Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_04-cv-00891/USCOURTS-azd-3_04-cv-00891-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition For Removal--Other 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

Iris Corley, trustee of the Arvis C. and

Anna L. Forrest Trust and Personal

Representative of the Arvis C. Forrest

Estate, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

William J. Brouws, Jr., et al., 

Defendants. 

_________________________________

and related counterclaim

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV 04 0891-PCT-MHM

ORDER

Defendant Gregory S. Szymanski has filed a motion for award of attorneys' fees and

related non-taxable expenses (Doc. 20) and a motion for summary disposition of his motion

for award of attorneys' fees, etc. (Doc. 24). Defendant points out in his motion for summary

disposition that the time has expired for Plaintiff to respond to his motion for attorneys' fees

and Plaintiff has not filed a response in opposition to the motion for fees and expenses.

Defendant Szymanski has filed an amended bill of costs. (Doc. 22).

On December 1, 2004, the Court entered an Order granting Defendant Szymanski's

motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim for relief under Fed.R.Civ.P.

12(b)(6). (Doc. 15). The Court dismissed with prejudice Plaintiff's claims based on

Case 3:04-cv-00891-MHM Document 26 Filed 12/06/05 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

anticipatory repudiation of contract, termination of possession, quiet title and breach of

contract. Plaintiff's claims based on unjust enrichment and fraud were dismissed without

prejudice with leave to file an amended complaint. When Plaintiff failed to file an amended

complaint within the time allowed, the Court extended the time in which to file an amended

complaint and warned Plaintiff that failure to file an amended complaint by the designated

due date would result in dismissal of the case against Defendant Szymanski for failure to

prosecute under Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b). (Doc. 17). Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint

by the designated date. On April 19, 2005, the Court issued an Order dismissing this action

without prejudice as to Defendant Szymanski for failure of Plaintiff to prosecute. (Doc. 21).

During the course of these proceedings, on March 22, 2005, Defendant Szymanski

filed a motion for award of attorneys' fees and related non-taxable expenses (Doc. 20). On

April 27, 2005, Defendant filed an amended bill of costs. (Doc. 22). Defendant contends

that Plaintiff's claims arising from contract have been dismissed pursuant to the Court's

December 1, 2004 Order and that under A.R.S. § 12-341.01A, Defendant as the successful

party may be awarded reasonable attorneys' fees. Section 12-341.01A provides in relevant

part as follows: "In any contested action arising out of a contract, express or implied, the

court may award the successful party reasonable attorney fees." Subsection B of § 12-341.01

provides that "[t]he award of reasonable attorney fees pursuant to subsection A should be

made to mitigate the burden of the expense of litigation to establish a just claim or a just

defense." Subsection B further provides that "the award may not exceed the amount paid or

agreed to be paid." Attorneys' fees may be awarded to a successful party under § 12-341.01

when sued on a contract even if it is determined that no contract existed between the parties.

See Rogus v. Lords, 804 P.2d 133, 136-37 (Ariz. App. 1991). A party need not have won

a money judgment to be a "successful party" under § 12-341.01A. See Altfillisch Const. Co.

v. Torgerson Const. Co., 586 P.2d 999, 1001 (Ariz.App. 1978); Columbia Parcar Corp. v.

Arizona Department of Transportation, 971 P.2d 1042, 1045 (Ariz.App. 1999)(noting that

A.R.S. § 12-341.01 makes no reference to "adjudication on the merits as a prerequisite to

recovering attorney's fees as a successful party")(citing Wagenseller v. Scottsdale Memorial

Case 3:04-cv-00891-MHM Document 26 Filed 12/06/05 Page 2 of 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

- 3 -

Hospital, 710 P.2d 1025, 1047 (Ariz. 1985)). Defendants in a civil action where plaintiff's

suit was dismissed without prejudice for lack of prosecution may be considered "successful"

parties for purposes of statutory recovery of costs and attorneys' fees under § 12-341.01 even

though the terminating decision was not on the merits and underlying claims may still be

viable. Mark Lighting Fixture Company v. General Electric Supply Company, 745 P.2d

123, 128-130 (Ariz. App. 1986), vacated on other grounds, 745 P.2d 85 (Ariz. 1987). 

Defendant Szymanski seeks a total award of attorneys' fees in the amount of $8,641.32

between the retention of attorney Steven C. Moss and the firm of Kelly, Moss & Williams,

and attorney Ryan J. Lorenz. Defendant seeks taxable costs in the amount of $555.57. (see

Doc. 20, 22 & 24, p. 3). 

Defendant has supported his motion with a memorandum of points and authorities.

