## Facts

- The Mounted Patrol of San Mateo County was a private equestrian organization whose bylaws limited membership to men.
- The San Mateo County Sheriff’s Department developed a search-and-rescue program coordinating several specialized volunteer groups, including the Mounted Patrol as the equestrian resource.
- Sonya Sokolow and Sidney Schieber, qualified riders, sought to participate in county search-and-rescue activities but alleged they were effectively excluded because the County relied on a male-only organization.
- Plaintiffs sued the County, the Sheriff, and the Mounted Patrol, alleging sex discrimination and unlawful governmental support of the Patrol’s exclusionary policy.
- The trial court granted substantive relief requiring the County and the Patrol to sever their relationship unless the Patrol changed its bylaws to admit women.
- Plaintiffs then moved for attorney’s fees and costs; the trial court denied the motion.
- Plaintiffs appealed only from the order denying attorney’s fees and costs.

## Issues

1. Whether plaintiffs were “successful” parties entitled to attorney’s fees under Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5 despite not obtaining every requested remedy.
2. Whether the litigation enforced an important right affecting the public interest and conferred a significant benefit on the public or a large class of persons.
3. Whether the necessity and financial burden of private enforcement made a fee award appropriate under § 1021.5.
4. How any attorney’s fees award should be apportioned among defendants, particularly between the County and the Patrol.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal reversed the order denying attorney’s fees and costs.
- The court held plaintiffs were successful parties because their action produced an order preventing the County from maintaining an official relationship with a male-only organization unless the organization admitted women.
- The court directed the trial court on remand to award reasonable attorney’s fees.
- The court indicated it was appropriate to assess a greater percentage of the fee award against the County than against the Patrol, leaving exact allocation to the trial court.

## Legal Principles

- Under Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5, a litigant may recover attorney’s fees when the action enforces an important public right, confers a significant public benefit, and private enforcement was necessary and financially burdensome.
- “Success” for § 1021.5 is measured pragmatically; complete victory or attainment of every requested form of relief is not required if the litigation achieves significant objectives.
- Terminating governmental reliance on, or support for, a discriminatory private organization in performing public functions can constitute enforcement of an important right and confer a significant benefit on a broad class.
- In allocating § 1021.5 fees among defendants, a court may place a larger share on the public entity whose conduct sustained the challenged discriminatory arrangement.

## Conclusion

The court held that plaintiffs’ litigation achieved substantial relief affecting equal access to government-connected opportunities, satisfied the requirements for a private-attorney-general fee award, and required a reasonable fee award on remand with the County bearing a larger portion of the liability.


Sokolow v. County of San Mateo, 213 Cal. App. 3d 231, 261 Cal. Rptr. 520 (Cal. Ct. App. 1989)