private attorney general doctrine in Utah

2017(To preserve an issue: “(1) the issue must be raised in a timely fashion; (2) the issue must be specifically raised; and (3) a party must introduce supporting evidence or relevant legal authority.” (citation omitted)). ¶16 When a party fails to raise and argue an issue on appeal, or raises it for the first time in a reply brief, that issue is waived and (continued . . .) was entitled to attorney fees under the private attorney general doctrine because the issue was not argued below); 438 Main St. v. Easy Heat, Inc., 2004 UT 72 , ¶¶ 50–52, 99 P.3d 801 (declining to address appellant's challenge

2017(To preserve an issue: “(1) the issue must be raised in a timely fashion; (2) the issue must be specifically raised; and (3) a party must introduce supporting evidence or relevant legal authority.” (citation omitted)). ¶16 When a party fails to raise and argue an issue on appeal, or raises it for the first time in a reply brief, that issue is waived and (continued . . .) was entitled to attorney fees under the private attorney general doctrine because the issue was not argued below); 438 Main St. v. Easy Heat, Inc., 2004 UT 72 , ¶¶ 50–52, 99 P.3d 801 (declining to address appellant's challenge

2008In Stewart v. Utah Public Service Commission, 885 P.2d 759 (Utah 1994), the supreme court held that Utah courts may award attorney fees under this doctrine when “the ‘vindication of a strong or societally important public policy’ takes place and the necessary costs in doing so ‘transcend the individual plaintiffs pecuniary interest to an extent requiring subsidization.’ ” Id. at 783 (quoting Serrano v. Priest, 20 Cal.3d 25 , 141 Cal.Rptr. 315 , 569 P.2d 1303, 1314 (1977)); see also Faust v. KAI Techs., Inc., 2000 UT 82, ¶ 18 , 15 P.3d 1266 (stating that “in Stewart [the supreme court] recogniz

2008In Stewart v. Utah Public Service Commission, 885 P.2d 759 (Utah 1994), the supreme court held that Utah courts may award attorney fees under this doctrine when “the ‘vindication of a strong or societally important public policy’ takes place and the necessary costs in doing so ‘transcend the individual plaintiffs pecuniary interest to an extent requiring subsidization.’ ” Id. at 783 (quoting Serrano v. Priest, 20 Cal.3d 25 , 141 Cal.Rptr. 315 , 569 P.2d 1303, 1314 (1977)); see also Faust v. KAI Techs., Inc., 2000 UT 82, ¶ 18 , 15 P.3d 1266 (stating that “in Stewart [the supreme court] recogniz

2021So we affirm the district court‘s denial of fees under the private attorney general doctrine. ¶49 ―As a general rule, Utah courts award attorney fees only to a prevailing party, and only when such action is permitted by either statute or contract.‖ 36 But ―[t]he absence of such authority . . . does not bar the court from awarding attorney fees ‗when it deems it appropriate in the interests of justice and equity.‘‖37 We have held that an award of attorney fees may be justified in cases ―in which the nonprevailing party acted ‗in bad faith, vexatiously, wantonly, or for oppressive reasons.‘‖38 ¶

2021So we affirm the district court‘s denial of fees under the private attorney general doctrine. ¶49 ―As a general rule, Utah courts award attorney fees only to a prevailing party, and only when such action is permitted by either statute or contract.‖ 36 But ―[t]he absence of such authority . . . does not bar the court from awarding attorney fees ‗when it deems it appropriate in the interests of justice and equity.‘‖37 We have held that an award of attorney fees may be justified in cases ―in which the nonprevailing party acted ‗in bad faith, vexatiously, wantonly, or for oppressive reasons.‘‖38 ¶

2017Patterson , 2011 UT 68 , ¶ 17, 266 P.3d 828 , citing Carrier v. Salt Lake Cty. , 2004 UT 98 , ¶¶ 42-43, 104 P.3d 1208 (refusing to consider appellant's argument that it was entitled to attorney fees under the private attorney general doctrine because the issue was not argued below); 438 Main St. v. Easy Heat, Inc. , 2004 UT 72 , ¶¶ 50-52, 99 P.3d 801 (declining to address appellant's challenge to the district court's findings of fact because the district court had not been sufficiently "alerted" to the error claimed on appeal); Shayne v. Stanley & Sons, Inc. , 605 P.2d 775 , 776 (Utah 1980) (r

