Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01212/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01212-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:2201 Declaratory Judgment

---

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 

National Union Fire Insurance Company of 

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, a Pennsylvania 

Corporation, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

Aero Jet Services, LLC; 757BD, LLC, 

Defendants.

No. CV11-1212-PHX-DGC

ORDER 

 Defendant 757BD filed a motion for attorneys’ fees related to its motion to 

dismiss which the Court granted on October 7, 2011. Doc. 27; see Doc. 25. The motion 

has been fully briefed. Docs. 30, 32. For reasons that follow, the court will grant the 

motion. 

I. Background. 

 On July 26, 2011, Plaintiff, National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburg, 

Pennsylvania, filed a complaint under the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act (“FDJA”) 

seeking a judgment that it had no obligation to defend or indemnify its insured, Aero Jet 

Services, in an underlying state court lawsuit brought against Aero Jet by 757BD, LLC. 

Doc. 1. Defendant 757BD filed a motion to dismiss (Doc. 14), and Defendant Aero Jet 

joined the motion (Doc. 16), arguing that the Court should abstain from exercising its 

jurisdiction over the FDJA claim because Plaintiff could bring its request for declaratory 

judgment in state court. The Court granted Defendants’ motion, finding that National 

Union had an adequate remedy in state court and that the relevant 9th Circuit factors 

Case 2:11-cv-01212-DGC Document 33 Filed 02/16/12 Page 1 of 13
- 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 

weighed in favor of abstention. Doc. 25 at 6-11. 757BD now asks the Court to award 

attorneys’ fees, estimated to be approximately $20,000, in connection with this action. 

Doc. 27. 757BD filed a memorandum and documentation in support of its motion. 

Doc. 29. 

II. Analysis. 

 757BD argues that it is entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees under A.R.S. § 12-

341.01(A) as a successful party in a contested contract action. Doc. 29 at 2. National 

Union raises three arguments in opposition: (1) the action before this Court was never 

contested, so there is no statutory basis for an award; (2) even if the motion has a 

statutory basis, the relevant factors do not support awarding fees; and (3) even if a fee 

award is proper, the claimed fees are unreasonable. Doc. 30 at 5-12. 

A. Statutory Basis for the Requested Fees. 

 Section 12-341.01(A) states, in relevant part, that “[i]n any contested action 

arising out of a contract, express or implied, the court may award the successful party 

reasonable attorney fees.” Ariz. Rev. S. § 12-341.01(A). 757BD argues on the basis of 

Lozier v. Auto Owners Ins. Co., 951 F.2d. 251, 256 (9th Cir. 1991), that this statute 

applies to insurance contract disputes in federal court. Doc. 29 at 2. 757BD also argues 

on the basis of Fulton Homes Corp. v. BBP Concrete, 155 P. 3d 1090, 1096 (Ariz. Ct. 

App. 2007), and Britt v. Steffen, 205 P.3d 357, 359 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008), that 

adjudication on the merits is not required and a party that obtains dismissal is a successful 

party under the statute. Id. 757BD also cites Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Granillo, 573 

P.2d 80, 85-86 (Ariz. 1977), demonstrating that a successful party in an insurance 

declaratory judgment action need not be party to the insurance contract, and additional 

cases showing that Arizona law allows for the recovery of fees incurred in a postjudgment action seeking attorneys’ fees. Id. (citing cases). 

 National Union responds that § 12-341.01(A) requires a party seeking attorneys’ 

fees to have prevailed in a “contested action” and that National Union’s FDJA complaint 

was not “contested” because the Court exercised its discretion to dismiss the case and 

Case 2:11-cv-01212-DGC Document 33 Filed 02/16/12 Page 2 of 13
- 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 never filed an answer addressing the merits. Doc. 30 at 5, 9-13. National 

Union relies on a number of cases, principally Morrison v. Shanwick Int’l Corp., 804 

P.2d 768 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1990), for the proposition that an action is contested where “‘the 

defendant has appeared and generally defends against the claims and demands made by 

the plaintiff.’” Doc. 30 at 10 (quoting 804 P.2d at 775) (emphasis added by National 

Union); 11. National Union notes that Shanwick found the action contested where 

defendants filed an answer to the complaint. Id. (citing 804 P.2d at 775-76). 

