There was no due process violation in the city’s hiring outside counsel on an hourly fee basis to prosecute nuisance abatement suits.  Also, a fee award to the City as the prevailing party in the litigation was not an undue burden on the defendant’s First Amendment right to petittion government by defending the nuisance abatement suit.  Health & Safety Code 17980.7(c)(11), serves to further important public policies unrelated to the suppression of free expression—in this case, the abatement of public nuisances, where the owner has failed to do so after notice and a reasonable opportunity to voluntarily comply.  The city was the prevailing party under the catalyst theory.  Only after it secured an order appointing a receiver for the property did the defendant agree to make the repairs that he had for years refused to do.