2017Patterson , 2011 UT 68 , ¶ 17, 266 P.3d 828 , citing Carrier v. Salt Lake Cty. , 2004 UT 98 , ¶¶ 42-43, 104 P.3d 1208 (refusing to consider appellant's argument that it was entitled to attorney fees under the private attorney general doctrine because the issue was not argued below); 438 Main St. v. Easy Heat, Inc. , 2004 UT 72 , ¶¶ 50-52, 99 P.3d 801 (declining to address appellant's challenge to the district court's findings of fact because the district court had not been sufficiently "alerted" to the error claimed on appeal); Shayne v. Stanley & Sons, Inc. , 605 P.2d 775 , 776 (Utah 1980) (r

2021So we affirm the district court‘s denial of fees under the private attorney general doctrine. ¶49 ―As a general rule, Utah courts award attorney fees only to a prevailing party, and only when such action is permitted by either statute or contract.‖ 36 But ―[t]he absence of such authority . . . does not bar the court from awarding attorney fees ‗when it deems it appropriate in the interests of justice and equity.‘‖37 We have held that an award of attorney fees may be justified in cases ―in which the nonprevailing party acted ‗in bad faith, vexatiously, wantonly, or for oppressive reasons.‘‖38 ¶

2021So we affirm the district court‘s denial of fees under the private attorney general doctrine. ¶49 ―As a general rule, Utah courts award attorney fees only to a prevailing party, and only when such action is permitted by either statute or contract.‖ 36 But ―[t]he absence of such authority . . . does not bar the court from awarding attorney fees ‗when it deems it appropriate in the interests of justice and equity.‘‖37 We have held that an award of attorney fees may be justified in cases ―in which the nonprevailing party acted ‗in bad faith, vexatiously, wantonly, or for oppressive reasons.‘‖38 ¶

2011See, eg., Carrier v. Salt Lake Cnty., 2004 UT 98, ¶¶ 42-43 , 104 P.3d 1208 (refusing to consider appellant's argument that it was entitled to attorney fees under the private attorney general doctrine because the issue was not argued below); 438 Main St. v. Easy Heat, Inc., 2004 UT 72, ¶¶ 50-52 , 99 P.3d 801 (declining to address appellant's challenge to the district court's findings of fact because the district court had not been sufficiently "alerted" to the error claimed on appeal); Shayne v. Stanley & Sons, Inc., 605 P.2d 775, 776 (Utah 1980) (rejecting appellant's negligence claim because

2008See, e.g., Woodland Hills Residents Assn., 154 Cal.Rptr. 503 , 593 P.2d at 212 (recognizing that “the public always has a significant interest in seeing that legal strictures are properly enforced and thus, in a real sense, the public always derives a ‘benefit’ when illegal private or public conduct is rectified”); Starbird v. County of San Benito, 122 Cal.App.3d 657 , 176 Cal.Rptr. 149, 153 (1981) (awarding fees under the private attorney general doctrine where the plaintiffs “vindicated important rights of the people of San Benito County which were ignored by the officials charged with enfor

2008See, e.g., Woodland Hills Residents Assn., 154 Cal.Rptr. 503 , 593 P.2d at 212 (recognizing that “the public always has a significant interest in seeing that legal strictures are properly enforced and thus, in a real sense, the public always derives a ‘benefit’ when illegal private or public conduct is rectified”); Starbird v. County of San Benito, 122 Cal.App.3d 657 , 176 Cal.Rptr. 149, 153 (1981) (awarding fees under the private attorney general doctrine where the plaintiffs “vindicated important rights of the people of San Benito County which were ignored by the officials charged with enfor

2008Symons, Pomeroy’s Equity Jurisprudence § 109 (5th ed.1941)); see also Woodland Hills Residents Ass’n, Inc. v. City Council of L.A., 23 Cal.3d 917 , 154 Cal.Rptr. 503 , 593 P.2d 200, 211 (1979) (stating that awarding court “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 under a private attorney general theory”).