 National Union argues that Lozier is inapposite because the plaintiff was awarded 

attorneys’ fees when she prevailed on the merits of her third-party insurance claim after a 

six-day bench trial. Id.; see 951 F.2d at 253. National Union also distinguishes Fulton 

Homes because the parties awarded attorneys’ fees – subcontractors named to indemnify 

defendant home-builders in a home-owners’ class action – participated in several rounds 

of pleadings before having the suit dismissed. Doc. 30 at 11-12 (see 155 P.3d at 1096). 

National Union similarly discounts Britt and Granillo because the prevailing parties 

answered the complaints and thus contested the actions. Id. at 12. 

 The cases cited by the parties do not support a blanket requirement that the 

prevailing party answer the substantive claims in the complaint for an action to be 

contested and for that party to be eligible for attorneys’ fees under § 12-341.01(A). 

Neither do the cases where defendants filed answers or prevailed at trial appear to make 

the nature of the pleadings the determining factor for awarding fees. In Fulton Homes, 

the court stated that “[a]lthough the claims asserted in Fulton’s third-party complaint 

were never litigated,” the subcontractors 

were forced to expend money engaging in discovery, attempting to obtain a stipulation from the homeowners regarding the damages sought, filing a joint status conference report, and filing a request for permission to file a 

motion for summary judgment, among other activities, all in an attempt to extricate themselves from a lawsuit in which the trial court concluded they should never have been forced to participate. 

155 P.3d at 1096. The rationale for awarding fees in Fulton Homes is not that the 

defendant filed an answer, but that the prevailing party was compelled to expend 

Case 2:11-cv-01212-DGC Document 33 Filed 02/16/12 Page 3 of 13
- 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 

resources in its bid to get the suit dismissed. Neither does Fulton Homes require that the 

suit be improper or the dismissal process be protracted. See id. at 1094 (“Assuming that 

the third-party complaint was entirely proper . . . and that Fulton did not delay dismissing 

the complaint for even one minute longer than necessary, that fact would not protect 

Fulton from a fee award under A.R.S. § 12-341.01.”). 

Granillo and Britt do not persuade the court that § 12–341.01(A) is inapplicable 

where defendants never answered the complaint but nonetheless litigated the propriety of 

the Court’s jurisdiction. Those cases never addressed whether an answer to the complaint 

is required. In Granillo, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled that the state court erred when 

it determined that a declaratory judgment action was not the type of case for which 

attorneys’ fees could be awarded, and it further rejected the argument that the party 

requesting attorneys’ fees must be a party to the insurance contract. 573 P.2d at 85. That 

case, as here, involved an insurance company seeking declaratory judgment regarding its 

coverage against both its insured and the claimant against the insured. Id. at 82, 85. The 

court reached the merits of the claim and ruled that the insurance company owed 

coverage. Id. at 82. The Arizona Supreme Court’s rationale for finding that the trial 

court should have awarded attorneys’ fees was that “[t]hough [defendants] prevailed, they 

were forced to incur legal expenses.” Id. at 86. The court quoted the statute as stating 

“[t]he award of reasonable attorneys’ fees should be made to mitigate the burden of the 

expense of litigation for a just claimant.” Id. (quoting A.R.S. § 12–341.01(B)).1

Granillo suggests that a party that prevails in defending against a declaratory 

judgment action is entitled to recover attorneys’ fees if it took actions in its own defense 

and incurred expenses in doing so. Britt is not to the contrary. The issues in Britt were 

(1) whether a party requesting attorneys’ fees after the court dismissed a complaint for 

lack of prosecution qualified as a “successful party” and (2) whether the court could rule 

on a subsequent request for attorneys’ fees even though the court had dismissed the 

 

1

 The 1978 Amendments substituted “a just claim or just defense” for “a just claimant.” See Historical and Statutory Notes, Ariz. Rev. S. § 12-341.01 (B). 

Case 2:11-cv-01212-DGC Document 33 Filed 02/16/12 Page 4 of 13
- 5 - 

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 

action and no longer had jurisdiction over the underlying claims. 205 P.3d at 357, 359. 

The Arizona Court of Appeals held that a defendant who succeeds in having an action 

dismissed without prejudice “is still considered a ‘successful party’ for purposes of 

A.R.S. § 12–341.01(A) even though such a dismissal does not operate as an adjudication 

on the merits.” Id. It further held that the court is not precluded from awarding fees 

“until the underlying merits of the cause are finally determined.” Id. at 360. The Court 

finds no reason why the rationale for awarding fees applied in Granillo and Britt does not 

apply here, where the requesting party did not answer the complaint but nonetheless 

incurred expenses to obtain dismissal of the case. 

