Physicians for Social Responsibility – Los Angeles et al.
v. Department of Toxic Substances Control

 (Cal. Ct. App., Mar. 4, 2026, No. C100487)

Introduction

The California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, held Physicians for Social Responsibility (Physicians) were not entitled to attorney fees under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5 where they lost their CEQA writ petition on the merits and the agency later voluntarily modified its environmental analysis. The catalyst theory does not apply when the underlying litigation has already been resolved by a final judgment against petitioner because petitioner cannot show the lawsuit achieved its result through a “threat of victory.” Accordingly, where an agency prevails on the merits and later takes post-judgment voluntary action, petitioner is not a “successful party” eligible for attorney fees.

Factual Background

For decades, the federal government conducted rocket and nuclear research at the Santa Susana Field Laboratory in Ventura County, a site largely owned by Boeing and leased – in part – to the U.S. Department of Energy. The research and testing activities conducted by the federal government resulted in considerable contamination. Soil and groundwater remediation has been overseen by California’s Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), and subject to CEQA review.

In 2013, after Boeing notified DTSC of its intent to demolish structures on the previously leased property, Physicians filed a petition for writ of mandate asserting that the demolition was subject to CEQA and that DTSC failed to consider the environmental impact of such activity. The superior court and appellate court found that Boeing’s demolition was a private activity not subject to discretionary approval by a public agency and, therefore, not subject to CEQA. The California Supreme Court denied review, leaving Physicians without any of the relief sought in its petition.

After the appellate decision but before the Supreme Court denied review, DTSC issued an EIR that analyzed Boeing’s demolition activities as part of the overall clean-up project at the site to provide a conservative assessment of environmental impacts. Physicians argued this analysis achieved the primary objective of their lawsuit and sought attorney fees pursuant to section 1021.5 under a catalyst theory.

Issues and Court’s Analysis

The superior court denied Physicians’ motion for attorney fees under section 1021.5, finding they failed to demonstrate their lawsuit had merit or achieved its result through a “threat of victory,” as required under the catalyst theory. The appellate court agreed and explained that merit is evaluated objectively and requires that the action present serious, non-frivolous legal or factual questions. Although Physicians argued that DTSC’s later inclusion of the demolition analysis in the EIR and certain early litigation successes showed the lawsuit had merit, the court rejected those arguments.

The appellate court was unwilling to extend the catalyst theory because the relief sought in the underlying litigation was voluntarily provided only after the merits of the claims had been fully litigated to a final judgment against Physicians. The court explained that the catalyst theory does not apply where the party seeking attorney fees has already received an adverse judgment on the merits. Instead, the theory applies only in cases where courts must determine prevailing party status without a decision on the merits.

Physicians argued the timing of DTSC’s decision to analyze the demolition in the EIR showed the lawsuit was the catalyst for the agency’s actions. The court rejected this argument, finding no causal connection between the litigation and DTSC’s decision, particularly because DTSC presented evidence that the timing was unrelated to the lawsuit and the EIR was issued only after the court had already ruled in DTSC’s favor.

Physicians also argued that denying fees under the catalyst theory undermined public policy because their litigation produced a public benefit when DTSC later analyzed the demolition in the EIR. The court rejected this argument, concluding that the policy behind the catalyst theory was not implicated because DTSC had already prevailed on the merits and was not acting under a threat of judicial compulsion when it voluntarily issued the EIR.

Conclusion

The appellate court held that Physicians were not “successful parties” entitled to attorney fees under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5. Because Physicians lost the underlying CEQA litigation on the merits, they could not demonstrate that their lawsuit achieved relief through a “threat of victory,” as required under the catalyst theory. The court therefore concluded that DTSC’s voluntary post-litigation decision to analyze the demolition activities in an EIR did not entitle Physicians to attorney fees.

[This alert does not constitute legal advice and no attorney-client relationship is created by viewing or responding to this alert. Legal counsel should be sought for answers to specific legal questions.]