for another.” (Ibid.)
      Although neither Western Educational nor Borrego Springs Unified
(the school district that chartered SDWIHS) were parties to the 2017
judgment, Grossmont Union argued that it was still entitled to an injunction
in the context of its lawsuit against Diego Plus and Julian Union because
“SDWIHS is controlled by the same people and organization” that controlled
Diego Valley Public Charter and Diego Hills Public Charter School.
(Grossmont 2021, supra, D076221.) To support this allegation, Grossmont
Union explained that “Diego Plus is one branch of a large group of related
corporations operating charter schools throughout the State and all
controlled by the Lifelong Learning Administration Corporation . . . under the
Learn4Life trade name,” and that Western Educational was part of that
group. (Ibid.) According to Grossmont Union, “Learn4Life/Lifelong Learning
have used their charter schools as an elaborate shell game, shifting students
from schools subject to lawsuits . . . to other Learn4Life schools to avoid
compliance with the [Charter Schools Act’s] location requirements.” (Ibid.)
D.    The Trial Court Grants the Postjudgment Motions
      On May 31, June 3, and June 7, 2019, the trial court held a hearing on
Grossmont Union’s postjudgment motion. (Grossmont 2021, supra,
D076221.) The hearing included the presentation of witness testimony over
the course of two days. (Ibid.) The testimony focused on Grossmont Union’s
contention that Western Educational (which operated SDWIHS) and Diego
Plus were alter egos of each other, and that both of those corporations
belonged to a commonly controlled group composed of the Charter School
Corporate Entities, which also included Lifelong Learning and EAC. (Ibid.)

                                       10
      In a June 28, 2019 written order following the hearing, the trial court
granted Grossmont’s motion. (Grossmont 2021, supra, D076221.) First
addressing the alter ego allegations, the trial court found “that the evidence
submitted by [Grossmont Union] more than sufficiently establishes that the
previously unnamed Respondents (EAC, [Lifelong Learning], [Western
Educational], and SDWIHS) are the alter egos of Diego Plus and that they
fully participated in and controlled the underlying litigation against Diego
Plus.” (Ibid.) The trial court stated, “Learn4Life is more than a trademark:
It is, in fact, a single entity operating all of the charter schools at issue in
these proceedings.” (Ibid.)
      Next, the trial court addressed whether the issuance of a writ of
mandate as to Diego Valley East was warranted. (Grossmont 2021, supra,
D076221.) The trial court ruled that Diego Valley East was not a new
charter school, but rather an “old charter school” with a “different name[ ].”
(Ibid.) It explained that because Diego Valley Public Charter could not have
availed itself of the Unable-to-Locate exception, Diego Valley East also could
not do so and was therefore operating in violation of the Charter Schools Act
and the court’s 2017 judgment. (Grossmont 2021, supra, D076221.)
      Finally, the trial court addressed whether relief was warranted as to
SDWIHS. (Grossmont 2021, supra, D076221.) The trial court determined
that Western Educational “dba SDWIHS” was not a new charter school but
was the alter ego of Diego Plus. (Ibid.) The trial court stated that there was
no evidence that SDWIHS’s program was different from Diego Valley Public
Charter’s former program or that it otherwise qualified for an exception to
the Charter Schools Act’s geographic restrictions. (Ibid.) Accordingly, the
trial court concluded that SDWIHS was operating in violation of the Charter

                                         11
Schools Act and the court’s 2017 judgment. (Grossmont 2021, supra,
D076221.)
      The trial court ordered the following remedy:
         “(1) The stay of this court’s 2017 statement of decision,
         writ, and judgment is hereby lifted.

         “(2) This court hereby amends its prior writ of mandate to
         direct Julian [Union] to immediately revoke the charter of
         Diego Valley East. . . . The court further directs the Clerk
         of the Court to issue under seal of this court a writ of
         mandate in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A.

         “(3) The Court hereby issues a permanent injunction
         against Diego Plus precluding Diego Plus from operating
         charter school facilities within [Grossmont Union’s] school
         district boundaries, either directly, or indirectly through
         any of Diego Plus’s related Learn4Life charter school
         entities that presently exist or may be formed in the future
         for the purpose of operating charter schools, including but
         not limited to EAC, [Lifelong Learning], [Western
         Educational] and SDWIHS. This injunction shall remain in
         effect until further order from this Court.” (Grossmont
         2021, supra, D076221.)

      On June 28, 2019, the clerk of the court issued a writ of mandate,
commanding Julian Union to immediately revoke the charter of Diego Valley
East. (Grossmont 2021, supra, D076221.)
      SDUSD filed a motion seeking similar relief, which would prevent
Diego Hills Central and SDWIHS from operating within the geographic
boundaries of SDUSD. (Grossmont 2021, supra, D076221.) Specifically,
SDUSD sought to lift the stay of the 2017 judgment and to obtain (1) a writ of
mandate directing Dehesa to revoke the charter of Diego Hills Central; and
(2) an order permanently enjoining the Charter School Corporate Entities
from operating charter school facilities, including SDWIHS, within the

                                       12
geographic boundaries of SDUSD. (Ibid.) At the hearing on the motion, the
trial court expressed the view that the Unable-to-Locate exception was
“legally unavailable” to Diego Hills Central because it was only “pretending”
to be a new school, but in fact was the same school as Diego Hills Public
Charter School, which indisputably did not meet the requirements for the
exception. (Ibid.)
      On August 5, 2019, the trial court issued an order granting SDUSD’s
motion. (Grossmont 2021, supra, D076221.) The order stated,
           “(1) The Court hereby lifts any remaining stay on the
           issuance of its writ of mandate . . . .

           “(2) The Court amends its previous order and hereby issues
           a writ of mandate to direct [Dehesa] to revoke the charter
           of [Diego Hills Central] and further issues a permanent
           injunction to preclude Diego Plus from operating any
           charter school facilities within [SDUSD’s] boundaries,
           either directly or through any of Diego Plus’ related
           Learn4Life charter school entities, including but not
           limited to [Western Educational] and [SDWIHS]. This
           injunction shall remain in effect until further order from
           this Court.” (Ibid.)

      After Grossmont Union and SDUSD prevailed on their postjudgment
motions, the trial court awarded attorney fees to them pursuant to section

1021.5.3
E.    In Grossmont 2021, the Charter School Corporate Entities Prevail on
      Appeal in Defeating the Postjudgment Motions
      In Grossmont 2021, we reversed the trial court’s orders granting
Grossmont Union’s and SDUSD’s postjudgment motions, and we ordered the
trial court to direct the clerk of the court to withdraw any writ of mandate

3     The trial court subsequently vacated those awards after Grossmont
2021 reversed the orders granting the postjudgment motions.
                                       13
that issued as a result of its June 28, 2019 and August 5, 2019 orders.
(Grossmont 2021, supra, D076221.)
      With respect to the lifting of the 2017 stays, we observed that the stays
could be lifted only if Diego Valley Public Charter and Diego Hills Public
Charter School continued to operate resource centers in violation of the
Charter Schools Act. However, as we explained, those schools were no longer
in operation, and there were important differences between the newly
chartered schools and the now-closed schools. (Grossmont 2021, supra,
D076221.) We stated that “the new schools are distinct entities from the
now-closed schools because they came into existence due to different charters,
and because there are undisputed differences in their operations.” (Ibid.)
Moreover, we noted that even if the new schools were treated as
interchangeable with the now-closed schools, the new schools did not operate
in violation of the Charter Schools Act because they fell under the Unable-to-
Locate exception. (Grossmont 2021, supra, D076221.) Specifically, “[t]he
Unable-to-Locate exception has specific requirements that were set forth in
the Charter Schools Act. (Former § 47605.1, subd. (d).) All of the evidence
indicates that Diego Valley East and Diego Hills Central met those
requirements.” (Ibid.) Among other things, we explained that “nothing in
the Charter Schools Act prohibits a charter school operator from closing a
school and then opening a new school, at the same location, under the
procedures outlined in the statute for the Unable-to-Locate exception.” (Ibid.)
      With respect to the permanent injunctions preventing the Charter
School Corporate Entities from operating any charter school facility within
the boundaries of Grossmont Union or SDUSD (including SDWIHS), we
reversed them because (1) the stay should not have been lifted, preventing
the issuance of any additional relief; and (2) in any event, the injunctions

