Judge awards $959,853 in fees in Huntington Beach library case

A judge awarded $959,853 in attorneys' fees to civil rights groups that successfully challenged Huntington Beach's library book ordinance, cutting their $1.19 million request by 20% after finding the case was overstaffed.

The ruling by Orange County Judge Lindsey Martinez follows a decision last September holding unlawful the city's policy restricting minors' access to certain library materials without parental consent.

The fee award is a partial win for the ACLU Foundation of Southern California, Jenner & Block, the First Amendment Coalition and Community Legal Aid SoCal. The court rejected their request for a 1.25 lodestar multiplier, finding the rates already accounted for contingency risk and the nature of the litigation. Alianza Translatinx v. City of Huntington Beach, 30-2025-01462835-CU-WM-CJC (O.C. Super. Ct., filed Feb. 26, 2025).

While declining to deny fees outright -- finding the request not "outrageously unreasonable" under Serrano v. Unruh -- the court agreed the city had identified inefficiencies.

"[S]imultaneous representation by multiple law firms posed substantial risks of task padding, over-conferencing, attorney stacking ... and excessive research," the court wrote, quoting Donahue v. Donahue. Billing records showed each of the four organizations logged hours on legal research, co-counsel communications, and drafting and editing the same briefs.

Citing Morris v. Hyundai Motor America, the court said reductions are appropriate when a "routine, noncomplex case" is overstaffed and results in inflated fees.

After the reduction, Jenner & Block was awarded $293,771; Community Legal Aid SoCal, $364,879; the ACLU Foundation of Southern California, $215,507; and the First Amendment Coalition, $85,695.

The court found petitioners -- Alianza Translatinx, two minors and Erin Spivey -- qualified for fees under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5. The litigation enforced an important public right by protecting access to information under state and federal constitutions and conferred a significant benefit on minors seeking unrestricted access to non-obscene materials.

The city argued the case became moot when voters repealed the ordinance before judgment. The court rejected that argument, finding the timing supported a catalyst theory and that the writ provided independent relief.

The court upheld the requested hourly rates as reasonable, though high, and rejected challenges to block billing and clerical work, finding the record sufficient to assess reasonableness. It overruled the city's evidentiary objections, granted judicial notice and directed petitioners to prepare a proposed order, noting any discrepancies were "de minimis."

Respondents were the City of Huntington Beach and its City Council.