Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-03399/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-03399-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 09:1 U.S. Arbitration Act

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

POST CONFIRMATION TRUST OF

FLEMING COMPANIES, INC.,

Petitioner,

v.

R.S. DALE CORPORATION,

Respondent.

NO. CIV-05-3399-PHX-SMM

DEFAULT JUDGMENT

Pending before the Court is Petitioner's Motion for Entry of Default Judgment (Doc.

No. 12) and Petitioner's Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Non-Taxable Expenses (Doc. No.

14). After considering the arguments in Petitioner's Motions, the Court issues the following

Order.

I. BACKGROUND

Because default has been entered, the Court takes Petitioner's allegations as true.

TeleVideo Sys., Inc. v. Heidenthal, 826 F.2d 915, 917-918 (9th Cir 1987).

Post Confirmation Trust of Fleming Companies ("Petitioner") is the successor entity

of Fleming Companies, Inc. ("Fleming"). (Doc. No. 1.) On or about May 12, 2001,

Fleming entered into a contract with R.S. Dale Corporation ("Respondent") which contained

Case 2:05-cv-03399-SMM Document 18 Filed 07/07/06 Page 1 of 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

1

 Petitioner's Petition was therefore timely filed with this Court, as 9 U.S.C. §9

requires a petition be brought within a year of an arbitration award.

-2-

an arbitration clause in the event of any disputes. (Id.) A dispute arose between the parties

and Fleming served an arbitration claim before the American Arbitration Association. (Doc.

No. 2.) On January 15, 2004, the parties stipulated that all disputes would be submitted to

arbitration. (Id.) On or about July 21, 2004, arbitration proceedings were conducted. (Doc.

No. 1.) On September 15, 2004, the arbitrator made an award in favor of Fleming in the

sum of $197,163.58. (Doc. No. 2.) Respondent failed to pay any portion of the award or

challenge the arbitrator's decision within the ninety day appeal period. (Id.)

On August 22, 2005, Petitioner filed a Petition for Order Confirming Arbitration

Award (Doc. No. 1) with this Court.1

 Respondent filed a waiver of service with the Court

on December 30, 2005. (Doc. No. 8.) On March 9, 2006, Petitioner filed an Application

for Entry of Default against Respondent (Doc. No. 9). On March 13, 2006 the Clerk of the

Court entered a default against Respondent (Doc. No. 10). Petitioner filed a Motion for

Entry of Default Judgment against Respondent on March 23, 2006 (Doc. No. 12). The same

day, Petitioner filed a Motion for Attorney Fees and Non-Taxable Expenses (Doc. No. 14).

II. PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR ENTRY 

OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT

A. Standard of Review

Upon entry of default, a district court may enter default judgment under certain

circumstances. A court may not enter default judgment against an infant or incompetent

unless the individual is represented by a general guardian, committee, conservator, or other

individual who has appeared before the court. FED R. CIV. P. 55(b)(2). The respondent's

default does not automatically entitle the petitioner to a judgment, rather, granting or

denying relief is within the discretion of the Court. Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1092-

Case 2:05-cv-03399-SMM Document 18 Filed 07/07/06 Page 2 of 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

-3-

93 (9th Cir. 1980); see Draper v. Coombs, 792 F.2d 915, 924 (9th Cir. 1986). When

determining whether to grant a default judgment, the Court may consider, among other

things, the sufficiency of the complaint, Alan Neuman Prods., Inc. v. Albright, 862 F.2d

1388, 1392 (9th Cir. 1988), the amount of money at stake, Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470,

1472 (9th Cir. 1986), and whether the default resulted from excusable neglect, id. at 1472.

The Court considers these factors in turn.