                                       14
“were not necessary to enforce the writs of mandate, and they added
additional substantive relief not ordered in the 2017 judgments.” (Grossmont
2021, supra, D076221.)
F.    The Trial Court Awards Attorney Fees to the Charter School Corporate
      Entities Pursuant to Section 1021.5
      After remand, the Charter School Corporate Entities filed a motion in
the trial court seeking an award, pursuant to section 1021.5, of the attorney
fees they incurred, both in the trial court and on appeal, in opposing
Grossmont Union’s and SDUSD’s postjudgment motions. In opposition,
Grossmont Union and SDUSD argued that the requirements for a fee award
under section 1021.5 were not met, and that the fees sought by the Charter
School Corporate Entities were not in a reasonable amount.
      The trial court granted the motion, concluding in a minute order that
the requirements for an award under section 1021.5 were present. Among
other things, the trial court determined that “[c]ompliance with the [Charter
Schools Act] is an important right affecting countless students and school
districts, and the harm prevented to [the Charter School Corporate Entities]
resulted in a significant benefit to these students who were not prevented
from attending the charter schools.” After receiving additional briefing
regarding the reasonableness of the $718,232.50 in fees sought by the
Charter School Corporate Entities, the trial court ordered Grossmont Union
and SDUSD to pay $582,927 in fees to the Charter School Corporate Entities.
      Grossmont Union and SDUSD appeal from the trial court’s award of
attorney fees to the Charter School Corporate Entities. They contend both
that (1) the requirements for a fee award under section 1021.5 are not
present, and (2) the amount of the fees awarded by the trial court was
unreasonably high.

                                      15
                                        II.
                                  DISCUSSION
A.    The Challenge to the Trial Court’s Decision That an Award of Fees Was
      Warranted Under Section 1021.5
      We first consider whether, as Grossmont Union and SDUSD contend,
the trial court erred in ruling that the Charter School Corporate Entities are
entitled to attorney fees pursuant to section 1021.5.
      1.    Applicable Legal Standards
      “As a general rule, parties in litigation pay their own attorney’s fees.
[Citation.] Section 1021.5 is an exception to that rule. [Citation.] Derived
from the judicially crafted ‘private attorney general doctrine’ [citation],
section 1021.5 is aimed at encouraging litigants to pursue meritorious public
interest litigation vindicating important rights and benefitting a broad swath
of citizens, and it achieves this aim by compensating successful litigants with
an award of attorney’s fees.” (La Mirada Avenue Neighborhood Assn. of
Hollywood v. City of Los Angeles (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 1149, 1155-1156.)
      Section 1021.5 provides in relevant part: “Upon motion, a court may
award attorneys’ fees to a successful party against one or more opposing
parties in any action which has resulted in the enforcement of an important
right affecting the public interest if: (a) a significant benefit, whether
pecuniary or nonpecuniary, has been conferred on the general public or a
large class of persons, (b) the necessity and financial burden of private
enforcement, or of enforcement by one public entity against another public
entity, are such as to make the award appropriate, and (c) such fees should

not in the interest of justice be paid out of the recovery, if any.”4 (§ 1021.5.)

4     “The third factor of . . . section 1021.5 does not apply where, as here,
[an] action produces no monetary recovery.” (Weiss v. City of Los Angeles

                                        16
      “The threshold requirement for a fee award under section 1021.5 is
proof that the fee applicant is a ‘successful party.’ ” (Protect Our Water v.
County of Merced (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 488, 493 (Protect Our Water)
[quoting § 1021.5].) “ ‘The term “successful party,” as ordinarily understood,
means the party to litigation that achieves its objectives.’ [Citation.] The
term is not limited to plaintiffs, petitioners, or real parties in interest aligned
with plaintiffs or petitioners. [Citations.] Rather, the term is synonymous
with ‘prevailing party’ and theoretically may apply to any party to the
litigation—whether plaintiff, petitioner, defendant, respondent, or real party
in interest.” (Save Our Heritage Organisation v. City of San Diego (2017)
11 Cal.App.5th 154, 160 (Save Our Heritage).)
      Once that threshold requirement is met, “ ‘[i]n determining whether to
award attorney fees under section 1021.5 to the “successful party,” we apply a
three-prong test inquiring whether (1) the litigation resulted in the
enforcement of an important right affecting the public interest, (2) a

(2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 194, 218; see also Woodland Hills Residents Assn., Inc.
v. City Council (1979) 23 Cal.3d 917, 935 (Woodland Hills) [“Inasmuch as
plaintiffs’ action has produced no monetary recovery, factor ‘(c)’ of section
1021.5 is not applicable.”].) In their appellate briefing, Grossmont Union and
SDUSD contend that “[t]he final element one must establish to prove
entitlement to an award of private attorney general fees is that, in the
interests of justice, the fees are more properly borne by the public than by the
successful litigant.” To support this argument, they cite generally to section
1021.5 (but do not quote it), and to case law that discusses factor “(c)” of that
statute. (Collins v. City of Los Angeles (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 140, 157;
Rider v. County of San Diego (1992) 11 Cal.App.4th 1410, 1422.) We
therefore understand Grossmont Union and SDUSD to be arguing that an
“interest of justice” analysis should be undertaken based on factor “(c)” of
section 1021.5, which looks to whether “such fees should not in the interest of
justice be paid out of the recovery, if any.” (§ 1021.5.) However, because that
portion of section 1021.5 does not apply where, as here, there was no
monetary recovery (Weiss, at p. 218), the argument is misplaced.
                                        17
significant benefit has been conferred on the general public or a large class of
individuals, and (3) the necessity and financial burden of private enforcement
renders the award appropriate.’ ” (Save Our Heritage, supra, 11 Cal.App.5th
at p. 159; see also Serrano v. Stefan Merli Plastering Co., Inc. (2011)
52 Cal.4th 1018, 1026 [setting forth the three-pronged inquiry].)
      “ ‘Although the statute is phrased in permissive terms, a court’s
discretion to deny attorney’s fees to a party that meets the statutory
requirements of section 1021.5 is limited. [Citation.] Unless special
circumstances would render an award of section 1021.5 fees unjust, fees must
be awarded under the statute where the statutory criteria are met.’ ”
(Burgess v. Coronado Unified School Dist. (2020) 59 Cal.App.5th 1, 7; see also
Save Our Heritage, supra, 11 Cal.App.5th at pp. 160-161 [discussing the
circumstance in which a fee award would be unjust because “ ‘the party from
whom fees are sought “is not the type of party on whom private attorney
general fees were intended to be imposed” ’ ”].)
      2.    Standard of Review
      The parties disagree regarding the standard of review that we should
apply when reviewing the trial court’s ruling that an award of attorney fees is
warranted pursuant to section 1021.5. “Generally speaking, a trial court’s
decision whether to award attorney fees under section 1021.5 is reviewed for
abuse of discretion. [Citation.] However, ‘ “ ‘de novo review of such a trial
court order is warranted where the determination of whether the criteria for
an award of attorney fees and costs in this context have been satisfied
amounts to statutory construction and a question of law.’ ” ’ ” (City of

                                       18
Oakland v. Oakland Police & Fire Retirement System (2018) 29 Cal.App.5th

688, 698 (City of Oakland).)5
      Grossmont Union and SDUSD do not contend that any issue of
statutory construction or any other question of law is involved in their appeal
of the fee award. However, they argue that we should abandon the generally
applicable abuse of discretion standard of review in favor of a de novo
standard because Grossmont 2021 serves as the basis for the Charter School
Corporate Entities’ claim that they are entitled to an award of fees.
      Specifically, Grossmont Union and SDUSD rely on a line of cases
observing that when a previous appellate opinion serves as the basis for a
party’s contention that it is a successful party entitled to an award of fees
under section 1021.5, the appellate court is often in as good a position as the
trial court to determine whether the requirements of section 1021.5 are met.
(See, e.g., Environmental Protection Information Center v. Department of
Forestry & Fire Protection (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 217, 223, 228-230

5      When an abuse of discretion standard is appropriate, “ ‘ “[t]he pertinent
question is whether the grounds given by the court . . . are consistent with
the substantive law of . . . section 1021.5 and, if so, whether their application
to the facts of this case is within the range of discretion conferred upon the
trial courts under section 1021.5, read in light of the purposes and policy of
the statute.” ’ ” (City of Oakland, supra, 29 Cal.App.5th at p. 698.)
“ ‘[D]iscretion may not be exercised whimsically and, accordingly, reversal is
appropriate “where no reasonable basis for the action is shown.” ’ ” (Baggett
v. Gates (1982) 32 Cal.3d 128, 143 (Baggett).) Further, “[a]n abuse of
discretion occurs when the exercise of discretion is predicated upon factual
findings that are not supported by substantial evidence.” (Indio Police
Command Unit Assn. v. City of Indio (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 521, 541.)