Mark Lighting Fixture Co., Inc. v. General Elec. Supply Co., 745 P.2d 123 (Ariz. 

Ct. App. 1986) (overruled on other grounds by statute), cited in Britt, supports this 

conclusion. In Mark Lighting, the Arizona Court of Appeals noted the key difference 

between § 12-348, permitting fees for a party “which prevails by an adjudication on the 

merits,” and § 12-341.01, permitting fees for a successful party in an “action” arising out 

of contract. 745 P.2d at 128 (citing Wagenseller v. Scottsdale Memorial Hosp., 710 P.2d 

1025 (Ariz. 1985)). The court stated that “[i]t is apparent . . . that our legislature intended 

to allow recovery of costs and attorney’s fees when a party succeeds in the particular 

proceeding, which is the ‘action,’ without regard to whether the substantive allegations 

presented therein were disposed of at that time.” 745 P.2d at 129. The court continued: 

“It is not relevant . . . whether the dismissal, purported to be without prejudice, operates 

as a complete dismissal . . . or whether the underlying claim is still viable and will be 

determined in a subsequently filed action. The only relevant point is that the defendants 

were successful in the particular action in question.” Id. 

 Here, Defendants contested National Union’s request that this Court take 

jurisdiction of its FDJA claim and issue declaratory judgments on its behalf. Defendants 

were successful parties in this action even though the Court did not reach the substance of 

National Union’s FDJA claims and National Union may yet prevail on its claims by 

bringing a subsequent action in state court. Accordingly, § 12–341.01(A) provides an 

Case 2:11-cv-01212-DGC Document 33 Filed 02/16/12 Page 5 of 13
- 6 - 

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 statutory basis for 757BD’s motion for attorneys’ fees. 

B. Appropriateness of Awarding Fees. 

 Section 12–341.01(A) is a discretionary statute. Even if it is applicable, the Court 

must determine the appropriateness of awarding fees. The Arizona Supreme Court has 

articulated six factors to consider. Wagenseller, 710 P.2d at 1049 (Ariz. 1985). 

 1. Whether the Claim or Defense was Meritorious. 

 757BD argues that National Union’s attempt to seek declaratory judgment in 

federal court lacked merit. Doc. 29 at 3. 757BD cites several cases from this district in 

which courts have dismissed similar FDJA actions. Id. (citing cases). National Union 

responds that the Court never addressed the merits of its claims for relief, so this factor 

weighs against awarding fees. Doc. 30 at 13. 757BD replies that National Union’s claim 

in the context of the motion to dismiss was that the Court should exercise jurisdiction and 

that this claim lacked merit. Doc. 32 at 5-6. 

 The court’s jurisdiction is part of any claim for relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1). 

National Union had a statutory basis for requesting the Court’s jurisdiction, but that basis 

was discretionary. The FDJA states that federal courts “may declare the rights and other 

legal relations of any interested party seeking such a declaration.” 28 U.S.C. § 2201(a) 

(emphasis added). In light of the fact that Arizona courts have held that attorneys’ fees 

are appropriate in any successful “action,” including one for dismissal on jurisdictional 

grounds, the issue is whether National Union’s claim that the Court should exercise its 

discretionary jurisdiction and grant relief under the FDJA was meritorious. In granting 

the motion to dismiss, the Court concluded that the long-standing Brillhart factors 

weighed against jurisdiction. Doc. 25 at 3-4, 11. The Court reviewed settled Ninth 

Circuit case law showing that this was particularly true where, as here, the parties were 

involved in an underlying state court action involving the same factual issues, and the 

coverage determination – which was subject to state insurance law – could be made in 

state court. See Doc. 25 at 4-7, 9-10. The Court concludes that National Union’s claim 

of federal jurisdiction of its declaratory judgment action lacked merit. The cases 757BD 

Case 2:11-cv-01212-DGC Document 33 Filed 02/16/12 Page 6 of 13
- 7 - 

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 

cites support this conclusion. This factor weighs in favor of awarding attorneys’ fees. 

