Soco West v. Cal. EPA CA4/3

Filed 3/5/13 Soco West v. Cal. EPA CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

SOCO WEST, INC.,

Plaintiff and Appellant, G047075

v. (Super. Ct. No. 30-2010-00359507)

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL OPINION PROTECTION AGENCY et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

Appeal from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Gregory H. Lewis, Judge. Affirmed. Rutan & Tucker, Richard Montevideo and Peter J. Howell for Plaintiff and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Brian W. Hembacher and Thomas G. Heller for Defendants and Respondents.

* * *

In the underlying case, the trial court granted plaintiff Soco West, Inc.‟s (Soco) motion for judgment on the pleadings and issued a writ of mandate directing defendants California Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Toxic Substances Control and Deborah Raphael, in her official capacity as Director of the Department of Toxic Substances Control (collectively, DTSC) to transfer the cleanup of a hazardous waste site from Chapter 6.5 to Chapter 6.8 of Division 20 of the Health and Safety Code upon Soco‟s written request. We affirmed that judgment as modified. (Soco West, Inc. v. California Environmental Protection Agency et al. (Feb. 28, 2013, G046549) [nonpub. opn.].) Soco moved for attorney fees under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5 (all further statutory references are to this code); the court denied the motion on the ground Soco had presented no evidence of its private interest or motivation for filing the lawsuit. Soco filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing the court had applied the wrong legal standard by requiring it to present evidence of its subjective motives, which raised a new issue entitling Soco to present new evidence. Denying the motion, the court found Soco had failed to present new and different facts as required by section 1008 and rejected the claim it had required Soco to present evidence of its personal motivations. Soco contends the court applied the wrong evidentiary standard in denying the fee motion and should have granted reconsideration because the ruling raised a new issue. Finding no error, we affirm.