                                       19
(Environmental Protection Information Center).)6 Indeed, our colleagues in
the Second District have gone so far as to hold that when an appellate court’s
previous published opinion is the basis for a fee award under section 1021.5,
the appellate court should apply a de novo standard of review on an appeal
from the fee award. (Wilson v. San Luis Obispo County Democratic Central
Com. (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 918, 924 (Wilson) [“where, as here, our
published opinion provides the basis upon which attorney fees are sought, de
novo or independent review is appropriate because we are in at least as good
a position as the trial court to determine whether section 1021.5 fees should
be awarded”]; Samantha C. v. State Dept. of Developmental Services (2012)
207 Cal.App.4th 71, 78 [quoting and following Wilson in applying a de novo
standard of review]; Mounger v. Gates (1987) 193 Cal.App.3d 1248, 1258 [“the
appellate court does not have to defer totally to the trial court’s resolution of
the four elements of the standard in section 1021.5 when the legal work
resulted in a published appellate court opinion.”].) However, as we will

6      Grossmont Union and SDUSD place great reliance on Environmental
Protection Information Center because it observes that an appellate court
that has issued an opinion on the merits may be better positioned than the
trial court to determine whether “ ‘its own opinion is “important” and
“protects the public interest” and whether the existence of that opinion
confers a “significant benefit on the general public or a large class of
persons.” ’ ” (Environmental Protection Information Center, supra,
190 Cal.App.4th at p. 229.) However, that observation was not made in
discussing the relevant standard of review. Instead, the appellate court
made the comments in explaining that, prior to remanding an appeal of an
attorney fee award to the trial court to reconsider the award in light of an
intervening California Supreme Court opinion on the underlying merits, it
would decide, in the first instance, certain issues that would be relevant, on
remand, to the trial court’s renewed examination of the fee award. (Id. at
pp. 223, 228-230.)
                                        20
explain, we are not persuaded by the Second District’s case law that de novo
review is appropriate here.
      For one thing, the rule of de novo review described by the Second
District applies to cases in which there has been a previous published
opinion. (See, e.g., Wilson, supra, 192 Cal.App.4th at p. 924 [describing a
situation where a “published opinion provides the basis upon which attorney
fees are sought”].) Grossmont 2021 was not published.
      More importantly, however, even if Grossmont 2021 had been
published, we would not apply de novo review because our Supreme Court
has made clear that awarding attorney fees involves the application of
“ ‘traditional equitable discretion’ ” by the trial court, followed by only limited
appellate review. (Baggett, supra, 32 Cal.3d at p. 142). Specifically, as our
Supreme Court has explained, “[t]he decision as to whether an award of
attorney fees is warranted rests initially with the trial court. [Citation.]
‘[U]tilizing its traditional equitable discretion,’ that court ‘must realistically
assess the litigation and determine, from a practical perspective’ [citation]
whether or not the statutory criteria have been met.” (Ibid.) In that specific
context, where the “trial court has discretionary power to decide an issue, its
decision will be reversed only if there has been a prejudicial abuse of
discretion.” (Id. at pp. 142-143, italics added.) Accordingly, when the trial
court makes a decision to award attorney fees using its traditional equitable
discretion, it is not our role to reweigh the equities. Our task on appeal is
limited to conducting a review for abuse of discretion.
      Moreover, it would create needless judicial inefficiency if we were to
apply de novo review in any case where the trial court awards attorney fees
pursuant to section 1021.5 after an appellate court opinion resolves the
litigation. Our Supreme Court has held that an appellate court may choose,

                                        21
in the first instance, to award attorney fees pursuant to section 1021.5 as part
of an opinion in favor of the party seeking the fee award. (Laurel Heights
Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d
376, 427.) But the appellate court’s role in awarding attorney fees in the first
instance, if it chooses to do so, is different from the role the appellate court
undertakes in reviewing a trial court’s exercise of its discretion to award fees.
The rule set forth in Laurel Heights works in the interest of judicial
efficiency, allowing an appellate court—in an appropriate case—to award
attorney fees under section 1021.5 after a successful appeal, without ever
involving the trial court. The de novo review advocated by Grossmont Union
and SDUSD, in contrast, would work against the interest of judicial efficiency
because any losing party in a motion for attorney fees in the trial court would
have an incentive to appeal to obtain a fresh look at the motion by the
appellate court. As a result, both the trial court and the appellate court
would be required to engage in the duplicative effort of undertaking a full-
scale equitable inquiry into the advisability of awarding attorney fees
pursuant to section 1021.5.
      We recognize that, in certain circumstances, the fact that we issued the
appellate opinion that resolved the litigation will give us a better
understanding of whether the trial court abused its discretion. This is
especially true with respect to certain of the required elements for an award
under section 1021.5. Specifically, as case law has observed, an appellate
court that has previously issued an opinion in the matter may be in an
especially favorable position to evaluate whether the fee applicant is a
“successful party” (Protect Our Water, supra, 130 Cal.App.4th at p. 494), or
whether the “earlier opinion vindicated an important right affecting the
public interest and yielded a significant benefit.” (Schmier v. Supreme Court

                                        22
(2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 873, 880; see also Bouvia v. County of Los Angeles
(1987) 195 Cal.App.3d 1075, 1083, fn. 7; City of Oakland, supra,
29 Cal.App.5th at p. 709; Robles v. Employment Development Dept. (2019)
38 Cal.App.5th 191, 203 (Robles); McCormick v. Public Employees’ Retirement
System (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 996, 1005.) One opinion suggests that on these
issues, “when an appellate court spots a questionable estimate or a faulty
calculation it need not shrink from the task of correcting this element of the
equation and reassessing whether that change alters the ultimate result.”
(Los Angeles Police Protective League v. City of Los Angeles (1986)
188 Cal.App.3d 1, 11.) Nevertheless, the ultimate standard of review must
remain an abuse of discretion standard. The issue before us is whether the
trial court had “no reasonable basis” for its ruling (Baggett, supra, 32 Cal.3d
at p. 143), not whether we would have reached the same decision as the trial
court in the first instance.
      3.    The Charter School Corporate Entities Were Successful Parties
      Turning to the substantive requirements for an award of attorney fees
pursuant to section 1021.5, we first examine the threshold issue of whether
the trial court abused its discretion in determining that the Charter School
Corporate Entities were successful parties in opposing the postjudgment
motions brought by Grossmont Union and SDUSD. (Protect Our Water,

supra, 130 Cal.App.4th at p. 493.)7 “The ‘successful party’ under section

7      Although Grossmont Union and SDUSD argued to the trial court that
the Charter School Corporate Entities were not successful parties, they
appear to have conceded the issue in their opening appellate brief.
Specifically, the opening appellate brief states that “[the Charter School
Corporate Entities] were ‘successful parties’ to the extent this Court reversed
the trial court’s order enforcing its prior writ against them.” We note that the
introduction to Grossmont Union and SDUSD’s appellate reply brief seems to

                                       23
1021.5 is ‘the party to litigation that achieves its objectives.’ ” (Friends of
Spring Street v. Nevada City (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 1092, 1108.) “When a
court considers whether a party was successful in the litigation, the critical
inquiry is the impact of the action, not the way in which the action was
resolved.” (Vosburg v. County of Fresno (2020) 54 Cal.App.5th 439, 463.) And
when the party seeking attorney fees is a successful defendant, “the
evaluation of success is based on a pragmatic assessment of the harm
prevented . . . .” (Ibid.)
      Here, the trial court reasonably concluded that the Charter School
Corporate Entities were successful parties, as they ultimately prevailed in
defending against Grossmont Union’s and SDUSD’s postjudgment motions.
By doing so, they avoided a court order requiring the closure of Diego Valley
East, Diego Hills Central and some of SDWIHS’s locations, and they defeated
an injunction that would have permanently prevented them from operating
any future charter school facility with the geographic boundaries of
Grossmont Union and SDUSD.