B. Discussion

First, the Court considers whether the Petition sufficiently alleges jurisdiction and

venue. The Petition sufficiently alleges that jurisdiction over the parties is proper pursuant

to the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 9, which provides that, "if no court is specified

in the agreement of the parties, then such application may be made to the United States court

in and for the district within which such award was made." 9 U.S.C. § 9. Because the

parties did not specify a court in their agreement, this Court's jurisdiction is proper as the

arbitration award was made in Arizona. See id. Further, the Petition sufficiently alleges that

jurisdiction is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1332(a) because the amount in controversy

exceeds $75,000.00, and the dispute is between citizens of different states. The amount in

controversy in the case is $197,163.58; Petitioner is a resident of California and Respondent

is a resident of Arizona. (Doc. No. 1.) Additionally, venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§1391(a), because Respondent resides within the District of Arizona.

Next, the Court considers the sum at stake. Eitel, 782 F.2d at 1472. The parties had

contractually agreed in 2001 (Doc. No. 12, Ex. A) to resolve all disputes by arbitration, and

they also entered into a Stipulation on January 15, 2004 in which they agreed to submit all

claims related to the alleged breach of contract to arbitration (Doc. No. 12, Ex. B). An

arbitration hearing was held, and the arbitrator set the amount of damages in the Arbitration

Award at $197,163.58. The amount of damages Petitioner seeks in this action therefore was

established by the Arbitration Award. Respondent has not paid the Award, nor has it

Case 2:05-cv-03399-SMM Document 18 Filed 07/07/06 Page 3 of 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

-4-

challenged the sufficiency of the Award. Accordingly, the Court finds Petitioner's claim for

the sum certain of $197,163.58 is well taken and thus it is within the Court's discretion to

enter default judgment.

Finally, the Court looks at whether excusable neglect is present. Eitel, 782 F.2d at

1472. Because Respondent has completely failed to appear in this action and has provided

the Court with no evidence upon which to base a finding of excusable neglect, the Court

cannot make a finding of excusable neglect. The record indicates Respondent was properly

served with the Petition for Order Confirming Arbitration Award (Doc. No 1) and the

Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Petition (Doc. No. 2), as evidenced

by Respondent's waiver of service on December 30, 2005 (Doc. No. 8). Respondent had

sixty days from the time the request was sent to file an answer or other response to the

Petition. FED. R. CIV. P. 4(d)(3). To date, Respondent has failed to answer or otherwise

appear in this action, even after the Clerk's Entry of Default on March 13, 2006. (Doc. No.

8.)

C. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the Court concludes that default judgment is warranted,

and the Court confirms the September 15, 2004 Arbitration Award.

III. PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES

A. Standard of Review

Attorneys' fees are not ordinarily taxable as costs against the losing party. See

Hensley v. Eckerhart 461 U.S. 424, 429 (1983). This Court is authorized, however, to

award fees to a successful party in any contract action. ARIZ. REV. STAT. §12-341.01(A).

Section 12-341.01 does not make a favorable judgment on the merits a prerequisite for a

"successful" party seeking attorneys' fees. Wagenseller v. Scottsdale Mem'l Hosp., 710 P.2d

1025, 1047-48 (Ariz. 1985). The award of reasonable fees is discretionary, and Ariz. Rev.

Case 2:05-cv-03399-SMM Document 18 Filed 07/07/06 Page 4 of 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

-5-

Stat. §12-341.01 does not establish a presumption that fees be awarded in such actions.

Assoc'd Indem. Corp. v. Warner, 694 P.2d 1181, 1182-83 (Ariz. 1985). "The award of

reasonable attorney fees pursuant to subsection A (of §12-341.01) should be made to

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

It need not equal or relate to the attorney fees actually paid or contracted, but the award may

not exceed the amount paid or agreed to be paid." ARIZ. REV. STAT. §12-341.01(B)

(parenthetical added). The party requesting an award of attorneys' fees pursuant to §12-

341.01 has the burden of proving entitlement to such an award. Woerth v. City of Flagstaff,

808 P.2d 297, 304 (Ariz. App. 1990).

Pursuant to Rule 54(d)(2)(D) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this Court has

established special procedures for resolving attorneys' fees requests. Rule 54.2 of the Local