 2. Whether the Litigation Could Have Been Avoided or Settled. 

 757BD argues that this litigation could have been avoided because National Union 

rejected a request by defense counsel to dismiss the declaratory judgment action and refile in state court. Doc. 29 at 3; see Doc. 24-1 (Ex. A). National Union argues that this 

factor does not apply because the jurisdictional issue was not susceptible to settlement or 

other resolution on the merits. Doc. 30 at 5. National Union appears to argue that 

because only the federal court could rule on whether it would take jurisdiction of 

National Union’s FDJA claims, that issue could not have been avoided or settled by 

taking the action to state court. National Union’s reference to the merits of the suit 

suggests that National Union also had no other vehicle to resolve the coverage issue. 

 The Court agrees that the jurisdictional issue could not have been resolved or 

settled but for litigating it in federal court. The need to litigate that issue could have been 

avoided, however, if National Union had sought declaratory relief in state court as the 

Court ultimately ruled would be appropriate in this case. It is not true that National 

Union had no other avenue for addressing the merits of its declaratory judgment claim. 

See Doc. 25 at 5-7, 9, 10. This factor weighs in favor of awarding attorneys’ fees. 

 3. Whether Assessing Fees Would Cause Extreme Hardship. 

 757BD argues on the basis of data made publicly available by the Arizona 

Department of Insurance that National Union is a large insurance company with 

extensive assets and that the instant request for attorneys’ fees will not pose an extreme 

hardship. Doc. 29 at 3 (see http://www.id.state.az.us.). National Union responds that – in 

the broad context – awarding fees in this case could result in undue hardship and 

increased premiums because it could act as a disincentive to seek declaratory judgments 

and thus lead to future payments of uncovered claims. Doc. 30 at 14. National Union’s 

speculation of future harm does not support a finding of extreme hardship. Even if an 

award of fees would dissuade National Union from bringing similar cases in federal 

court, National Union could still pursue these actions in state court. This factor weights 

Case 2:11-cv-01212-DGC Document 33 Filed 02/16/12 Page 7 of 13
- 8 - 

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 

in favor of awarding attorneys’ fees. 

 4. Whether the Successful Party Prevailed With Respect to All 

 of the Relief Sought. 

 757BD argues that the Court granted all the relief Defendants sought when it 

granted their motion to dismiss. Doc. 29 at 3. National Union responds that Defendants 

prevailed on no claims for relief. Doc. 30 at 14. As discussed in Part A, the relevant 

inquiry for purposes of awarding fees is whether the party requesting fees prevailed on 

the particular action in question. Here, 757BD requests attorneys’ fees related to filing its 

motion to dismiss. Defendants prevailed with respect to all the relief sought in that 

motion. This factor weighs in favor of awarding attorneys’ fees. 

 5. Whether the Legal Question Presented Was Novel and 

 Whether Such Claims or Defenses Have Previously Been 

 Adjudicated in this Jurisdiction. 

 757BD argues that the jurisdictional question presented in its motion to dismiss 

was not novel and that courts in this district have consistently dismissed similar FDJA 

actions. Doc. 29 at 4. National Union responds only that no “legal question” was 

presented because the Court dismissed its action before any such question could be 

considered. Doc. 30 at 14. The Court does not agree. As previously discussed, an award 

of attorneys’ fees under § 12–341.01(A) pertains to any contested action under contract 

upon which the claimant prevailed. Here, Defendants’ prevailed on a motion to dismiss. 

The question of whether the Court should have exercised jurisdiction of National Union’s 

FDJA claims was not novel. As demonstrated in the Court’s prior order, this question 

has been repeatedly adjudicated in this district. This factor weighs in favor of awarding 

attorneys’ fees. 

 6. Whether the Award Would Discourage Other Parties with 

 Tenable Claims or Defenses from Litigating or Defending 

 Legitimate Contract Issues for Fear of Incurring Liability for 

 Substantial Amounts of Attorney's Fees. 

 757BD argues that this factor supports an award of attorneys’ fees because 

insurers seeking declaratory relief would not be discouraged from seeking relief in state 

Case 2:11-cv-01212-DGC Document 33 Filed 02/16/12 Page 8 of 13
- 9 - 

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 

court. Doc. 29 at 4. National Union responds that denying federal court jurisdiction 

already deprives a party of its choice of forum “and undermines the federal interest in 

providing a neutral forum free of an appearance of favoritism against an out-of-state 

party.” Doc. 30 at 14 (quoting Allstate Ins. Co. v Davis, 430 F. Supp. 2d 1112, 1121 

(D. Haw. 2006)). National Union concludes that awarding attorneys’ fees would “add 

insult to injury.” Id. 