retract that concession, stating that “the trial court erred as a matter of law
in deeming [the Charter School Corporate Entities] to be the ‘prevailing
parties’ under . . . [s]ection 1021.5 . . . .” However, the remainder of the reply
brief does not develop that argument. The argument that the Charter School
Corporate Entities were not successful parties is forfeited because it is not
developed and because it was not raised in the opening appellate brief.
(People v. Rangel (2016) 62 Cal.4th 1192, 1218 (Rangel) [arguments were
forfeited when raised for the first time in a reply brief]; Delta Stewardship
Council Cases (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 1014, 1075 [a point is treated as
forfeited when a party “fails to support it with reasoned argument and
citations to authority”].) Nevertheless, as it is a threshold requirement for
the applicability of section 1021.5, we will exercise our discretion to address
whether the Charter School Corporate Entities were successful parties.
                                        24
      4.    The Litigation Resulted in an Important Right Affecting the
            Public Interest
      Having established the threshold requirement that the Charter School
Corporate Entities were successful parties, the first part of the three-prong
inquiry is whether “the litigation resulted in the enforcement of an important
right affecting the public interest.” (Save Our Heritage, supra,
11 Cal.App.5th at p. 159.) The “important public right” can have any legal
source, “constitutional, statutory or other.” (Woodland Hills, supra,
23 Cal.3d at p. 925.) “When determining whether a litigant has vindicated an
important right affecting the public interest, ‘[t]he “judiciary [must] exercise
judgment in attempting to ascertain the ‘strength’ or ‘societal importance’ of
the right involved.” [Citation.] “The strength or societal importance of a
particular right generally is determined by realistically assessing the
significance of that right in terms of its relationship to the achievement of
fundamental legislative goals.” ’ ” (City of Oakland, supra, 29 Cal.App.5th at
p. 710.) “Regarding the nature of the public right, it must be important and
cannot involve trivial or peripheral public policies.” (Ryan v. California
Interscholastic Federation (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 1033, 1044.)
      Here, the important public right at issue derives from the Charter
Schools Act. “California’s Constitution guarantees a free public education,
established through ‘a system of common schools.’ (Cal. Const., art. IX, § 5.)
Charter schools are part of this public system of common schools (Ed. Code,
§§ 47601, 47615, subd. (a)(1)), but are ‘strictly creatures of statute.’ ”
(Sweetwater Union High School Dist. v. Julian Union Elementary School
Dist. (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 970, 989 (Sweetwater Union).) “The [Charter
Schools Act] was adopted to widen the range of educational choices available
within the public school system.” (Wells v. One2One Learning Foundation
(2006) 39 Cal.4th 1164, 1202.) “The Legislature intended its authorization of

                                        25
charter schools to improve public education by promoting innovation, choice,
accountability, and competition.” (Today’s Fresh Start, Inc. v. Los Angeles
County Office of Education (2013) 57 Cal.4th 197, 205-206 (Today’s Fresh
Start).) “Though independently operated, charter schools fiscally are part of
the public school system; they are eligible equally with other public schools
for a share of state and local education funding.” (Id. at 206.) It is therefore
no surprise that case law holds “[t]he chartering of a school and the charter
school’s compliance with the law, the regulations, and the conditions imposed
on its charter can be matters of serious concern to the public and to our
public school system.” (California School Bds. Assn., supra, 186 Cal.App.4th
at p. 1326 [allowing an action in mandamus to compel revocation of a
charter].)
      In Sweetwater Union, we directly addressed whether an action
concerning compliance with the Charter Schools Act’s geographic restrictions
“enforced an important right affecting the public interest” to support an
award of attorney fees under section 1021.5. (Sweetwater Union, supra,
36 Cal.App.5th at p. 990.) We concluded that the trial court did not abuse its
discretion in awarding fees to a school district that successfully challenged a
charter school’s compliance with those restrictions. We explained that
“requiring compliance with the geographic boundary requirements of the
[Charter Schools Act] enforced an important right affecting the public
interest.” (Ibid.)
      As in Sweetwater Union, supra, 36 Cal.App.5th 970, this action
(including the postjudgment motions brought by Grossmont Union and
SDUSD) involved the question of compliance with the geographic restrictions
in the Charter Schools Act. Specifically, in their postjudgment motions,
Grossmont Union and SDUSD sought to revoke the charter of Diego Valley

                                       26
East and Diego Hills Central, and to enjoin the operation of some of
SDWIHS’s locations, based on the contention that they were operating in
violation of those geographic restrictions. In Grossmont 2021, we rejected
that contention, ruling that we saw no indication that those schools were
operating in violation of the Charter Schools Act. (Grossmont 2021, supra,
D076221.) Thus, in successfully defending against Grossmont Union’s and
SDUSD’s postjudgment motions, the Charter School Corporate Entities
advanced the important right of charter schools to continue operating within
the legal strictures of the Charter Schools Act and to continue providing
educational services to the public. Although the award of fees in Sweetwater
Union was based on a litigation victory for the challenging school district,
whereas the award of fees in the instant action was based on a litigation
victory in favor of the charter schools, the distinction is not significant to our
analysis. Whether based on a finding of compliance or a finding of
noncompliance with the geographic restrictions in the Charter Schools Act,
both litigation outcomes involved an important right affecting the public
interest because they impacted the right of specific charter schools to
continue providing educational services to students as part of California’s
public education system.
      Grossmont Union and SDUSD seize upon the statement in the
introductory section of Grossmont 2021 that the issue we would address was
“procedural and limited” even though it “play[ed] out in the context of an
extended and complex policy dispute about the proper role of charter schools
in the fabric of California’s public education system.” (Grossmont 2021,
supra, D076221.) Grossmont Union and SDUSD contend that if Grossmont
2021 was decided on limited procedural grounds and did not concern the
interpretation of the Charter Schools Act, the Charter School Corporate

                                        27
Entities did not enforce any important right affecting the public interest
when they prevailed on appeal. We reject the argument.
      Grossmont Union and SDUSD read too much into our statement. In
Grossmont 2021, we emphasized the limited and procedural nature of the
issues presented to emphasize that we would not be opining on any
contentious public policy issues surrounding charter schools, which is a
subject for the Legislature in the first instance. However, it was not our
intention to signal that the resolution of the dispute before us was lacking in
public significance or that we would not be addressing the application of the
Charter Schools Act. Indeed, as we have explained, Grossmont 2021 did
address whether the challenged charter schools were operating in violation of
the Charter Schools Act and thus did address substantive issues that were
not merely procedural.
      Moreover, even were it accurate to describe the Charter School
Corporate Entities as having prevailed solely on limited procedural grounds
in Grossmont 2021, that fact would not be dispositive of whether an
important right affecting the public interest was at issue. Our Supreme
Court has rejected the distinction between a procedural victory and a
substantive victory in the context of an attorney fee award. As we explained
in Sweetwater Union, “[i]n Woodland Hills, the plaintiffs prevailed on a
procedural rather than substantive basis and sought attorney fees under
section 1021.5. (Woodland Hills, supra, 23 Cal.3d at p. 937.) The Supreme
Court rejected defendant’s contention that complying with a technical
requirement ‘does not rise to the level of an “important right” for purposes of
section 1021.5.’ (Ibid.) . . . The court explained that ‘it would be both unfair
and contrary to the legislative purpose of section 1021.5 to deprive a plaintiff
of attorney fees simply because the court decides the case in plaintiff’s favor

                                        28
on a “simpler” or less “important” theory.’ ([Id. at p. 938].) Rather, when a
plaintiff prevails on a preliminary issue, a ‘trial court, utilizing its traditional
equitable discretion (now codified in § 1021.5), must realistically assess the
litigation and determine, from a practical perspective, whether or not the
action served to vindicate an important right so as to justify an attorney fee
award.’ (Ibid.)” (Sweetwater Union, supra, 36 Cal.App.5th at p. 988.) Here,
from a practical perspective, the trial court could reasonably conclude that by
prevailing against Grossmont Union’s and SDUSD’s attempts to force Diego
Valley East, Diego Hills Central, and certain locations of SDWIHS to cease
operations, the Charter School Corporate Entities enforced important public
rights concerning the system of public education that the Legislature
conferred upon the residents of California when it enacted the Charter

Schools Act.8 It would be reasonable for the trial court to conclude that by
vindicating the right of Diego Valley East, Diego Hills Central, and SDWIHS
to continue to operate, the Charter School Corporate Entities enforced the
Legislature’s intended policy of using charter schools “to improve public
education by promoting innovation, choice, accountability, and competition.”
(Today’s Fresh Start, supra, 57 Cal.4th at pp. 205-206.) In short, the victory
of the Charter School Corporate Entities was a victory for the right of the

