Vosburg v. Cnty. of Fresno

• Citation: 54 Cal.App.5th 439,268 Cal.Rptr.3d 591
• Decision Date: 09 September 2020
• Docket Number: F078081
• Court: California Court of Appeals
• Parties: Nathan VOSBURG et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. COUNTY OF FRESNO, Defendant; Detainee-Americans for Civic Equality, Movant and Appellant.

54 Cal.App.5th 439

268 Cal.Rptr.3d 591

Nathan VOSBURG et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents,

v. COUNTY OF FRESNO, Defendant;Detainee-Americans for Civic Equality, Movant and Appellant.

F078081

Court of Appeal, Fifth District, California.

Filed September 9, 2020

Certified for Partial Publication.^*

Law Office of Janice M. Bellucci and Janice M. Bellucci for Movant and Appellant.

Griswold, LaSalle, Dowd, Cobb & Gin, Mario U. Zamora, Kings County and Jaskaran S. Gill, Fresno, for Plaintiffs and Respondents.

OPINION

FRANSON, J.

This appeal addresses an unincorporated association's eligibility for attorney fees under California's private attorney general statute, Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5.¹ The unincorporated association's members are patients who reside in a state mental hospital located within the City of Coalinga and are registered to vote. The underlying litigation was an election contest brought by city council members alleging the patients were not eligible to vote and, without their votes, a measure to increase the local sales tax would have passed.

The unincorporated association filed a motion to intervene on the side of the defendants, the county and the county's registrar of voters. The trial court deferred ruling on the motion to intervene and allowed the association to participate in the election contest. The defendants and association argued the election results were valid because the patients resided in the city and were properly registered to vote. After receiving evidence and briefing, the trial court rejected the election contest. This result was favorable to the association and its members because it upheld the members' right to vote

The unincorporated association's subsequent motion for attorney fees was denied by the trial court on the ground the association did not qualify as a "party" for purposes of the "successful party" requirement in section 1021.5. Specifically, the court found the unincorporated association was not a "de facto intervenor" and characterized its role in the election contest as an amicus curiae.

As the foundation for the application of section 1021.5 to this case, we conclude an unincorporated association has standing to appear in an election contest as a representative of its members if (1) its members live in the area affected by the outcome of the election, (2) its members would suffer injury from an adverse outcome in the election contest, and (3) the questions involved were of a public nature. As explained below, the association met these requirements.

For purposes of section 1021.5's "successful party" criterion, we conclude a "de facto intervenor" qualifies as a "party." ( People v. Investco Management & Development, LLC (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 443, 461, 231 Cal.Rptr.3d 595 ( Investco ).) We further conclude the unincorporated association was a "de facto intervener" because it fully participated in the election contest by presenting evidence and legal arguments that were not duplicated by the other parties. The submission of evidence is an important factor that distinguishes interveners from amici curiae. Consequently, the association qualifies as a "party" for purposes of section 1021.5. In addition, the outcome of the election contest and the association's contribution to that outcome establishes as a matter of law that the association was "successful" for purposes of section 1021.5. Accordingly, we remand to the trial court to determine whether the association satisfied the other statutory criteria for attorney's fees.

We therefore reverse the order denying the motion for attorney fees.

FACTS

California State Hospital—Coalinga (CSH-Coalinga) is overseen by the California Department of State Hospitals. It is a self-contained, 1,300-bed, psychiatric hospital constructed with a security perimeter. The patients at CSH-Coalinga are committed involuntarily by court order because they have been classified as (1) mentally disordered sex offenders (former Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6316 ); (2) sexually violent predators ( Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 6602, 6604 ); (3) not guilty of a crime by reason of insanity ( Pen. Code, § 1026 ); (4) mentally disordered offenders ( Pen. Code, §§ 2962, 2972 ); or (5) mentally ill prisoners transferred from the prison system ( Pen. Code, § 2684 ). Thus, among other things, CSH-Coalinga provides psychiatric treatment for sexual offenders who have completed their prison sentences and have been involuntarily committed for extended treatment. CSH-Coalinga does not accept voluntary admissions.

CSH-Coalinga has been located within the City of Coalinga since it was annexed in 2006. The patients at CSH-Coalinga retain the right to vote, unless otherwise ordered by a court. As a result, a patient may complete a voter registration application and submit it to the registrar of voters of the County of Fresno (County). The registration application requires the patient to state his or her address for voting purposes and requires each voter to sign the application under penalty of perjury.

