Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-00813/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-00813-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal - Employment Discrimination

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Zachary Contine, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Ronald Credio, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-15-00813-PHX-ESW

ORDER 

 The Court has considered Defendants’ Application for Attorneys’ Fees (Doc. 11), 

Affidavit of Kirsten Story (Doc. 11-1), and Statement of Consultation (Doc. 11-2). No 

response or objection has been filed to the Application. The matter is deemed submitted 

for decision.1

 LRCiv 7.2(i) provides that if counsel does not serve and file a timely responsive 

memorandum to a motion, such non-compliance may be deemed a consent to the granting 

of the pending motion, and the Court may summarily dispose of the motion. Therefore, 

the Court may summarily dispose of Defendants’ Application for Attorneys’ Fees. 

 In addition, the Court recognizes that the standard by which the Court awards 

attorneys’ fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 applies differently to prevailing defendants than 

to prevailing plaintiffs. A district court may award attorneys’ fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

 

1

 The parties have consented to the exercise of Magistrate Judge jurisdiction (Doc. 8). 

Case 2:15-cv-00813-ESW Document 13 Filed 09/03/15 Page 1 of 3
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

§ 1988 to a prevailing civil rights defendant if the court finds that the plaintiff’s action 

was “unreasonable, frivolous, meritless, or vexatious.” Vernon v. Los Angeles, 27 F.3d 

1385, 1402 (9th Cir. 1994); Galen v. Los Angeles, 477 F.3d 652, 666 (9th Cir. 2007). An 

action is considered “meritless” if it is “groundless or without foundation.” 

Christianburg Garment Co. v. EEOC, 434 U.S. 412, 421 (1978). A finding of bad faith 

is not a necessary prerequisite to deeming an action “vexatious.” Id. Simply because a 

plaintiff does not prevail, however, does not automatically render his case unreasonable 

or without foundation. Id. 

 With these criteria in mind, the Court in its discretion found that Defendants are 

entitled to an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees in this case. (Doc. 10 at 2). Plaintiff’s 

action was unreasonable and without merit. Plaintiff previously had litigated his current 

claim in Maricopa County Superior Court (Case No. CV 2013-001618). Final judgment 

had been entered against Plaintiff in favor of the State of Arizona and Arizona 

Department of Corrections on June 25, 2014. The named Defendants in this case are 

parties in privity with the Arizona Department of Corrections for purposes of claim and 

issue preclusion. Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants were barred as a matter of law. 

See Corbett v. Manor Care of Am., Inc., 146 P.3d 1027, 1039 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006). To 

re-litigate the case in district court was unreasonable. In addition, the Court has found 

that Plaintiff failed to state a claim as a matter of law. 

 In determining reasonable attorneys’ fees, the Court finds that Defendants are the 

prevailing party. They have prevailed on all claims raised. The factor analysis set forth 

in Defendants’ Application is adopted by the Court as well-reasoned and supported by 

the record. The Court finds that Defendants’ attorneys’ fees of $4,541.10 are reasonable 

in this case. 

Conclusion 

IT IS ORDERED granting Defendants’ Application for Attorneys’ Fees (Doc. 

11). 

Case 2:15-cv-00813-ESW Document 13 Filed 09/03/15 Page 2 of 3
- 3 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED awarding Defendants reasonable attorneys’ fees in 

the amount of $4,541.10. 

 Dated this 3rd day of September, 2015. 

Honorable Eileen S. Willett

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 2:15-cv-00813-ESW Document 13 Filed 09/03/15 Page 3 of 3