8      Grossmont Union and SDUSD contend that the victory by the Charter
School Corporate Entities in preventing the closure of Diego Valley East,
Diego Hills Central, and the relevant SDWIHS locations will be short lived
because “when the time is right” they will bring “a new round of litigation
that joins the same issues.” The record contains no evidence of any such
litigation. On the contrary, the only evidence before us is that, as a result of
Grossmont 2021, Diego Valley East, Diego Hills Central, and the relevant
SDWIHS locations were allowed to continue to operate, and the Charter
School Corporate Entities were not enjoined from operating future charter
school facilities within the geographic boundaries of Grossmont Union and
SDUSD.
                                        29
schools at issue to operate where they are legally permitted to do so, and for
the members of the public served by those schools to continue to have the
school choice intended by the Legislature in enacting the Charter Schools
Act.
       5.    A Significant Benefit Has Been Conferred on the General Public
             or a Large Class of Individuals
       The second prong of the analysis is whether “ ‘a significant benefit has
been conferred on the general public or a large class of individuals.’ ” (Save
Our Heritage, supra, 11 Cal.App.5th at p. 159.) “ ‘ “[T]he ‘significant benefit’
that will justify an attorney fee award need not represent a ‘tangible’ asset or
a ‘concrete’ gain but, in some cases, may be recognized simply from the
effectuation of a fundamental constitutional or statutory policy.” [Citation.]
The benefit may be conceptual or doctrinal [citation], and the California
Supreme Court has recognized that “the litigation underlying the section
1021.5 award can involve rights or benefits that are somewhat intangible.” ’ ”
(Sweetwater Union, supra, 36 Cal.App.5th at p. 991.)
       In Sweetwater Union, we concluded that when a school district
successfully enforced the geographic restrictions of the Charter Schools Act,
the trial court was within its discretion to conclude that the school district
conferred a significant benefit on the general public. (Sweetwater Union,
supra, 36 Cal.App.5th at p. 991.) We stated, “[T]he trial court could have
reasonably concluded that [the school district’s] action advanced the public’s
interest in the lawful operation of charter schools and the Legislature’s
oversight objectives reflected in the [Charter Schools Act’s] location
requirements. Even more broadly, the trial court could have found that
through this action [the school district] has helped preserve the
constitutionality of charter schools within the public education system. The

                                       30
trial court could have reasonably concluded that advancement of these
objectives conferred a significant benefit on the general public.” (Ibid.)
      Here, as in Sweetwater Union, one significant benefit conferred by the
Charter School Corporate Entities’ success in defeating the postjudgment
motions is the advancement of “the public’s interest in the lawful operation of
charter schools.” (Sweetwater Union, supra, 36 Cal.App.5th at p. 991.) More
importantly, because the result was that Diego Valley East, Diego Hills
Central, and the relevant SDWIHS locations could continue to operate, the
Charter School Corporate Entities succeeded in conferring the significant
benefit of preserving expanded school choice for the residents in areas with
access to those schools. (Today’s Fresh Start, supra, 57 Cal.4th at
pp. 205-206 [the Legislature intended charter schools to “promot[e]
innovation, choice, accountability, and competition.”]; Ed. Code, § 47601,
subd. (e) [the intent of the Legislature in enacting the Charter Schools Act
included “[p]rovid[ing] parents and pupils with expanded choices in the types
of educational opportunities that are available within the public school
system.”].)
      Not only did the Charter School Corporate Entities confer the
significant benefit of preserving expanded school choice, that benefit was
conferred on a large number of individuals. For one thing, the Charter
School Corporate Entities’ success in this action positively impacted the
sizable number of specific individuals who already had a relationship with
Diego Valley East, Diego Hills Central, and the relevant SDWIHS locations.
The Charter School Corporate Entities explain that over 1,200 current
students would have been directly impacted if those schools were forced to
close. The closure would therefore impact thousands of people, comprising
those students, their families, and any other students who might have been

                                       31
interested in attending Diego Valley East, Diego Hills Central, and the
relevant SDWIHS locations in the future. (See Graham v. DaimlerChrysler
Corp. (2004) 34 Cal.4th 553, 578 [a lawsuit conferred a significant benefit on
the general public or a large class of individuals when it “benefited thousands
of consumers and potentially thousands more by acting as a deterrent to
discourage lax responses to known safety hazards” (italics added)].) In
addition, the trial court’s injunction prevented the Charter School Corporate
Entities from operating any other future charter school facilities within the
boundaries of Grossmont Union and SDUSD. By obtaining a reversal of that
injunction, the Charter School Corporate Entities conferred a benefit on an
undetermined number of additional students who might have wanted to
attend potential future charter schools covered by the trial court’s injunction.
      Grossmont Union and SDUSD argue that the Charter School Corporate
Entities’ success in Grossmont 2021 did not “serve a significant public
interest” because Grossmont 2021 “had no precedential value at the time”
and “had no significance to any other entity in the state” other than the
Charter School Corporate Entities. Specifically, they refer to the fact that,
effective January 2020, the Legislature eliminated the Unable-to-Locate
exception in Education Code section 47605.1 (Stats. 2019, ch. 487, § 2), while
providing a grandfather clause for preexisting charter schools to continue to
operate until required to renew their charters. (Ed. Code, § 47605, subd.
(a)(5)(A).) It is unclear whether, in making this argument, Grossmont Union
and SDUSD intend to address the first prong or the second prong of the
applicable analysis, as the phrase “serve a significant public interest” mixes
together words and concepts from both prongs. (See Save Our Heritage,
supra, 11 Cal.App.5th at p. 159 [describing “ ‘a three-prong test inquiring
whether (1) the litigation resulted in the enforcement of an important right

                                       32
affecting the public interest, (2) a significant benefit has been conferred on
the general public or a large class of individuals . . . .’ ”].)
      In any event, the argument lacks merit. Clearly, unpublished
Grossmont 2021 did not create any applicable legal precedent concerning the
Unable-to-Locate exception. However, as we have explained, the important
right affecting the public interest, as well as the significant benefit conferred
on the general public stems from the fact that Diego Valley East, Diego Hills
Central, and the relevant SDWIHS locations will be able to continue
operating, and the Charter School Corporate Entities will be able to continue
providing expanded educational choice to residents that live within or near
the boundaries of Grossmont Union and SDUSD.
      6.     The Trial Court Did Not Properly Examine Whether the Necessity
             and Financial Burden of Private Enforcement Renders a Fee
             Award Appropriate
      The third and final prong of the analysis considers whether “ ‘the
necessity and financial burden of private enforcement renders the award
appropriate.’ ” (Save Our Heritage, supra, 11 Cal.App.5th at p. 159.)
      Our Supreme Court has explained that “the necessity and financial
burden requirement ‘ “really examines two issues: whether private
enforcement was necessary and whether the financial burden of private
enforcement warrants subsidizing the successful party’s attorneys.” ’ ”
(Whitley, supra, 50 Cal.4th at p. 1214.)
      The trial court’s ruling devoted only two sentences to the necessity and
financial burden requirement. The trial court stated, “As to the necessity and
burden of private enforcement, this element is met because no public entity
or official pursued enforcement or litigation against [Grossmont Union and
SDUSD], which are public entities, regarding the proper interpretation of the
[Charter Schools Act]. Thus, the financial burden of private enforcement is

                                          33
such as to make a fee award appropriate here.” As we will explain, the trial
court’s discussion demonstrates that it did not properly exercise its discretion
because it did not separately address the two issues subsumed under the
necessity and financial burden requirement.
      The first distinct issue involves “ ‘ “whether private enforcement was
necessary.” ’ ” (Whitley, supra, 50 Cal.4th at p. 1214.) The “ ‘necessity . . . of
private enforcement’ has long been understood to mean simply that public
enforcement is not available, or not sufficiently available.” (Id. at p. 1215.)
A fee award “is not appropriate when the public rights in question were
adequately vindicated by governmental action.” (Ibid.) Conversely, where
the opposing party in the litigation is, in fact, the sole governmental agency
with the power to grant relief regarding the public right at issue, an award is
appropriate. (Ibid.) Here, no governmental entity stepped in to defend the
Charter School Corporate Entities against the closure of the charter schools
and the permanent injunction sought by Grossmont Union and SDUSD in the
postjudgment motions. The resolution of the first issue therefore favors an
award of attorney fees to the Charter School Corporate Entities. Although
the trial court’s analysis of this issue was somewhat truncated, we
understand it to have determined that private enforcement was necessary
because no public entity or official came to the defense of the Charter School
Corporate Entities with respect to the issues litigated in the postjudgment
motions.
      The second issue focuses on “ ‘the financial burdens and incentives
involved in’ ” a party’s participation in a lawsuit. (Whitley, supra, 50 Cal.4th
at p. 1215.) Under this inquiry, “ ‘ “[a]n award . . is appropriate when the
cost of the claimant’s legal victory transcends his personal interest, that is,
when the necessity for pursuing the lawsuit placed a burden on the [party]

