In this case, after plaintiff demanded that it do so, a restaurant altered its premises to make it conform to current standards of accessability for the disabled.  However, the restaurant was under no statutory duty to do so.  H&S Code 19955 did not require the alterations because the restaurant was not newly constructed nor had it undergone other alterations that might trigger an obligation to bring the premises up to current standards of accessability.  The catalyst theory works under Civil Code 55 as well as 1021.5.  One requirement of the catalyst theory is that the suit have “sufficient merit” which requires at a minimum that the suit raise questions of law or fact that are grave and difficult.  This decision questions whether a catalyst theory recovery is ever possible after the case has resulted in a judgment against the plaintiff after a full trial (or presumably any other full contest) on the merits.  Here, after a 12-day trial, the plaintiff failed to prove his claim of a right to an injunction under section 19955.  If, as here, the suit lacked merit, there can be no catalyst theory fee recovery even if the plaintiff’s pre-suit demand caused the defendant to act as plaintiff desired.  Civil Code 55 allows a fee award to a person aggrieved by a violation of the Unruh Act.  Here, plaintiff failed to prove a violation, so isn’t entitled to a fee award.