Key Points

  • Code of Civil Procedure section 1010.6's two-court-day extension for electronic service applies to the 30-day deadline for a fee motion in a validation action, because that deadline runs from notice of entry of judgment, which is given by service.
  • The statute's exception for a notice of appeal does not reach a fee motion, even though rule 3.1702(b)(1) ties the fee-motion deadline to the appeal deadline.
  • Section 1005 does not govern the timing of a fee motion and does not displace the e-service extension.
  • Alternatively, a trial court may extend the fee-motion deadline on its own motion for good cause under rule 3.1702(d), and an honest mistake of law about the extension may qualify.
  • In unpublished parts, the court affirmed the $27,625 section 1021.5 award to the Conservation Society and the cost awards, and held that its March 2026 Measure Y decision did not require reversal.

A California appeals court held on Oct. 28 that electronic service of a notice of entry of judgment adds two court days to the 30-day deadline for seeking attorney fees in a validation action. The ruling upheld a $27,625 fee award to the nonprofit that runs the Oakland Zoo, which a taxpayer group had challenged as filed one day late.

A unanimous panel of the First Appellate District, Division Four, affirmed the award to the Conservation Society of California over an appeal by the Alameda County Taxpayers' Association, which had sued to overturn Measure Y, an Oakland parcel tax that funds the zoo. Justice Streeter wrote the opinion, joined by Presiding Justice Brown and Judge Gordon of the San Francisco Superior Court, sitting by assignment.

The court published only its ruling on the deadline, saying the issue was one of first impression. Court rules require a motion for fees earned through judgment to be filed within the time to appeal, which in a validation action, including the reverse validation action the association brought to invalidate the measure, is 30 days from notice of entry of judgment. The panel held that the electronic-service extension in Code of Civil Procedure section 1010.6 lengthens that window, even though the same statute bars extending the time to file a notice of appeal.

Measure Y, approved by 63.1 percent of Oakland voters in November 2022, imposes a parcel tax of $68 a year on single-family parcels for 20 years to raise about $12 million a year for the zoo. The association sued in February 2023 to invalidate it. In a March 2026 decision, the same court severed three references to the Conservation Society that it found violated the state constitution's bar on initiatives naming a private corporation to perform a function, but upheld the rest of the measure and rejected the association's supermajority argument.

The trial court entered judgment for the City of Oakland and the Conservation Society on July 5, 2024, and the city e-served notice of entry on July 8. The Conservation Society moved for $79,932.81 in fees on Aug. 8, 31 days later, under sections 868 and 1021.5; the trial court awarded fees only under section 1021.5, the private attorney general statute, which allows fees to a successful party in litigation that enforced an important right affecting the public interest. Alameda County Superior Court Judge Michael M. Markman found the motion timely and awarded fees for 65 hours at $425 an hour. The trial court added that it would hear the motion in its discretion even if the extension did not apply.

Section 1010.6 extends by two court days a deadline that runs "after the service of the document" when that document is served electronically. The validation statute requires an appeal "within 30 days after the notice of entry of the judgment," and the panel reasoned that notice is given by serving the document. "The time runs from the notice of entry, not from the entry itself," Justice Streeter wrote. "In our view, the two-court-day extension under section 1010.6 applies in this case."

The panel distinguished Wash v. Banda-Wash, a 2025 decision holding that the extension did not apply to a cost deadline running from "issuance of the remittitur," which that court read to mean entry in the record rather than service.

The association argued that because the fee deadline borrows the appeal deadline, a fee motion falls within section 1010.6's exception for a notice of appeal. The panel disagreed. Borrowing the timeline "does not mean a motion for attorney fees is itself a notice of appeal and is subject to the specific restrictions on extending the time to file a notice of appeal," the court wrote. It noted that appeal deadlines generally cannot be extended, while fee deadlines can.

The panel also rejected the association's reliance on section 1005, which sets filing intervals for motion papers before a hearing. "By its own terms, section 1005 does not apply to a motion for attorney fees because rule 3.1702 sets forth the time period in which a fee motion must be filed," the court wrote.

In the alternative, the panel held that the trial court permissibly extended the deadline for good cause under rule 3.1702(d). The association argued that the Conservation Society never asked for an extension, but the panel said a trial court may grant one on its own motion. Citing its 2016 decision in Robinson v. U-Haul Co. of California, the court said an attorney's "honest mistake of law" may be good cause. It found no prejudice, because the association "had, and exercised, a full and fair opportunity to oppose the Conservation Society's fee motion on its merits."

In unpublished sections, the panel rejected the association's argument that the March 2026 ruling required reversal of the fee award. The trial court had found in the alternative that severance would cure any constitutional defect, and the panel saw no likelihood of a different fee ruling. "In either case, the Association's goal of invalidating Measure Y was not achieved," the court wrote.

The panel also upheld the finding that the Conservation Society qualified for fees under section 1021.5, writing that "the suggestion of self-interest on the part of the Conservation Society is overblown" because the tax money must fund zoo operations. "In our view, this remains a case in which the Association sought to constrain the public's initiative rights, employed strained arguments in seeking the invalidation of Measure Y, and was largely unsuccessful in the litigation," Justice Streeter wrote.

The court rejected the association's claim that the nonprofit had piggybacked on the city's legal work, noting that the trial court had already discounted its hours, and declined to cut $390 from the city's court reporter costs.

Lawyers for the taxpayer association included Jason A. Bezis of the Law Offices of Jason A. Bezis. The city was represented by City Attorney Ryan Richardson.

The panel affirmed the fee and cost order in full and ordered that the city and the Conservation Society recover their costs on appeal.