Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00965/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00965-6/pdf.json

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

---

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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

The Conlon Group of Arizona, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

CNL Biltmore Real Estate, et al, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-08-965-PHX-FJM

ORDER

We now have before us Conlon’s motion for attorney’s fees (doc. 203) and

memorandum in support (doc. 220), the Hotel’s response (doc. 222), and Conlon’s reply

(doc. 224). We also have before us the Hotel’s motion for attorney’s fees (doc. 200) and

memorandum in support (doc. 219), Conlon’s response (doc. 223), and the Hotel’s reply

(doc. 225).

Conlon, as the assignee of the rights of various villa owners, asserted four breach of

contract claims against the Hotel: (1) credit card and travel agent fee overcharges, (2)

overuse of villas as complimentary rooms, (3) undercharging for villa units, and (4) limiting

the use of the villa units to 17% of the Hotel’s total room revenue. At trial, Conlon sought

damages in the amount of $4,551.962. Conlon’s Memorandum at 3. Following a three-day

bench trial, we issued findings and conclusions under Rule 52(a), Fed. R. Civ. P. (doc. 198).

Case 2:08-cv-00965-FJM Document 227 Filed 02/24/10 Page 1 of 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

1

This case is distinguishable from Conlon I, No. CV-06-2065 (D. Ariz. Dec. 3, 2008),

where we concluded that Conlon was the prevailing party because it had prevailed on five

of six claims presented.

- 2 -

We found in favor of Conlon on the issue of credit card and travel agent fees, and in favor

of the Hotel on the remaining three breach of contract claims. We entered judgment in favor

of Conlon in the amount of $525,000. 

Both parties now seek attorney’s fees pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-341.01, which

authorizes the court to award reasonable attorney’s fees to the “successful party” in a

contested action arising out of contract, and pursuant to the Rental Pool Agreement, which

provides that “[i]n the event of any dispute or litigation relative to this Agreement, the

prevailing party shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in

such dispute or litigation.” Trial Exhibit 26. 

In determining prevailing party status, we will consider the “totality of the

circumstances and the relative success of the litigants.” McAlister v. Citibank, 171 Ariz.

207, 216, 829 P.2d 1253, 1262 (Ct. App. 1992); Schwartz v. Farmers Ins. Co., 166 Ariz. 33,

38, 800 P.2d 20, 25 (Ct. App. 1990). Conlon asserted four separate breach of contract

claims. Each claim involved a distinct breach resulting in distinct damages. Conlon

succeeded on only one of the four claims. The Hotel succeeded on three. Conlon originally

sought $9.6 million in damages. It reduced its claim to $4.5 million when we granted the

Hotel’s summary judgment motion on statute of limitations grounds. Ultimately, Conlon was

awarded $525,000 on one claim only–credit card and travel agent fee overcharges. The

Hotel had conceded prior to trial that it owed Conlon $388,000 for this claim. Conlon

received a judgment that was only slightly better than what the Hotel had offered. This is

hardly a successful result. Conlon was not the prevailing party for purposes of awarding

attorney’s fees.1

 

Because judgment was entered in favor of Conlon on one claim, however, and based

on the totality of the litigation, we conclude that neither party was the “successful” or

“prevailing” party under either A.R.S. § 12-341.01 or the Rental Pool Agreement. Therefore,

Case 2:08-cv-00965-FJM Document 227 Filed 02/24/10 Page 2 of 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

- 3 -

we decline to award either party attorney’s fees. See Bank One, Ariz. v. Rouse, 181 Ariz.

36, 41, 887 P.2d 566, 571 (Ct. App. 1994) (affirming denial of fees when the verdict favored

one party in part and the other in part, leaving “no clear successful party”). 

We note that Conlon again seeks reimbursement for travel expenses incurred by its

principal, Mark Finney. This is the second case in which Conlon has sought reimbursement

of Mr. Finney’s expenses without authority to support its claim. Incredibly, however, the

claimed costs in this case include over $2,000 in hotel spa charges, plus in-room movies,

alcohol, magazines, clothing, eye drops, breath mints, cough drops, hand wipes, lip balm,

moisturizer, and sunscreen. Not only does the submission of such charges demonstrate Mr.

Finney’s abusive and excessive litigation approach, but Conlon’s counsel’s approval of these

insupportable and frivolous expenses raises questions under E.R. 3.1, Rules of Professional

Conduct. Conlon has aggressively and at times unreasonably pursued claims against the

Hotel for almost 4 years. Conlon should recognize that if it intends to continue this abusive

litigation, it will do so at its own expense. 

IT IS ORDERED DENYING Conlon’s motion for attorney’s fees (doc. 203).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED DENYING the Hotel’s motion for attorney’s fees

(doc. 200).

DATED this 23rd day of February, 2010.

Case 2:08-cv-00965-FJM Document 227 Filed 02/24/10 Page 3 of 3