Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_03-cv-01987/USCOURTS-azd-2_03-cv-01987-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

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

MARY CSANYI, a single woman,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

REGIS CORPORATION; SUPER CUTS,

 Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 03-1987-PHX-JAT

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Defendants' Motion for Attorneys' Fees (Doc. # 96).

Defendants' motion is premised on their successful defense of Plaintiff's claims for

discrimination and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §

2000e, et seq. 

Under Title VII, the Court, in its discretion, "may allow the prevailing party . . . a

reasonable attorney's fees (including expert fees) as part of the costs . . .." 42 U.S.C. 2000e5(k). In Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC, 434 U.S. 412, 421-22 (1978), the Supreme

Court promulgated the standards to guide the Court when determining whether to award a

prevailing defendant attorney's fees:

[A] district court may in its discretion award attorney's fees to

a prevailing defendant in a Title VII case upon a finding that the

plaintiff's action was frivolous, unreasonable, or without

foundation, even though not brought in subjective bad faith.

In applying these criteria, it is important that a district court

resist the understandable temptation to engage in post hoc

reasoning by concluding that, because a plaintiff did not

ultimately prevail, his action must have been unreasonable or

Case 2:03-cv-01987-JAT Document 125 Filed 02/06/07 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

The retaliation claim was dismissed upon oral motion of defense counsel after

Plaintiff rested. 

2

Regis Corporation was dismissed upon oral motion of its counsel at the completion

of the trial.

- 2 -

without foundation. This kind of hindsight logic could

discourage all but the most airtight claims, for seldom can a

prospective plaintiff be sure of ultimate success.

Defendants argue that Plaintiff's action was frivolous, unreasonable, or without

foundation because Plaintiff presented no evidence of retaliation,1

 presented no evidence she

was employed by Regis Corporation,2 and presented no evidence that similarly situated, nonBolivian employees were treated differently. Defendants also note that the Court, in its

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (Doc. # 92), found Plaintiff's testimony not

credible. 

Despite Defendants' arguments, the Court is unwilling to find that Plaintiff's action

was frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation considering that the Court previously

denied Defendants' summary judgment motion. See Miller v. Los Angeles County Board of

Education, 827 F.2d 617, 620 (9th Cir. 1987) (stating that "a court should be particularly

chary about awarding attorney's fees where the court is unable to conclude that the action

may be dismissed without proceeding to trial"). Also, Defendants' arguments and the Court's

previous denial of summary judgment indicate that Plaintiff merely failed to present evidence

at trial sufficient to justify relief. There has been no showing that Plaintiff's action was

frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation from the outset, which showing would support

an attorney's fee award to Defendants. See Mitchell v. Office of the Los Angeles County

Superintendent of Schools, 805 F.2d 844, 847 (9th Cir. 1986) (stating that there is "a

significant difference between the bringing of cases with no foundation in law or facts at the

outset and the failure to present evidence sufficient to justify relief at trial.").

\\\

\\\

Case 2:03-cv-01987-JAT Document 125 Filed 02/06/07 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 -

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Defendants' Motion for Attorneys' Fees (Doc. # 96) is

DENIED.

DATED this 5th day of February, 2007.

Case 2:03-cv-01987-JAT Document 125 Filed 02/06/07 Page 3 of 3