                                        34
‘out of proportion to his individual stake in the matter.’ ” ’ ” (Ibid.) The
analysis focuses “not only on the costs of the litigation but also any offsetting
financial benefits that the litigation yields or reasonably could have been
expected to yield.” (Ibid.) An offsetting financial benefit may take the form
either of a monetary award in the litigation or any other type of immediate
and direct financial benefit that a party expects to obtain from the litigation.
(People v. Investco Management & Development LLC (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th
443, 468-470 (Investco).) The goal of the analysis is “ ‘to place the estimated
value of the case beside the actual cost and make the value judgment
whether it is desirable to offer the bounty of a court-awarded fee in order to
encourage litigation of the sort involved in [the] case.’ ” (Whitley, at p. 1216.)
      Because the required analysis involves a weighing of the financial
burdens and benefits, where the “potential financial benefit is indirect and
speculative . . . a trial court does not abuse its discretion in concluding that
the financial burden criterion is satisfied for purposes of section 1021.5.”
(Investco, supra, 22 Cal.App.5th at p. 470.) “No abuse in awarding fees can
be found where the facts show ‘that the [party’s] “future money advantage . . .
is speculative” [citation], or that the [party’s] “ ‘pecuniary benefit will be
indirect and uncertain.’ ” ’ ” (Sweetwater Union, supra, 36 Cal.App.5th at
p. 992, italics added.)
      In their trial court briefing, the Charter School Corporate Entities did
not attempt to quantify the financial benefit that they would receive from
successfully defending against the postjudgment motions, or to weigh that
benefit against the financial burden of the litigation. Instead, the Charter
School Corporate Entities argued (1) they received no significant financial
benefit from their successful defense of the postjudgment motions because
they merely preserved the status quo, which allowed them to receive public

                                         35
funding and then apply it to educating students; and (2) any financial benefit
was merely indirect and speculative.
      In ruling on the motion for an award of attorney fees, the trial court did
not address the issue of “ ‘the financial burdens and incentives’ ” involved in
the Charter School Corporate Entities’ defense of the postjudgment motions.
(Whitley, supra, 50 Cal.4th at p. 1215.) Instead, the trial court mixed
together the two separate issues of the necessity of pursuing the litigation, on
the one hand, with the financial burdens and benefits of pursuing the
litigation on the other. Conflating the two separate issues, the trial court
appears to have reasoned that because it was necessary for the Charter
School Corporate Entities to provide their own defense to the postjudgment
motions, “the financial burden of private enforcement [was] such as to make a
fee award appropriate.” This discussion shows that the trial court was
unaware of its obligation, to consider not only the necessity of the Charter
School Corporate Entities’ participation in the litigation to “vindicate[ ]” the
“public rights in question” (ibid.), but also to weigh financial burdens and
benefits to determine “ ‘whether it is desirable to offer the bounty of a court-
awarded fee in order to encourage litigation of the sort involved in this case.’ ”

(Id. at p. 1216.)9

9      We note that in 2017, in awarding attorney fees to Grossmont Union
pursuant to section 1021.5, the trial court applied the proper legal standards,
as it expressly addressed whether, in light of the financial burdens and
benefits, Grossmont Union was entitled to an award of fees. In that ruling,
the trial court determined that any financial benefit to Grossmont Union was
from “an increase [in] average daily attendance,” which was “indirect and
speculative.” In ruling on the Charter School Corporate Entities’ attorney
fees motion, in contrast, although the Charter School Corporate Entities also
contended that any financial benefit to them was indirect and speculative,
the trial court did not acknowledge or specifically rule upon that issue.
                                       36
      In an appeal from a ruling on a motion for attorney fees pursuant to
section 1021.5, “ ‘ “we must pay ‘ “particular attention to the trial court’s
stated reasons in denying or awarding fees and [see] whether it applied the
proper standards of law in reaching its decision.” ’ ” ’ ” (City of Oakland,
supra, 29 Cal.App.5th at p. 698.) Here, the trial court’s ruling affirmatively
demonstrates that it acted based on a misunderstanding of the applicable
legal standards, as it failed entirely to apply one of the essential components
for deciding whether fees should be awarded under section 1021.5.
Specifically, the trial court did not undertake to determine whether, in light
of the financial burdens and financial benefits to the Charter School
Corporate Entities from defending against the postjudgment motions, the
Charter School Corporate Entities were entitled to an award of fees. “ ‘A trial
court abuses its discretion when it applies the wrong legal standards
applicable to the issue at hand.’ . . . ‘ “[A]ll exercises of legal discretion must
be grounded in reasoned judgment and guided by legal principles and policies
appropriate to the particular matter at issue.” ’ ” (Minick v. City of Petaluma
(2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 15, 25, citations omitted.) Accordingly, because it did
not apply the correct legal standard, the trial court abused its discretion in
determining that the Charter School Corporate Entities were entitled to a fee
award.
      As we have discussed, it is the role of the trial court, in the first
instance, to exercise its discretion to determine, based on the applicable legal
standards, whether an award of attorney fees is warranted pursuant to
section 1021.5. (Baggett, supra, 32 Cal.3d at p. 143). Accordingly, we will
remand for the limited purpose of allowing the trial court to exercise its
discretion as to whether, in light of “ ‘the financial burdens and incentives’ ”
involved in the Charter School Corporate Entities’ defense of the

                                         37
postjudgment motions (Whitley, supra, 50 Cal.4th at p. 1215), the Charter
School Corporate Entities are entitled to an award of fees. (See Robinson v.
City of Chowchilla (2011) 202 Cal.App.4th 382, 402-403 [remanding for the
trial court to apply the proper legal standard in reaching a determination
“regarding the ‘financial burden of private enforcement’ criterion contained in

section 1021.5”].)10
      As we have found no abuse of discretion with respect to the other
aspects of the trial court’s analysis of the prerequisites for an award of

10     We note that at oral argument we questioned counsel for Grossmont
Union and for the Charter School Corporate Entities as to whether it was
possible to calculate the financial benefit that the Charter School Corporate
Entities would obtain from successfully defending against the postjudgment
motions. Counsel for the Charter School Corporate Entities agreed that by
using historical figures it was possible to “get an approximation” as to certain
of the financial benefits. Specifically, historical figures could be used to
determine (1) the public funding Diego Plus received for Diego Valley East
and Diego Hills Central, and (2) the public funding Western Educational
received for the relevant SDWIHS locations. From those figures, along with
any other pertinent information, it may be possible to approximate the
financial impact to the Charter School Corporate Entities had they not
successfully defended against the postjudgment motions. As also discussed
during oral argument, the analysis of financial benefit is complicated to some
extent because (1) it may not be possible to measure the financial impact to
the Charter Corporate School Entities from an injunction prohibiting any
future charter school within the boundaries of Grossmont Union and SDUSD;
and (2) the Charter School Corporate Entities include not only Diego Plus
and Western Educational, who operate the schools and directly receive the
public funding, but also Lifelong Learning and EAC, whose financial benefit
must be calculated based on their specific role with respect to the schools and
the extent to which they benefited from the public funding. We highlight
these items from oral argument for the benefit of the trial court on remand,
but we express no view on how the trial court should ultimately resolve the
issue of “ ‘the financial burdens and incentives’ ” involved in the Charter
School Corporate Entities’ defense of the postjudgment motions. (Whitley,
supra, 50 Cal.4th at p. 1215.)
                                       38
attorney fees under section 1021.5, the scope of the remand shall not include
a relitigation of those issues.
      7.    This Is Not an Exceptional Case Precluding an Award of Fees
      One last issue remains for us to address that impacts whether the trial
court may rule, on remand, that the Charter School Corporate Entities are
entitled to an award of attorney fees under section 1021.5. Specifically,
Grossmont Union and SDUSD contend that this is an exceptional case in
which fees should not be awarded, even if the Charter School Corporate
Entities are able to establish that each of the three prongs of the section
1021.5 analysis fall in their favor.
      “The California Supreme Court has ‘recognized an exception to be
applied in cases where all three [section 1021.5] factors are satisfied, but the
party from whom fees are sought “is not the type of party on whom private
attorney general fees were intended to be imposed.” ’ [Citations.] Under this
exception, ‘a section 1021.5 fee award may not be imposed on a litigant who
did nothing to adversely affect the public interest.’ ” (Save Our Heritage,
supra, 11 Cal.App.5th at pp. 160-161.) The exception arises from the
principle that “[t]he party against whom such fees are awarded must have
done or failed to do something, in good faith or not, that compromised public
rights.” (Adoption of Joshua S. (2008) 42 Cal.4th 945, 954, 958 (Joshua S.)
[the losing party in an adoption case who “only engaged in litigation to
adjudicate private rights from which important appellate precedent
happen[ed] to emerge, but ha[d] otherwise done nothing to compromise the
rights of the public or a significant class of people” was covered by the
exception].) There is, in section 1021.5, “an implicit requirement that the