At the time of the November 2017 election, 322 patients at CSH-Coalinga were registered to vote in the City of Coalinga. The number of registered voters is known because CSH-Coalinga constitutes its own precinct, which was designated "0001001" for purposes of the November 2017 election.

One of the items presented to voters of the City of Coalinga at the November 2017 election was a ballot measure proposing to raise the total sales tax rate in the city from 7.975 percent to 8.975 percent. The sales tax measure was referred to as Measure C. County and its registrar of voters were responsible for conducting the November 7, 2017 election in the City of Coalinga and canvassing the results.

Of the 1,127 votes cast in the election, 582 voters opposed Measure C and 545 voted in favor of it. As a result, Measure C was defeated. In the CSH-Coalinga precinct, 178 ballots were completed. These ballots contained 127 votes opposing Measure C and 50 votes in support of Measure C; one ballot was left blank. As a result, if the votes cast by patients at CSH-Coalinga were subtracted from the election results, Measure C would have passed by a vote of 495 to 455.

Appellant Detainee-Americans for Civic Equality (DACE) is an unincorporated association. It was formed in 2010 to encourage political participation by CSH-Coalinga patients, to help them to register to vote, and to advocate for issues of concern to the patients. Prior to the November 2017 election, DACE organized meetings and discussions among CSH-Coalinga patients about the merits of Measure C. A member of DACE who is a former CSH-Coalinga patient communicated with the City of Coalinga about Measure C and sought the city's cooperation in increasing transportation services for visitors to and from CSH-Coalinga. DACE asserts city officials disregarded its concerns and, as a result, DACE ultimately recommended that patients vote against Measure C.

After Measure C was defeated, DACE contends CSH-Coalinga patients were targeted, blamed and scapegoated for the defeat in numerous ways. DACE also contends city officials began to advocate for the disenfranchisement of CSH-Coalinga patients. Other forms of retaliation against CSH-Coalinga patients became the subject of a federal lawsuit. (See Saint-Martin v. Price (E.D.Cal. June 6, 2018, No. 18-CV-00123-DAD-SKO), 2018 WL 2716907, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95389 [defendants' motion to dismiss patients' complaint denied].)

PROCEEDINGS

In December 2017, Nathan Vosburg, Steve Raine, Ron Ramsey, Ron Lander, and Tanya Stolz, in their personal and official capacities as councilmembers for the City of Coalinga (Contestants), filed a statement of contest pursuant to Elections Code sections 16100, subdivision (d) and 16400. The pleading named the County of Fresno (County) and its registrar of voters, Brandi L. Orth, as defendants. Contestants filed the statement to challenge the November 2017 elections results on Measure C. Contestants asserted (1) voters must be domiciled in the City of Coalinga to vote on a measure proposed by its council, (2) residents detained in CSH-Coalinga are domiciled in their prior county of residence, (3) votes cast on Measure C by residents of CSH-Coalinga were illegal, and (4) the result of the election should be retabulated to exclude the votes illegally cast. Contestants alleged that if the illegal votes were deducted from the votes cast, Measure C would have passed.

On January 16, 2018,² County filed an answer to the statement of contest. County specifically denied the allegations that (1) several illegal votes were cast in the November 7, 2017 election and (2) the residents of CSH-Coalinga are domiciled in their prior county of residence.

Motion to Intervene

A week later, DACE filed a motion to intervene in the election contest, which was set for hearing on March 7. The motion stated DACE sought to unite with County in resisting the election contest filed by Contestants. The proposed complaint in intervention attached to DACE's motion included a counterclaim against Contestants for declaratory relief stating "that patients residing in [CSH-]Coalinga are lawfully entitled to vote in City of Coalinga elections if they intend the City of Coalinga to be their domicile."

Contestants opposed DACE's motion to intervene, contending DACE's request was not supported by any declarations or affidavits and, therefore, DACE had not shown that any challenged vote had been made by a member of DACE. Contestants also argued an election contest is a summary procedure and DACE, if allowed to intervene, should not be allowed to expand the litigation by seeking declaratory relief.

On February 28, the trial court issued a notice setting a hearing on the election contest for March 9. The court also stated: "The Court hereby continues the hearing on the motion for leave to intervene until after the hearing set out above. The [Court] shall set a date for that motion if appropriate."

On March 7, the trial court...