 The Court is not persuaded that an award of attorneys’ fees in this case will 

discourage other insurance companies with tenable claims from litigating their contract 

issues. A fee award may discourage parties from bringing insurance declaratory 

judgment actions in federal court, particularly where, as here, an underlying state court 

action is pending based on the same factual issues. Because the state court already 

provides an appropriate forum for such relief, however, this is unlikely to discourage 

parties from litigating or defending legitimate contract issues. Moreover, an award of 

attorneys’ fees in this case would not discourage insurance companies from seeking 

declaratory relief in federal court for coverage issues – such as those the Court 

distinguished from this case in its prior order – in which no related state court action has 

been filed (see Doc. 25 at 6) or in which the state court has already concluded the 

underlying insurance claims without addressing the coverage issue (see id. at 9). On 

balance, an award of attorneys’ fees in this case would not discourage other parties with 

tenable claims from litigating and defending their contract issues. This factor weighs in 

favor of awarding attorneys’ fees. 

 6. Summary. 

 The six factors considered by the Court all favor an award of fees. The Court 

accordingly concludes that an award of attorneys’ fees is appropriate in this case. 

C. Reasonableness of the Requested Fees. 

 757BD requests a total of $19,937.50 in fees, representing $18,755 expended 

through October, 2011, and an additional $1,182.50 expended in connection with this 

motion. Doc. 29 at 4-5. These fees are based on an hourly rate of $275. Id. at 4. 757BD 

Case 2:11-cv-01212-DGC Document 33 Filed 02/16/12 Page 9 of 13
- 10 - 

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 

argues that these fees are reasonable. Id. at 5. 757BD filed appropriate documentation, 

including a copy of its fee agreement, a task-based itemized statement of fees, and an 

affidavit of counsel as required by Local Rule 54.2(d). Doc. 29-1; See LRCiv 54.2(d)(1)-

(5). In its reply brief, 757BD requests an additional $2,337.50 in connection with 8.5 

hours spent analyzing the arguments in National Union’s opposition motion, researching 

issues, and drafting and revising its reply. Doc. 32 at 11. 

 National Union responds that the requested fees are unreasonable. Specifically, 

National Union argues that the 53.5 hours counsel spent on the 7 page motion to dismiss 

and the 11 page reply brief are excessive. Doc. 30 at 15. Even if counsel were “starting 

from scratch,” National Union argues that two full days of billable work, or 16 hours, 

would have been sufficient for the motion to dismiss, and one additional day, or 8 hours, 

would have been sufficient to write the reply. Id. National Union further argues that 

counsel in this case did not “start from scratch,” but substantially recycled a prior motion 

to dismiss and reply brief filed in Great American Assurance Co. v. Bartell, No. 2:07-

CV-1341-PHX-EHC, 2008 WL 1927333 (D. Ariz. 2008). Id. National Union asks the 

Court to reduce by half the amount suggested above and award fees of $3,300, which 

represents 12 hours at counsel’s $275 hourly rate. National Union also argues that denial 

of fees spent on the motion for attorneys’ fees is proper because this motion was not 

grounded in tenable legal claims and it also recycled significant portions of a motion 

counsel filed in a similar matter. Doc. 30 at 16. National Union asks that if the Court 

does award fees for this motion, it limit the award to $750, reflecting three hours of work. 

Id. In sum, National Union asks that the total award of fees, if granted, not exceed 

$4,050. Id. 

 757BD argues in reply that National Union has not objected to the reasonableness 

of counsel’s hourly rate, but only the amount of hours claimed. Doc. 32 at 8. As to the 

hours, 757BD argues that National Union has not complied with the specificity 

requirements of Local Rule 54.2(f) which states that a memorandum in opposition “shall 

identify with specificity all disputed issues of material fact and shall separately identify 

Case 2:11-cv-01212-DGC Document 33 Filed 02/16/12 Page 10 of 13
- 11 - 

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 

each and every disputed time entry or expense item.” Id. (citing LRCiv 54.2(f)). Instead, 

National Union “has made the conclusory assertion that 53.5 hours of attorney time is 

excessive for the work described.” Id. 757BD argues both that National Union’s 

objections fail as a matter of law and that National Union’s argument that the fees should 

be reduced because counsel only “recycled” previous work lacks merit. Id. at 9. In 

particular, 757BD states that there are numerous differences between this litigation and 