2008Such motivation serves the important public policy of “ensuring] that [the] County was governed by rule of law, not of man.” Fox v. Board of County Comm’rs, 121 Idaho 686 , 827 P.2d 699, 706 (Ct.App.1991). ¶ 13 Although some courts have refused to award fees under the private attorney general doctrine where the plaintiff has a large personal stake in the outcome of the litigation, see, e.g., Williams v. San Francisco Bd. of Permit Appeals, 74 Cal.App.4th 961 , 88 Cal.Rptr.2d 565, 567-68 (1999) (concluding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion denying fees because although the plain

2008Such motivation serves the important public policy of “ensuring] that [the] County was governed by rule of law, not of man.” Fox v. Board of County Comm’rs, 121 Idaho 686 , 827 P.2d 699, 706 (Ct.App.1991). ¶ 13 Although some courts have refused to award fees under the private attorney general doctrine where the plaintiff has a large personal stake in the outcome of the litigation, see, e.g., Williams v. San Francisco Bd. of Permit Appeals, 74 Cal.App.4th 961 , 88 Cal.Rptr.2d 565, 567-68 (1999) (concluding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion denying fees because although the plain

2008In Stewart v. Utah Public Service Commission, 885 P.2d 759 (Utah 1994), the supreme court held that Utah courts may award attorney fees under this doctrine when “the ‘vindication of a strong or societally important public policy’ takes place and the necessary costs in doing so ‘transcend the individual plaintiffs pecuniary interest to an extent requiring subsidization.’ ” Id. at 783 (quoting Serrano v. Priest, 20 Cal.3d 25 , 141 Cal.Rptr. 315 , 569 P.2d 1303, 1314 (1977)); see also Faust v. KAI Techs., Inc., 2000 UT 82, ¶ 18 , 15 P.3d 1266 (stating that “in Stewart [the supreme court] recogniz

2008In Stewart v. Utah Public Service Commission, 885 P.2d 759 (Utah 1994), the supreme court held that Utah courts may award attorney fees under this doctrine when “the ‘vindication of a strong or societally important public policy’ takes place and the necessary costs in doing so ‘transcend the individual plaintiffs pecuniary interest to an extent requiring subsidization.’ ” Id. at 783 (quoting Serrano v. Priest, 20 Cal.3d 25 , 141 Cal.Rptr. 315 , 569 P.2d 1303, 1314 (1977)); see also Faust v. KAI Techs., Inc., 2000 UT 82, ¶ 18 , 15 P.3d 1266 (stating that “in Stewart [the supreme court] recogniz

2008See, e.g., Woodland Hills Residents Assn., 154 Cal.Rptr. 503 , 593 P.2d at 212 (recognizing that “the public always has a significant interest in seeing that legal strictures are properly enforced and thus, in a real sense, the public always derives a ‘benefit’ when illegal private or public conduct is rectified”); Starbird v. County of San Benito, 122 Cal.App.3d 657 , 176 Cal.Rptr. 149, 153 (1981) (awarding fees under the private attorney general doctrine where the plaintiffs “vindicated important rights of the people of San Benito County which were ignored by the officials charged with enfor

2008See, e.g., Woodland Hills Residents Assn., 154 Cal.Rptr. 503 , 593 P.2d at 212 (recognizing that “the public always has a significant interest in seeing that legal strictures are properly enforced and thus, in a real sense, the public always derives a ‘benefit’ when illegal private or public conduct is rectified”); Starbird v. County of San Benito, 122 Cal.App.3d 657 , 176 Cal.Rptr. 149, 153 (1981) (awarding fees under the private attorney general doctrine where the plaintiffs “vindicated important rights of the people of San Benito County which were ignored by the officials charged with enfor

2008Such motivation serves the important public policy of “ensuring] that [the] County was governed by rule of law, not of man.” Fox v. Board of County Comm’rs, 121 Idaho 686 , 827 P.2d 699, 706 (Ct.App.1991). ¶ 13 Although some courts have refused to award fees under the private attorney general doctrine where the plaintiff has a large personal stake in the outcome of the litigation, see, e.g., Williams v. San Francisco Bd. of Permit Appeals, 74 Cal.App.4th 961 , 88 Cal.Rptr.2d 565, 567-68 (1999) (concluding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion denying fees because although the plain