                                       39
party on whom attorney fees are imposed be responsible for adversely

affecting the public interest.” (Joshua S., at p. 955.)11
      Grossmont Union and SDUSD contend that this exception applies here
because, in bringing the postjudgment motions, they “pursued a reasonable
litigation strategy believed to be more efficient and supported by a good faith
interpretation of the trial court’s authority to enforce its prior writ,” and
therefore did not take action “ ‘detrimental to the public interest.’ ” We reject
the argument.
      For one thing, the argument focuses on the purported “good faith” of
Grossmont Union and SDUSD in filing the postjudgment motions, but that is
not a relevant focus. As our Supreme Court has explained, there is no “bad
faith requirement” for a party to be subject to an attorney fee award under
section 1021.5. (Joshua S., supra, 42 Cal.4th at p. 958.) Instead, the party
against whom fees are awarded “must have done or failed to do something, in
good faith or not, that compromised public rights.” (Ibid., italics added; see
also Pasadena Police Officers Assn. v. City of Pasadena (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th
147, 164 [“Although . . . a party must have ‘done something to compromise
the rights of the public’ before having to pay attorney fees under section
1021.5, our Supreme Court refused to impose a ‘bad faith’ requirement.”];
City of San Clemente v. Department of Transportation (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th
1131, 1156 [in applying the exception, “the question is what effect the conduct
would have had if successful” as “[a]ny action can be redescribed to appear
innocent”].)

11     Grossmont Union and SDUSD incorrectly characterize the exception as
being part of the first prong of the three-prong analysis. It is not. Rather, it
is an exception that applies even if all three prongs have been satisfied.
(Save Our Heritage, supra, 11 Cal.App.5th at pp. 160-161.)
                                        40
      The trial court could reasonably conclude that the exception did not
apply because, by bringing the postjudgment motions, Grossmont Union and
SDUSD were seeking to “compromise[ ] public rights” (Joshua S., supra,
42 Cal.4th at p. 958) and “ ‘adversely affect the public interest.’ ” (Save Our
Heritage, supra, 11 Cal.App.5th at p. 161.) Specifically, as we explained at
length while discussing the first prong of the section 1021.5 analysis (part
II.A.4, ante), the right of the public to the expanded school choice in the
public education system that the Legislature put in place by enacting the
Charter Schools Act is an important public right. The postjudgment motions
filed by Grossmont Union and SDUSD sought to curtail that right by
requiring the closure of Diego Valley East, Diego Hills Central and certain
locations of SDWIHS, and by permanently enjoining the Charter School
Corporate Entities from operating any future charter school facilities within
the geographic boundaries of Grossmont Union and SDUSD. “When a party
initiates litigation that is determined to be detrimental to the public interest,
attorney fees have been imposed.” (Joshua S., at p. 957.) Because
Grossmont Union and SDUSD filed the postjudgment motions, which were
detrimental to the public interest, they may not rely on the exception for
“ ‘litigant[s] who did nothing to adversely affect the public interest.’ ” (Save
Our Heritage, at p. 161.)
      In sum, this is not an exceptional case in which an award of fees under
section 1021.5 is precluded.
B.    The Amount of the Fee Award
      Grossmont Union and SDUSD contend that the trial court abused its
discretion in determining that the Charter School Corporate Entities
reasonably incurred attorney fees of $582,927 in defending against the
postjudgment motions. Although we are conditionally reversing and
remanding for the trial court to determine whether the Charter School
                                       41
Corporate Entities are entitled to a fee award, because the issue of the
reasonableness of the fees may arise again on remand, and for purposes of
judicial efficiency, we will address the challenge that Grossmont Union and
SDUSD raise regarding the amount of the fee award.
      1.      Relevant Proceedings
      In litigating the postjudgment motions filed by Grossmont Union and
SDUSD, the Charter School Corporate Entities were represented by (1) the
law firm Blank Rome LLP (Blank Rome), who provided representation both
in the trial court and on appeal; and 2) the law firm Horvitz & Levy LLP
(Horvitz & Levy), who provided representation solely on appeal and was
primarily responsible for drafting the appellate briefing. Blank Rome billed
$440,668 for its work, and Horvitz & Levy billed $277,564.50. The amount
billed by Blank Rome was composed of (1) $414,530 for work related to the
postjudgment motions in the trial court and on appeal; (2) $18,398 in fees
associated with the Charter School Corporate Entities’ motion for attorney
fees; and (3) an additional $7,740 in fees associated with the supplemental
briefing that the trial court requested concerning the reasonableness of the
fees. The full amount sought by the Charter School Corporate Entities in
their fee motion was $718,232.50.
      The trial court concluded that the Charter School Corporate Entities
“partially failed to show the reasonableness of the fees claimed.” After a
lengthy explanation of why it questioned the reasonableness of some of the
fees, the trial court ruled as follows:
           “Therefore, the court awards $582,927 in attorney’s fees as
           follows:

           “1) $294,502.50 for work performed by Blank Rome
           ($174,475 for trial work and $120,027.50 for appellate
           work);

                                          42
         “2) $277,564.50 for appellate work performed by Horvitz &
         Levy;

         “3) $10,860 in fees associated with the motion for attorney’s
         fees; and

         “4) $7,740 in additional claimed fees related to the
         supplemental briefing is denied.”

      In explaining why it awarded $582,927, rather than $718,232.50, as
requested by the Charter School Corporate Entities, the trial court cited
several factors.
      First, the trial court stated that the billing records supplied by Blank
Rome “obscure[d] the nature of the work performed,” made it “unclear
whether the time devoted to various tasks was reasonable and justified,” and
made it unclear “whether the level of staffing was necessary and whether the
rates charged by the individuals that worked on the case are justified.” As
the trial court observed, these problems were not entirely remedied by the
supplemental briefing that the trial court requested.
      Second, the trial court specifically focused on the staffing of the appeal.
It explained, “Considering that Horvitz & Levy is admittedly an established
law firm, exclusively specializing in appellate litigation, and the fact Blank
Rome performed a significant amount of the appellate work, it appears the
case was unnecessarily overstaffed at the appellate level. In this regard, the
court is not persuaded that the complexity, novelty and expedited nature of
the writ motions justified the number of staff that worked on this case.”
      Third, the trial court stated that, for several reasons, the amount of
fees incurred by Blank Rome in connection with the attorney fee motion was
unreasonably high.

                                       43
         Finally, the trial court stated that “the rates charged by Blank Rome
and Horvitz & Levy do not reflect the rates prevailing in the community of

San Diego where the lawsuit took place.”12 The trial court questioned the
billing rates of certain Blank Rome attorneys, and it further observed that
the Charter School Corporate Entities had “not presented any evidence of the
rates prevailing in the community of San Diego, or presented evidence that
engaging out-of-town counsel was necessary under the circumstance of this
case.”
         The trial court also explained that in setting the amount of the fee
award it was taking into consideration the factors set forth in Serrano v.
Priest (1977) 20 Cal.3d 25, 49, as well as other factors. As the trial court
explained, the factors in favor of an increased award were “the litigiousness
and tactics of counsel, the nature and difficulty of the case, the level of skill
exhibited by counsel, and the results obtained.” On the other hand, a reduced
award could be warranted by the consideration that Grossmont Union and
SDUSD “are public school districts, and it cannot be disputed that any award
to [the Charter School Corporate Entities] would ultimately fall upon the
taxpayers.” (Serrano, at p. 49 [a relevant factor in determining the amount of
a fee award is “the fact that an award against the state would ultimately fall
upon the taxpayers”].)
         In the end, the trial court reduced the amount of fees requested by
approximately 19 percent, from $718,232.50 to $582,927. This included an
approximate 31 percent reduction of the fees billed by Blank Rome, but no
reduction in the fees billed by Horvitz & Levy.

