The California Farm Bureau is urging the state Supreme Court to review a ruling that could leave nonprofit organizations facing steep attorney fees when they intervene in lawsuits challenging government actions.
CAFB’s legal team submitted an amicus curiae letter last week supporting a petition from CropLife America, Responsible Industry for a Sound Environment and the Western Plant Health Association.
At issue is an $857,000 attorney fee award obtained by the environmental group Raptors Are the Solution after years of litigation over the California Department of Pesticide Regulation’s handling of anticoagulant rodenticides.
The group challenged DPR’s decisions to renew registrations for several rodenticides without conducting reevaluations under the California Environmental Quality Act and department regulations. The litigation ultimately led DPR to place diphacinone and four second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides into reevaluation. The Legislature also imposed moratoriums on their use while the reviews are underway.
Cut through the clutter! We deliver the news you need to stay informed about farm, food and rural issues. Sign up for a FREE month of Agri-Pulse here.
CropLife and the other pesticide trade groups had intervened to defend DPR’s decisions. An Alameda County judge later held them jointly and severally liable with DPR and pesticide registrants for the conservation group’s fees under California’s Private Attorneys General Act.
The First District Court of Appeal upheld that decision in April. The court concluded the trade associations were “opposing parties” because they had asserted a direct economic interest when seeking to intervene and actively participated in defending DPR’s actions.
CAFB argues the ruling creates a broader financial threat for nonprofit membership organizations that enter public law cases to represent their members’ interests, even though they did not adopt or enforce the government action being challenged.
The organization says potential fee awards can range from hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars and could discourage nonprofits from participating in cases with major consequences for their members.
The farm bureau is asking the high court to distinguish nonprofit advocacy organizations from businesses or other parties with a direct financial stake in a specific government approval. It contends nonprofits should not face the same fee exposure merely because their members could be affected by the outcome.