2008Such motivation serves the important public policy of “ensuring] that [the] County was governed by rule of law, not of man.” Fox v. Board of County Comm’rs, 121 Idaho 686 , 827 P.2d 699, 706 (Ct.App.1991). ¶ 13 Although some courts have refused to award fees under the private attorney general doctrine where the plaintiff has a large personal stake in the outcome of the litigation, see, e.g., Williams v. San Francisco Bd. of Permit Appeals, 74 Cal.App.4th 961 , 88 Cal.Rptr.2d 565, 567-68 (1999) (concluding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion denying fees because although the plain

2008Prior to oral argument in this case, “the appropriate standard for reviewing equitable awards of attorney fees [was] abuse of discretion.” Hughes v. Cafferty, 2004 UT 22, ¶ 20 , 89 P.3d 148 ; accord Utahns for Better Dental Health-Davis, Inc. v. Davis County Comm’n, 2005 UT App 347, ¶ 5 , 121 P.3d 39 (Better Dental Health I).

2008Prior to oral argument in this case, “the appropriate standard for reviewing equitable awards of attorney fees [was] abuse of discretion.” Hughes v. Cafferty, 2004 UT 22, ¶ 20 , 89 P.3d 148 ; accord Utahns for Better Dental Health-Davis, Inc. v. Davis County Comm’n, 2005 UT App 347, ¶ 5 , 121 P.3d 39 (Better Dental Health I).

2007Living, Inc. v. Obledo, 33 Cal.3d 348 , 188 Cal.Rptr. 873 , 657 P.2d 365, 368-69 (1983) (engaging in full record review to overturn trial court's decision to award fees); Baggett v. Gates, 32 Cal.3d 128 , 185 Cal.Rptr. 232 , 649 P.2d 874, 881-83 (1982) (overturning trial court's denial of attorney fees under the private attorney general doctrine after a review of the record); State v. Hagerman Water Right Owners, Inc. ( In re SRBA Case No. 39576), 130 Idaho 718 , 947 P.2d 391, 394-95, 396-99 (1997) (purporting to review for abuse of discretion, but appearing to treat each prong of the private

2007Living, Inc. v. Obledo, 33 Cal.3d 348 , 188 Cal.Rptr. 873 , 657 P.2d 365, 368-69 (1983) (engaging in full record review to overturn trial court's decision to award fees); Baggett v. Gates, 32 Cal.3d 128 , 185 Cal.Rptr. 232 , 649 P.2d 874, 881-83 (1982) (overturning trial court's denial of attorney fees under the private attorney general doctrine after a review of the record); State v. Hagerman Water Right Owners, Inc. ( In re SRBA Case No. 39576), 130 Idaho 718 , 947 P.2d 391, 394-95, 396-99 (1997) (purporting to review for abuse of discretion, but appearing to treat each prong of the private

2007Regarding the vindication of this strong and societally important public policy issue, the Oregon Supreme Court recognized that defending the “integrity of the ... initiative process! ]” benefits all citizens of the State and “is the type of public benefit that ... makes an award of attorney fees appropriate.” Armatta v. Kitzhaber, 327 Or. 250 , 959 P.2d 49, 71 (1998); see also Umrein v. Heimbigner, 53 Or.App. 871 , 632 P.2d 1367, 1371-73 (1981) (awarding attorney fees under Oregon’s version of the private attorney general doctrine because parties exercising the constitutional right to place i

2007Regarding the vindication of this strong and societally important public policy issue, the Oregon Supreme Court recognized that defending the “integrity of the ... initiative process! ]” benefits all citizens of the State and “is the type of public benefit that ... makes an award of attorney fees appropriate.” Armatta v. Kitzhaber, 327 Or. 250 , 959 P.2d 49, 71 (1998); see also Umrein v. Heimbigner, 53 Or.App. 871 , 632 P.2d 1367, 1371-73 (1981) (awarding attorney fees under Oregon’s version of the private attorney general doctrine because parties exercising the constitutional right to place i

2007Living, Inc. v. Obledo, 33 Cal.3d 348 , 188 Cal.Rptr. 873 , 657 P.2d 365, 368-69 (1983) (engaging in full record review to overturn trial court's decision to award fees); Baggett v. Gates, 32 Cal.3d 128 , 185 Cal.Rptr. 232 , 649 P.2d 874, 881-83 (1982) (overturning trial court's denial of attorney fees under the private attorney general doctrine after a review of the record); State v. Hagerman Water Right Owners, Inc. ( In re SRBA Case No. 39576), 130 Idaho 718 , 947 P.2d 391, 394-95, 396-99 (1997) (purporting to review for abuse of discretion, but appearing to treat each prong of the private

