The trial court did not abuse its discretion in holding that a plaintiff homeowners association was not entitled to private attorney general fees under the catalyst theory.  To prevail on that theory, the court must find that the plaintiff’s lawsuit was a material factor that contributed in a significant way to the defendant’s adopting a changed plan or conduct that achieved the litigation’s primary objectives.  Here, substantial evidence supported the trial court’s findings that neither of these requirements was satisfied.  The defendant changed the course of the planned highway extension for reasons other than the suit.  And the realignment didn’t achieve the suit’s primary objectives.