Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_02-cv-00424/USCOURTS-azd-2_02-cv-00424-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 195
Nature of Suit: Contract Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Product Liability

---

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

ESA Management, Inc., et al. ) CV 02-0424-PHX-PGR

)

Plaintiffs, )

vs. ) ORDER

)

)

)

Tufo Associates, Inc., )

a California corporation, et al. )

)

Defendants. )

____________________________)

Pending before the Court are Cella Barr Associates, Inc.'s Application for Attorneys'

Fees (Doc. 453) and Brooks Hersey Associates, Inc.'s Application for Attorneys' Fees (Doc.

455). 

I. INTRODUCTION

On March 25, 2005, this Court granted summary judgment in favor of both Cella Barr

Associates, Inc. ("Cella Barr") and Brooks Hersey Associates, Inc. ("Brooks Hersey") and

against the Third-Party Plaintiff Tufo Associates, Inc. ("Tufo"). Shortly thereafter, the

prevailing parties each filed an application for attorneys' fees pursuant to A.R.S. §12-341.01

as successful parties to a contract dispute. Cella Barr is seeking an award of attorneys' fees

in the amount of $20,850.57 ($20,232.00 in billed time, $68.57 in Westlaw charges, plus

$460.00 for the attorney's time spent preparing the fee application and affidavit). Brooks

Hershey seeks an award of attorneys' fees in the amount of $19, 034.28 ($19,034.00 in billed

Case 2:02-cv-00424-PGR Document 505 Filed 02/23/06 Page 1 of 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 - 2 -

time, $428.28 in Westlaw charges, plus $460.00 for the attorney's time spent preparing the

fee application and affidavit). 

Third-Party Plaintiff Tufo urges this Court to deny the pending applications, or in the

alternative, significantly reduce the amount awarded. First, Tufo contends that Third-Party

Defendants Cella Barr and Brooks Hersey were both represented by the same counsel in this

case, and that both firms performed the same type of work during the construction of the

hotels that are the subject of this lawsuit. Tufo further represents that a majority of the work

counsel performed in litigating this case applied to both Brooks Hersey and Cella Barr, but

that counsel billed for the work as though it solely applied to each particular client rather than

dividing the charges for services between the two. According to Tufo, this constitutes double

billing. Furthermore, Tufo asserts that due to counsel's extensive experience, the amount of

time billed for the majority of the activities performed is exorbitantly expensive. 

Brooks Hersey and Cella Barr both respond that the time counsel spent defending the

claims against them was entirely reasonable. Furthermore, the successful parties assert that

any award of attorneys' fees against Tufo could have been easily avoided if Tufo had merely

taken the time to determine if it had a cause of action against these Third Party Defendants

in the first place. 

II. DISCUSSION

A.R.S. § 12-341.01(A) states that, "[I]n any contested action arising out of a contract,

express or implied, the Court may award the successful party reasonable attorneys fees." In

addition, the statute provides that the amount of attorney fees awarded to the successful party

need not equal or relate to the attorney fees actually paid or contracted. A.R.S. § 12-

341.01(B). The Arizona Supreme Court has acknowledged that the statute vests trial courts

with broad discretion in accessing attorneys' fees. Associated Indem. Corp. v. Warner, 694

P.2d 1181, 1184 (Ariz. 1985) (citations omitted). The parties do not dispute that this action

arose out of a contract, and that therefore, the requests for attorney fees are governed by

A.R.S. § 12-341.01.

Case 2:02-cv-00424-PGR Document 505 Filed 02/23/06 Page 2 of 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 - 3 -

The Arizona Supreme Court has adopted the following six factors to help guide a

court's discretion as to whether to award attorneys' fees under A.R.S. § 12-341.01: (1) The

merits of the claim or defense presented by the unsuccessful party. (2) The litigation could

have been avoided or settled and the successful party's efforts were completely superfluous

in achieving the result. (3) Assessing fees against the unsuccessful party would cause an

extreme hardship. (4) The successful party did not prevail with respect to all of the relief

sought. (5)The novelty of the legal question presented, and whether such claim or defense

had been previously adjudicated in this jurisdiction. (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. Associated Indem. Corp., 694 P.2d at 1184. These factors weigh strongly in favor of

awarding attorneys' fees to both Cella Barr and Brooks Hersey as the successful parties in

this litigation.

The first factor asks the Court to consider whether Tufo's claims against Cella Barr

and Brooks Hersey were meritorious. The Court concludes that they were not. Tufo failed

to offer any evidence linking Cella Barr's or Brooks Hersey's work with the construction

defects at issue in this matter. The third and fourth factors also weigh in favor of awarding

attorneys' fees. Tufo has provided no evidence that it would suffer extreme hardship if it was

forced to pay attorneys' fees. Furthermore, Cella Barr and Brooks Hersey prevailed with

respect to all relief sought as summary judgment was granted in favor of them both.

Finally, as to the last factor, the Court cannot see how an award of attorneys' fees

would discourage other parties with tenable claims from litigating legitimate contract issues

for fear of incurring liability for substantial amounts of attorneys' fees. Contrary to

discouraging the litigation of tenable claims, awarding attorneys' fees in this case would

encourage litigants to make better choices about the parties they seek to hold at fault in

construction defect cases. Based on the foregoing, the Court concludes that Cella Barr and

Brooks Hersey are to be awarded their reasonable attorneys' fees.

Case 2:02-cv-00424-PGR Document 505 Filed 02/23/06 Page 3 of 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 - 4 -

The Ninth Circuit requires a district court to calculate an award of attorneys' fees by

first calculating the lodestar. See Caudle v. Bristow Optical Co. Inc., 224 F.3d 1014, 1028

(9th Cir. 2000). The lodestar is calculated by multiplying the number of hours the prevailing

party reasonably expended on the litigation by a reasonable hourly rate and excluding those

hours that are "excessive, redundant or otherwise unnecessary." Id. at 1028; Van Gerwen

v. Guarantee Mutual Life Ins. Co., 214 F.3d 1041, 1045 (9th Cir. 2000).

Next the district court must assess whether additional considerations require it to

adjust the figure. Caudle, 224 F.3d at 1028; accord Kerr v. Screen Extras Guild, Inc., 526

F.2d 67, 70 (9th Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 951 (1976) (factors the court can consider

in adjusting the lodestar are: (1) the time and labor required; (2) the novelty and difficulty

of the questions involved; (3) the skill requisite to perform the legal service properly; (4) the

preclusion of other employment by the attorney due to acceptance of the case; (5) the

customary fee; (6) whether the fee is fixed or contingent; (7) time limitations imposed by the

client or the circumstances; (8) the amount involved and the results obtained; (9) the

experience, reputation, and ability of the attorneys; (10) the "undesirability" of the case; (11)

the nature and length of the professional relationship with the client; and (12) awards in

similar cases).

Having considered the aforementioned factors, the Court concludes that Cella Barr

is entitled to an award of attorneys' fees in the amount of $12,851.23. Brooks Hersey is

entitled to an award of attorneys' fees in the amount of $12,149.54. Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that Cella Barr's Application for Attorneys' Fee (Doc. 453) is

GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Brooks Hersey's Application for Attorneys' Fees

(Doc. 455) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

DATED this 23rd day of February, 2006.

Case 2:02-cv-00424-PGR Document 505 Filed 02/23/06 Page 4 of 4