2007Living, Inc. v. Obledo, 33 Cal.3d 348 , 188 Cal.Rptr. 873 , 657 P.2d 365, 368-69 (1983) (engaging in full record review to overturn trial court's decision to award fees); Baggett v. Gates, 32 Cal.3d 128 , 185 Cal.Rptr. 232 , 649 P.2d 874, 881-83 (1982) (overturning trial court's denial of attorney fees under the private attorney general doctrine after a review of the record); State v. Hagerman Water Right Owners, Inc. ( In re SRBA Case No. 39576), 130 Idaho 718 , 947 P.2d 391, 394-95, 396-99 (1997) (purporting to review for abuse of discretion, but appearing to treat each prong of the private

2007Living, Inc. v. Obledo, 33 Cal.3d 348 , 188 Cal.Rptr. 873 , 657 P.2d 365, 368-69 (1983) (engaging in full record review to overturn trial court's decision to award fees); Baggett v. Gates, 32 Cal.3d 128 , 185 Cal.Rptr. 232 , 649 P.2d 874, 881-83 (1982) (overturning trial court's denial of attorney fees under the private attorney general doctrine after a review of the record); State v. Hagerman Water Right Owners, Inc. ( In re SRBA Case No. 39576), 130 Idaho 718 , 947 P.2d 391, 394-95, 396-99 (1997) (purporting to review for abuse of discretion, but appearing to treat each prong of the private

2007Living, Inc. v. Obledo, 33 Cal.3d 348 , 188 Cal.Rptr. 873 , 657 P.2d 365, 368-69 (1983) (engaging in full record review to overturn trial court's decision to award fees); Baggett v. Gates, 32 Cal.3d 128 , 185 Cal.Rptr. 232 , 649 P.2d 874, 881-83 (1982) (overturning trial court's denial of attorney fees under the private attorney general doctrine after a review of the record); State v. Hagerman Water Right Owners, Inc. ( In re SRBA Case No. 39576), 130 Idaho 718 , 947 P.2d 391, 394-95, 396-99 (1997) (purporting to review for abuse of discretion, but appearing to treat each prong of the private

2007Cf. City of Sacramento v. Drew, 207 Cal.App.3d 1287 , 255 Cal.Rptr. 704, 710 (1989) (considering whether the grounds given by the trial court in denying an attorney fee award were consistent with the legal principles, substantive law, and the policy and purpose behind the private attorney general doctrine).

2007Cf. City of Sacramento v. Drew, 207 Cal.App.3d 1287 , 255 Cal.Rptr. 704, 710 (1989) (considering whether the grounds given by the trial court in denying an attorney fee award were consistent with the legal principles, substantive law, and the policy and purpose behind the private attorney general doctrine).

2007Living, Inc. v. Obledo, 33 Cal.3d 348 , 188 Cal.Rptr. 873 , 657 P.2d 365, 368-69 (1983) (engaging in full record review to overturn trial court's decision to award fees); Baggett v. Gates, 32 Cal.3d 128 , 185 Cal.Rptr. 232 , 649 P.2d 874, 881-83 (1982) (overturning trial court's denial of attorney fees under the private attorney general doctrine after a review of the record); State v. Hagerman Water Right Owners, Inc. ( In re SRBA Case No. 39576), 130 Idaho 718 , 947 P.2d 391, 394-95, 396-99 (1997) (purporting to review for abuse of discretion, but appearing to treat each prong of the private

2007Living, Inc. v. Obledo, 33 Cal.3d 348 , 188 Cal.Rptr. 873 , 657 P.2d 365, 368-69 (1983) (engaging in full record review to overturn trial court's decision to award fees); Baggett v. Gates, 32 Cal.3d 128 , 185 Cal.Rptr. 232 , 649 P.2d 874, 881-83 (1982) (overturning trial court's denial of attorney fees under the private attorney general doctrine after a review of the record); State v. Hagerman Water Right Owners, Inc. ( In re SRBA Case No. 39576), 130 Idaho 718 , 947 P.2d 391, 394-95, 396-99 (1997) (purporting to review for abuse of discretion, but appearing to treat each prong of the private