1 2 3 4 5 6 7
ARTURO J. GONZALEZ (BAR NO. 121490) (
[email protected]) MIRIAM A. VOGEL (BAR NO. 67822) (
[email protected]) SUZANNA P. BRICKMAN (BAR NO. 250891) (
[email protected]) MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 425 Market Street San Francisco, California 94105-2482 Telephone: 415.268.7000 Facsimile: 415.268.7522 Attorneys for Petitioner BULLIS CHARTER SCHOOL
8 9
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10
FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
11 12
BULLIS CHARTER SCHOOL,
13
Petitioner,
14 15 16
CASE NO. 109CV144569 [PROPOSED] ORDER AWARDING ATTORNEYS FEES
v. LOS ALTOS SCHOOL DISTRICT; BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LOS ALTOS SCHOOL DISTRICT; and TIM JUSTUS, in his capacity as District Superintendent,
17 Respondents. 18
JUDGE: HON. PATRICIA LUCAS Date: October 5, 2012 Time: 9:00 a.m. Dept: 2
19 Petition Filed: June 10, 2009
20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
[PROPOSED] ORDER AWARDING ATTORNEYS’ FEES sf-3180569
1
Bullis Charter School’s motion for attorneys’ fees came before this Court on October 5,
2
2012. Having read and considered the motion, memorandum of points and authorities,
3
accompanying declarations and exhibits, other pleadings and papers on file herein, and after all
4
parties had an opportunity to be heard, and good cause appearing, the Court hereby GRANTS
5
Bullis’ motion.
6
The Court finds that Bullis is entitled to attorneys’ fees pursuant to Code of Civil
7
Procedure section 1021.5. Bullis was prevailing party, and the trial court’s and Court of Appeal’s
8
decisions enforced several important rights affecting the public interest, and conferred significant
9
public benefit, to the entire charter school and school district community. Both the Court of
10
Appeal and the Los Altos School District recognized the important public interest of this case.
11
(Bullis Charter School v. Los Altos School Dist., (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1032-1035, italics
12
added [“this case presents issues of broad public interest. . . . There are hundreds of charter
13
schools currently operating in this state. . . . Issues concerning the manner in which school
14
district facilities are allocated to charter schools under Proposition 39 are therefore undoubtedly of
15
broad interest to the charter schools and the school districts receiving facilities requests.”]; Pet.
16
for Review, available at 2011 CA S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1716, at *4 (Dec. 6, 2011) [“The issues
17
presented [in this case] go to the core of delivery of education.”].) The Court further finds that
18
Bullis’ requested fees reflect a reasonable number of hours worked on the trial court and appellate
19
matter, and that the hourly rates requested are reasonable in light of the experience of counsel, the
20
complexity of the matter, the rates charged by comparable law firms, and the 10% discount
21
applied.
22
Accordingly, Bullis’ motion for attorneys’ fees is GRANTED. The Los Altos School
23
District, Board of Trustees of the Los Altos School District, and Superintendent Tim Justus are
24
ordered to pay attorneys’ fees in the amount of $1,304,109 to Bullis Charter School.
25 26
IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: ____________________, 2012
________________________________
27
Hon. Patricia M. Lucas
28
Judge of the Superior Court 1 [PROPOSED] ORDER AWARDING ATTORNEYS’ FEES sf-3180569