Defendant's counsel Messrs. Moss and Lorenz have filed affidavits attesting to their

backgrounds, experience and contributions to this case as well as to the reasonableness of the

amounts requested. Mr. Lorenz has billed at $150.00 to $165.00 per hour for approximately

55 hours of work. Mr. Moss has billed at $175.00 per hour for approximately 27 hours of

work. Mr. Moss states in his affidavit that the customary rate charged by attorneys within

Mohave County, Arizona is $175.00 to $205.00. Defense counsel have attached itemized

statements to the fee application and notice that they attempted to confer with Plaintiff's

counsel and resolve the fees issue. Defendant's application and supporting documents comply

in substantial part with LRCiv. 54.2. 

The Court has reviewed the information submitted in support of Defendant's motion

for attorneys' fees and expenses. A reasonable attorney fee is the number of hours and the

hourly rate that would be billed by "reasonably competent counsel." See Yahoo!, Inc. v. Net

Games, Inc., 329 F. Supp. 2d 1179, 1182 (N.D.Cal. 2004). The Court finds that the amounts

requested appear reasonable. 

The Court also has considered whether Defendant's efforts were superfluous in

achieving the result, the novelty of the legal issues, and whether an award to the Defendant

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

Case 3:04-cv-00891-MHM Document 26 Filed 12/06/05 Page 3 of 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

- 4 -

for fear of incurring liability for substantial amounts of attorneys' fees. See Uyleman v. D.S.

Rentco, 981 P.2d 1081, 1086-87 (Ariz. App. 1999). These factors do not weigh against an

award of fees in this case. Defendant Szymanski filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff's

complaint which resulted in the dismissal of all but two of Plaintiff's claims with prejudice.

The dismissed claims included claims arising from contract. Defense counsel appeared and

presented argument in support of the motion to dismiss at the hearing held on November 3,

2004. (Doc. 14). Mr. Lorenz states in his affidavit that some discovery was conducted,

including the deposition of Mr. Szymanski and the service of written discovery requests.

This case did not proceed to trial. This case ultimately was dismissed for failure of the

Plaintiff to prosecute. Defense counsel were successful in their representation of Mr.

Szymanski and an award of attorneys' fees is appropriate. 

Moreover, Plaintiff has not filed a response to Defendant's motion for attorneys' fees

and expenses or to his motion for summary disposition. See LRCiv. 54.2(f) which provides

for filing of responsive memorandum in opposition to a motion for award of attorneys' fees

and related non-taxable expenses. Under LRCiv. 7.2(i), the lack of opposition to a pending

motion may be treated as consent to the motion being granted. See also, Gates v. Rowland,

39 F.3d 1439, 1449 (9th Cir. 1994)(noting need for specific objections to attorneys' fees

request).

The Order entered on April 19, 2005 which dismissed this cause and action without

prejudice as to Defendant Szymanski for failure of Plaintiff to prosecute was not a final order

because this action has been stayed as to the Brouws Defendants. Corsello v. Lincare, Inc.,

276 F.3d 1229 (11th Cir. 2001). Defendant Szymanski has filed a notice of lodging a form

of judgment under Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b). (Doc. 23). Rule 54(b) provides in relevant part that

"[w]hen more than one claim for relief is presented in an action, whether as a claim,

counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim, or when multiple parties are involved, the

court may direct entry of a final judgment as to one or more but fewer than all of the claims

or parties only upon an express determination that there is no just reason for delay and upon

an express direction for the entry of judgment." The Court's April 19, 2005 Order dismissed

Case 3:04-cv-00891-MHM Document 26 Filed 12/06/05 Page 4 of 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

- 5 -

this cause and action as to Defendant Szymanski while the case remains stayed as to the

Brouws Defendants. The Court concludes there is no just reason for delay and that judgment

should be entered as to Defendant Szymanski.

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Gregory S. Szymanski's motion for award of

attorneys' fees and related non-taxable expenses (Doc. 20) and Defendant's motion for

summary disposition of his motion for award of attorneys' fees, etc. (Doc. 24) are granted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Szymanski is entitled to an award of

attorneys' fees plus non-taxable expenses in the total amount of $8,641.32, plus interest as

appropriate.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b), Judgment shall

be entered as to Defendant Gregory S. Szymanski as to all of Plaintiff's claims asserted

against him, that is, Counts I through III and V shall be dismissed with prejudice and Counts

IV and VI shall be dismissed without prejudice, and Defendant Szymanski shall be entitled

to an award of attorneys' fees and related non-taxable expenses as set forth in this Order. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Szymanski's amended bill of costs

(Doc. 22) shall be reviewed and considered by the Clerk of Court pursuant to LRCiv. 54.1.

DATED this 1st day of December, 2005.

Case 3:04-cv-00891-MHM Document 26 Filed 12/06/05 Page 5 of 5