12       Both firms are located in the Los Angeles area.
                                         44
      2.     Applicable Legal Standards
      “ ‘The California Supreme Court has instructed that attorney fee
awards under section 1021.5 “should be fully compensatory,” and absent
“circumstances rendering the award unjust, an . . . award should ordinarily
include compensation for all the hours reasonably spent.” ’ ” (The Kennedy
Com. v. City of Huntington Beach (2023) 91 Cal.App.5th 436, 465, italics
omitted.) “A trial court awards attorneys’ fees based on the lodestar method,
i.e., the number of hours reasonably expended multiplied by the reasonable
hourly rate. . . . ‘The lodestar figure may then be adjusted, based on
consideration of factors specific to the case, in order to fix the fee at the fair
market value for the legal services provided.’ . . . Those factors include
‘(1) the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved, (2) the skill displayed
in presenting them, (3) the extent to which the nature of the litigation
precluded other employment by the attorneys, [and] (4) the contingent nature
of the fee award.’ ” (California DUI Lawyers Assn. v. Department of Motor
Vehicles (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 517, 535-536, citations omitted.) “ ‘It is not
necessary to provide detailed billing timesheets to support an award of
attorney fees under the lodestar method. [Citations.] Declarations of counsel
setting forth the reasonable hourly rate, the number of hours worked and the
tasks performed are sufficient.’ [Citation.] The party seeking attorney fees
has ‘the burden of showing that the fees incurred were “allowable,” were
“reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation,” and were “reasonable
in amount.” ’ ” (Sweetwater Union, supra, 36 Cal.App.5th at p. 994.)
      “[T]he amount of fees awarded under section 1021.5 ‘is classically
tested under the abuse of discretion standard.’ ” (Robles, supra,
38 Cal.App.5th at p. 199, italics omitted.) “ ‘[T]he “experienced trial judge is
the best judge of the value of professional services rendered in his [or her]

                                         45
court, and while his [or her] judgment is of course subject to review, it will
not be disturbed unless the appellate court is convinced that it is clearly
wrong.” ’ ” (Early v. Becerra (2021) 60 Cal.App.5th 726, 743-744.) “ ‘Fees
approved by the trial court are presumed to be reasonable, and the objectors
must show error in the award.’ ” (Laffitte v. Robert Half Internat. Inc. (2016)
1 Cal.5th 480, 488.)
      3.    The Trial Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion
      Grossmont Union and SDUSD specifically challenge the amount of fees
that the trial court awarded in connection with the appellate work that
resulted in Grossmont 2021. They contend that the trial court properly made
reductions to the amount of fees sought by the Charter School Corporate
Entities for their efforts opposing the postjudgment motions in the trial court,
but “with respect to their fees on appeal, the trial court awarded [the Charter
School Corporate Entities] their entire request—just under $400,000 for

drafting” their appellate briefing.13 Grossmont Union and SDUSD complain
that the trial court criticized “the staffing levels, the hours billed, and the
rates charged, yet still awarded two law firms every penny they asked for . . .
for one appeal.” They argue that “there is a complete disconnect between the
trial court’s blistering denunciation of every aspect of [the Charter School

13    Grossmont Union and SDUSD twice incorrectly state that the appellate
fees were for drafting “one Respondents’ Brief.” In fact, the Charter School
Corporate Entities were the appellants, and thus filed an opening brief and a
reply brief. Grossmont Union and SDUSD do get it correct at one point in
their brief, referring to “one Opening Brief and one Reply Brief.”

                                        46
Corporate Entities’] fee application and its ultimate ruling,” which

constitutes “an abuse of discretion that cannot stand.”14
      The argument fails as to Blank Rome’s appellate fees because
Grossmont Union and SDUSD fail to adequately support it with citations to
the record. To support their contention that an award of $120,027.50 is an
award of the full amount of Blank Rome’s appellate fees, Grossmont Union
and SDUSD provide a citation to an exhibit that separately sets forth the
number of hours that counsel for the Charter School Corporate Entities spent
on trial court litigation from the hours that counsel for the Charter School
Corporate Entities spent on the appeal. However, that exhibit is limited to
information about the hours billed. It does not explain the amounts billed.
Therefore, the exhibit does not show how much Blank Rome billed for its

appellate work.15 In our review of the record, we have not located any
statement about the amount that Blank Rome billed for its appellate work.
It appears that to extract that information from the record, someone would
have to perform mathematical calculations and engage in a close analysis of
the Blank Rome invoices, which Grossmont Union and SDUSD have not

14    For the first time in their appellate reply brief, Grossmont Union and
SDUSD argue that the trial court should have evaluated each of the Charter
School Corporate Entities “individually” to determine whether the attorney
fees as to certain of them should have been disallowed. That argument,
raised for the first time in the reply brief, has been forfeited. (Rangel, supra,
62 Cal.4th at p. 1218.)

15    Citing the exhibit we have described, Grossmont Union and SDUSD
suggest in a parenthetical statement that they have calculated that Blank
Rome’s fees for its work in the trial court on the postjudgment motions totals
“approximately $307,000.” They provide no explanation of how they arrived
at that figure, which is not apparent in the cited exhibit.

                                       47
done. Accordingly, Grossmont Union and SDUSD have not provided support
for their argument that the trial court abused its discretion with respect to

the amount it awarded for Blank Rome’s appellate work.16
      With respect to Horvitz & Levy’s appellate work, that firm billed
$277,564.50, and the trial court awarded the full amount. However,
Grossmont Union and SDUSD have not established that the trial court
abused its discretion in that regard. As Grossmont Union and SDUSD point
out, the trial court did conclude that the appeal was overstaffed. However,
because, as we have discussed, we do not know what portion of Blank Rome’s
appellate fees were awarded, the trial court may have addressed the
appellate overstaffing by reducing Blank Rome’s fees. Second, the trial court
did observe that Horvitz & Levy’s rates were higher than the prevailing rates
in San Diego. However, the trial court could still have acted reasonably in
awarding the full amount of Horvitz & Levy’s fees. As the trial court noted,
Horvitz & Levy is “an established law firm, exclusively specializing in
appellate litigation.” Further, as the trial court noted, the factors in favor of
an increased fee award in this case included “the nature and difficulty of the
case, the level of skill exhibited by counsel, and the results obtained.” Based
on these observations, and especially in light of the success that Horvitz &

16    Although the argument is not clearly made, Grossmont Union and
SDUSD also appear to be challenging the fee award based on the trial court’s
comment that, even after receiving supplemental briefing, deficiencies in the
evidence concerning Blank Rome’s fees still remained, and it was therefore
unable to ascertain the reasonableness of some of the fees. To the extent
Grossmont Union and SDUSD base their appellate challenge on this
observation, it lacks merit. They have not established that the trial court
included in its award any of the fees for which it had insufficient information.
                                        48
Levy obtained on appeal, the trial court did not abuse its discretion with

respect to Horvitz & Levy’s fees.17
                                DISPOSITION
      The order awarding attorney fees to the Charter School Corporate
Entities is conditionally reversed and remanded. The trial court is
specifically authorized, on a limited remand, to hold any necessary
proceedings to examine the issue of whether, in light of the “financial burden
of private enforcement” (§ 1021.5, subd. (b)), the Charter School Corporate
Entities are entitled to an award of attorney fees. If the trial court concludes
that a fee award is warranted, it shall reinstate the award in the amount of
$582,927 and shall add thereto any additional fees that the Charter School
Corporate Entities reasonably incurred in this appeal and on remand. The
parties shall bear their own costs on appeal.

                                                           IRION, J.

WE CONCUR:

MCCONNELL, P. J.

DATO, J.

17    Even as to Blank Rome’s appellate fees, had Grossmont Union and
SDUSD been able to establish that the trial court did award the full amount
of those fees, we would nevertheless conclude that based on the success that
the Charter School Corporate Entities experienced on appeal, the trial court
would have been within its discretion to award the full amount of the
appellate fees incurred by Blank Rome.
                                       49