Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-01363/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-01363-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

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 

Franchise Holding II LLC,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Huntington Restaurants Group 

Incorporated, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-12-01363-PHX-DGC

ORDER 

Plaintiff filed a complaint on June 25, 2012 asserting a claim for breach of 

contract. Doc. 1. The Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on 

January 8, 2014 and awarded Plaintiff damages in the amount of $12,800,000 plus 

prejudgment interest. Doc. 86. Plaintiff now asks the Court to award attorneys’ fees in 

the amount of $71,930.82 in connection with this action. Doc. 89. The motion is fully 

briefed and no party has requested oral argument. For the reasons that follow, the Court 

will grant the motion. 

I. Legal Standard. 

Under Arizona law, “[i]n any contested action arising out of a contract, express or 

implied, the court may award the successful party reasonable attorney fees.” 

A.R.S. § 12-341.01(A). To determine whether an award of attorneys’ fees is appropriate, 

courts consider a number of factors, including: (1) the merits of the unsuccessful party’s 

claim; (2) whether the litigation could have been avoided or settled and whether the 

Case 2:12-cv-01363-DGC Document 92 Filed 03/24/14 Page 1 of 4
- 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 

successful party’s efforts were completely superfluous in achieving the ultimate result; 

(3) whether assessing fees against the unsuccessful party would cause extreme hardship; 

(4) whether the successful party prevailed with respect to all relief sought; (5) whether 

the legal question presented was novel or had been previously adjudicated; and 

(6) whether a fee award would discourage other parties with tenable claims from 

litigating. Velarde v. PACE Membership Warehouse, Inc., 105 F.3d 1313, 1319-20 (9th 

Cir. 1997); Associated Indemn. Corp. v. Warner, 694 P.2d 1181, 1184 (Ariz. 1985) (en 

banc); Uyleman v. D.S. Rentco, 981 P.2d 1081, 1086 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1999). 

II. Analysis. 

 A. Appropriateness of Awarding Fees. 

Defendants do not dispute that this action arose out of contract. Doc. 90. The 

Court will individually consider each of the six factors outlined above. 

 1. Whether Defendants’ Claim was Meritorious. 

As noted above, the Court granted summary judgment for Plaintiff. Doc. 86. 

Defendants do not advance any new arguments concerning the merit of their position. 

This factor favors Plaintiff. 

 2. Whether the Litigation Could Have Been Avoided. 

Defendants argue that “this litigation might well have been avoided had Plaintiff 

simply renewed its original judgment.” Doc. 90 at 2. Plaintiff responds that when 

Defendants stopped making payments under their Stay Agreement with Plaintiff, the 

original judgment had expired and Plaintiff had “no other recourse other than to initiate 

this action against Defendants.” Doc. 91 at 2. The Court agrees. This factor favors 

Plaintiff. 

 3. Whether Assessing Fees Would Cause Extreme Hardship. 

Defendants argue that “the Beatties are effectively precluded from receiving 

compensation from any of the defendant businesses and are limited in their ability to 

form new businesses.” Doc. 90 at 2-3. They further argue that “[a] large fee award just 

adds to the heavy financial burden the Beatties already suffer under.” Id. at 3. 

Case 2:12-cv-01363-DGC Document 92 Filed 03/24/14 Page 2 of 4
- 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 

Defendants, however, have not provided any evidence of financial hardship. “[T]he party 

asserting financial hardship has the burden of coming forward with prima facie evidence 

of financial hardship.” Woerth v. City of Flagstaff, 808 P.2d 297, 305 (Ariz. Ct. App. 

1990). Defendants have failed to meet this burden. This factor favors Plaintiff. 

 4. Whether Plaintiff Prevailed With Respect to All Relief Sought. 

The Court granted summary judgment and Plaintiff clearly prevailed with respect 

to all relief sought. This factor favors Plaintiff. 

 5. Whether the Legal Question Presented was Novel. 

This action concerned a breach of contract. Defendant does not contend that any 

novel legal questions were presented. This factor favors Plaintiff. 

 6. Would a Fee Award Discourage Other Parties? 

Neither party argues this point. The Court cannot conclude that a fee award would 

discourage other parties from litigating. This factor favors Plaintiff. 

 In sum, all six factors favor Plaintiff. An award of fees is appropriate in this case. 

B. Reasonableness of the Requested Fees. 

Defendants make no arguments that the fees requested by Plaintiff are not 

reasonable. Plaintiff cites Schweiger v. China Doll Restaurant, Inc., 673 P.2d 927, 931-

32 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1983), for the proposition that the Court should consider “(1) the 

attorneys’ hourly rates, and (2) the amount of time spent on each task.” Doc. 89 at 3. 

Plaintiff argues that “[i]f the attorneys’ rates are reasonable and the attorneys’ time was 

reasonable, then the fee award is reasonable as well.” Id. at 4 (citing Schweiger, 673 P.2d 

at 931-32). 

 The Court finds the hourly rates charged by Plaintiff’s legal team to be reasonable 

for the Phoenix market and for attorneys of the skill and experience needed for a case 

such as this. The Court also finds the time records provided by Plaintiff’s counsel to be 

sufficiently detailed, and the hours incurred in pursuing this case to be reasonable. 

Having considered the record as a whole and the relevant fee award factors, see Warner, 

694 P.2d at 1184, the Court finds the requested fee award to be reasonable and 

Case 2:12-cv-01363-DGC Document 92 Filed 03/24/14 Page 3 of 4
- 4 - 

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 

appropriate. See also LRCiv 54.2(c)(3)(A)-(M) (listing factors bearing on the 

reasonableness of a fee award). 

IT IS ORDERED: 

1. Plaintiff’s motion for attorneys’ fees (Doc. 89) is granted. 

 2. Plaintiff is awarded attorneys’ fees in the amount of $71,930.82 pursuant 

 to A.R.S. § 12-341.01(A). 

 Dated this 24th day of March, 2014. 

Case 2:12-cv-01363-DGC Document 92 Filed 03/24/14 Page 4 of 4