Weinstein v. Los Angeles County CA2/1

Filed 11/20/15 Weinstein v. Los Angeles County CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

MICHAEL WEINSTEIN et al., B252043 Plaintiffs and Appellants, (Los Angeles County v. Super. Ct. No. BS138053)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

MICHAEL WEINSTEIN et al., B255642

Plaintiffs and Appellants, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BS138053) v.

LOS ANGELES COUNTY et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

APPEALS from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Robert H. O’Brien, Judge. (Retired judge of the L.A. Sup. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Reversed. Strumwasser & Woocher, Gregory G. Luke and Dale K. Larson; AIDS Healthcare Foundation, Thomas Meyers and Samantha Azulay for Plaintiffs and Appellants.

Ford, Walker, Haggerty & Behar, Renee E. Jensen; Greines, Martin, Stein & Richland, Timothy T. Coates and Barbara W. Ravitz for Defendants, Appellants, and Respondents. —————————— In this consolidated appeal, the County of Los Angeles and others1 (collectively, the County) challenge the trial court’s award of “private attorney general” fees to Michael Weinstein and AIDS Healthcare Foundation (collectively, AHF) pursuant to section 1021.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2 For its part, AHF challenges the amount of the fees awarded. Because, in a prior appeal, we reversed the judgment upon which the attorney fees award was based, we must also reverse the postjudgment order awarding attorney fees to AHF.3 BACKGROUND I. The Merits Appeal In February 2012, the County approved a no-bid contract with Ramsell Public Health Rx, LLC (Ramsell) for pharmacy administrator services to assist the County in implementing provisions of the Affordable Care Act (42 U.S.C. § 300gg et seq.). After AHF challenged the award of the contract, the trial court invalidated the contract in June 2012. Days later, the County approved another no-bid contract with Ramsell substantially identical to the first contract, but which had a one-year term. AHF challenged the second contract. The trial court found that an exception in the County Code permitting no-bid contracts where the contract was for personal services of an “extraordinary and technical