The California Court of Appeal has ruled in the case of Robles v. City of Ontario, affirming a lower court's decision regarding attorney fees awarded to plaintiffs Chris Robles and the California Voting Rights Initiative. The court's ruling, filed on October 22, 2026, addresses the contentious dispute over attorney fees stemming from a voting rights case that has significant implications for how such cases are litigated in California.
This case began as a voting rights dispute when Robles and the California Voting Rights Initiative alleged that the City of Ontario violated state and federal election laws by conducting at-large elections for its city council instead of district-based elections. The plaintiffs argued that this practice diluted the voting power of minority groups, violating the California Voting Rights Act (CVRA) and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The case was filed under docket number G065946 in the Superior Court of San Bernardino County.
After a settlement was reached that aimed to change Ontario's election procedures, the trial court awarded Robles $162,000 in attorney fees and $2,159.30 in costs. Robles appealed the amount, claiming the court set the lodestar rate too low and excluded over 200 hours of claimed attorney work. The City of Ontario cross-appealed, arguing that Robles should not receive any fees at all.
The court ruled that Robles was entitled to attorney fees and costs, affirming the trial court's decision. The court stated, "Robles was the prevailing party, because their litigation objectives...succeeded at a practical level in vindicating and rectifying" the defendants' violations of the CVRA. The judges on the panel included Justices Moore, Motoike, and Gooding.
In the ruling, the court addressed several key issues. First, it rejected Ontario's argument that Robles was not a prevailing party, affirming that the plaintiffs had achieved their objectives through the litigation. The court also upheld the trial court's decision to set the hourly rate for Robles' lead attorney, Scott J. Rafferty, at $750, rather than the higher rates claimed by Robles.
Robles had initially requested $490,323.37 in fees and a multiplier enhancement of $196,129.35. However, the trial court found that many of Rafferty's billing records were problematic due to block billing, which obscured the actual time spent on individual tasks. The court ultimately reduced the total hours billed, leading to the award of $162,000 in fees.
The court's ruling has important implications for future voting rights litigation in California. It clarifies the criteria for determining prevailing parties in such cases and reinforces the necessity for accurate and detailed billing records when seeking attorney fees. The decision also highlights the court's discretion in assessing what constitutes reasonable attorney fees based on local rates and the specifics of the case.
Looking ahead, the ruling sets a precedent for how attorney fees will be handled in voting rights cases, particularly in California. It emphasizes the importance of thorough documentation and adherence to procedural requirements when litigating such matters. The court's affirmation of the trial court's decisions may encourage future plaintiffs to pursue similar claims, knowing that they may be entitled to recover reasonable attorney fees if they prevail.
As for what’s next, it is unclear whether the City of Ontario plans to appeal this decision further. However, given the nature of the case and the ongoing discussions around voting rights in California, it is likely that related cases may emerge, potentially leading to further clarifications in the law regarding attorney fees in voting rights litigation.