Bartell. 757BD identifies three key differences. First, counsel spent substantial time 

developing the “background” section of the motion to dismiss, which initially included a 

lengthy discussion of the underlying state litigation that had generated volumes of 

documents over a period of three years. Id. 757BD argues that a detailed understanding 

of this litigation was necessary to address the numerous coverage issues raised in 

National Union’s denial letter and its complaint. None of this work was aided by 

counsel’s prior work in Bartell because the state court litigation and coverage issues in 

each case were distinct. Id. Second, the motion to dismiss addressed an additional 

pleading defect with regard to diversity jurisdiction not raised in Bartell that required 

further research and investigation before counsel ultimately decided to de-emphasize this 

argument. Id. at 10. Third, counsel spent considerable time updating case law since 

Bartell and analyzing and responding to dozens of cases cited by National Union in its 

response. Id. With respect to the motion for attorneys’ fees, 757BD argues that although 

counsel used the same outline as it had in a prior motion, the substance and exhibits of 

the memoranda were substantially different. Id. at 11. 757BD also states that counsel 

spent an additional 8.5 hours on its reply brief, analyzing and addressing specific 

arguments National Union raised in its response. 757BD argues that this was reasonable 

in light of National Union’s claim that its fee request was “baseless.” Id. 

 Upon review of Defendants’ motion to dismiss and the motion that counsel 

submitted in Bartell, the Court agrees with National Union that many sections of 

Defendants’ motion are taken directly from counsel’s earlier work. The Court also agrees 

with 757BD that the motion supports additional work, as reflected in the background 

Case 2:11-cv-01212-DGC Document 33 Filed 02/16/12 Page 11 of 13
- 12 - 

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 

section (see Doc. 14 at 1-3) and the section related to “other pertinent factors” (see id.

at 6-7), showing that counsel had to expend time becoming familiar with the underlying 

litigation and the precise coverage issues presented in this case. Additionally, review of 

counsel’s itemized statement of fees shows that counsel billed considerable time for calls 

and emails to 757BD and Aero Jet, as well as to National Union’s counsel, regarding 

such things as coverage issues, the stipulation for extension, a settlement proposal, and 

the stipulation on the diversity jurisdiction issue. Counsel also billed for time analyzing 

documents, including the complaint, Aero Jet’s insurance policies, and National Union’s 

denial letter. National Union makes no specific objection to these time expenditures, and 

the Court does not find them unreasonable. By the Court’s calculations, counsel billed 

approximately 16 hours for tasks directly related to additional case-law research and 

drafting and revising the motion to dismiss. The Court does not find this to be 

unreasonable. 

 The Court also agrees with National Union that significant portions of 757BD’s 

reply brief mirror portions of counsel’s earlier work. 757BD is correct, however, that 

counsel made substantive changes and additions, particularly by incorporating 

discussions of recent District of Arizona cases, including Bartell. By the Court’s 

calculations, counsel billed approximately 25 hours for tasks directly related to additional 

case-law research and drafting and revising its reply. Given that National Union’s 

opposition motion was 17 pages and cited 67 cases, the Court is not persuaded that the 

time claimed for additional research is unreasonable. 757BD’s motion for attorneys’ fees 

also follows the outline of a prior motion but differs in substantive content and supporting 

documentation. The Court is not persuaded that the 4.3 hours billed for preparing this 

motion was excessive. Additionally, the Court finds that it was not unreasonable for 

counsel to bill an additional 8.5 hours for time spent researching National Union’s 

objections to its motion for attorneys’ fees and drafting the reply. 

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

Associated Indemnity Corp. v. Warner, 694 P.2d 1181, 1184 (Ariz. 1985), the Court finds 

Case 2:11-cv-01212-DGC Document 33 Filed 02/16/12 Page 12 of 13
- 13 - 

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 

the requested fee award under § 12-341.01(A) to be reasonable and appropriate. See also

LRCiv 54.2(c)(3)(A)-(M) (listing factors bearing on the reasonableness of a fee award);

Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 429-30 & n.3 (1983). The Court will grant 757BD=s 

motion for a fee award against National Union in the amount of $22,275. 

IT IS ORDERED: 

 1. Defendant 757BD’s motion for an award of attorneys’ fees (Doc. 27) is 

 granted. 

2. Pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-341.01(A), attorneys’ fees in the amount of 

$22,275 are awarded in favor of 757BD and against National Union. 

Dated this 16th day of February, 2012. 

Case 2:11-cv-01212-DGC Document 33 Filed 02/16/12 Page 13 of 13