What is the test for awarding attorneys' fees under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5?

"On appeal, 'we must pay " 'particular attention to the trial court's stated reasons in denying or awarding fees and [see] whether it applied the proper standards of law in reaching its decision.' " ' [Citation.] 'The pertinent question is whether the grounds given by the court for its [grant] of an award are consistent with the substantive law of [Code of Civil Procedure] section 1021.5 and, if so, whether their application to the facts of this case is within the range of discretion conferred upon the trial courts under section 1021.5, read in light of the purposes and policy of the statute.' " (County of Colusa v. California Wildlife Conservation Bd. (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 637, 648.)

Valley begins by proffering an argument not based on the statutory requirements set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5 but rather the general assertion that because the named plaintiffs had other financial incentives to bring their case and other mechanisms for recovering attorneys' fees, awarding them attorneys' fees under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5 would not comport with the "purpose and intent" of the statute. Valley cites no authority holding that even though the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5 were met, a trial court may not award attorneys' fees where the plaintiff could have or originally intended to (but did not) proceed to trial under a different statute that authorizes attorneys' fees. (See Bell v. Vista Unified School

Page 30