Rules of Civil Procedure ("LRCiv") of the United States District Court for the District of

Arizona governs claims for attorneys' fees and related non-taxable expenses. LRCiv

54.2(b)(1) provides that unless otherwise provided by statute or court order, a party seeking

an award of attorneys' fees and related non-taxable expenses must file and serve a motion

for attorneys' fees and related non-taxable expenses within fourteen days of the entry of

judgment in the action. The moving party must also submit a memorandum in support of

a motion for award of attorneys' fees and related non-taxable expenses within sixty days of

entry of judgment in the action. LRCiv 54.2(b)(2). The memorandum must include a

discussion of the following matters with corresponding headings in the order listed below:

1) eligibility, 2) entitlement, and 3) reasonableness of requested award. LRCiv 54.2(c)(1)-

(3). In addition, pursuant to LRCiv 54.2(d), the following documents shall be attached to

the memorandum: 1) a statement of consultation, 2) a copy of the fee agreement, 3) a taskbased itemized statement of fees and expenses, 4) an affidavit of moving counsel, and 5) any

other affidavits or evidentiary matter deemed appropriate or required by law. LRCiv

54.2(d).

Case 2:05-cv-03399-SMM Document 18 Filed 07/07/06 Page 5 of 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

2

 Petitioner moved for Attorneys' Fees and Related Non-Taxable expenses

pursuant to LRCiv 2.20(d). LRCiv 2.20(d) no longer exists. The Court refers Petitioner

to LRCiv 54.2 which governs claims for attorneys' fees and related non-taxable

expenses.

-6-

B. Discussion

A party seeking an award of attorneys' fees and related non-taxable expenses must

comply with the requirements of LRCiv 54.2.2

 The Court finds that Petitioner has failed to

comply with LRCiv 54.2(c). Under A.R.S. §12-341.01, the moving party has the burden

of proving entitlement to an award of attorneys' fees. Woerth, 808 P.2d at 304.

LRCiv 54.2(b)(2) requires a party seeking an award of attorneys' fees to submit a

memorandum in support a motion for award of attorneys' fees and related non-taxable

expenses within sixty days of entry of judgment in the action. LRCiv 54.2(c) specifies that

the memorandum must contain three discrete sections discussing the party's eligibility and

entitlement to a fee award, and the reasonableness of the requested award.

LRCiv 54.2(d) requires that the following documents be attached to the

memorandum: 1) a statement of consultation, 2) a copy of the fee agreement, 3) a taskbased itemized statement of fees and expenses, 4) an affidavit of moving counsel, and 5) any

other affidavits or evidentiary matter deemed appropriate or required by law. 

Here, Petitioner's memorandum of points and authorities in support of its motion for

attorneys' fees does not contain three discrete sections discussing the party's eligibility and

entitlement to a fee award, and the reasonableness of the requested award. Thus, the Court

finds that Petitioner has not complied with the requirements of LRCiv 54.2(c).

C. Conclusion

Because Petitioner has failed to comply with the requirements of LRCiv 54.2(c), the

Court lacks sufficient information to decide the propriety of awarding fees in this case.

However, the Court will allow Petitioner leave to refile an application that complies with

the rules.

Case 2:05-cv-03399-SMM Document 18 Filed 07/07/06 Page 6 of 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

-7-

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above,

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner's Motion for Entry of Default Judgment

(Doc. No.12) is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall enter Default

Judgment in favor of Petitioner and against Respondent R.S. Dale Corporation in the

amount of $197,163.58. The September 15, 2004 Arbitration Award is hereby

CONFIRMED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall terminate this

action accordingly.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner's Motion for Attorneys' Fees

and Non-Taxable Expenses (Doc. No. 14) is DENIED without prejudice, with leave to

refile a motion in conformance with the rules no later than August 4, 2006. Failure to file

by August 4, 2006 will result in a waiver of Petitioner's right to request an award of fees.

DATED this 7th day of July, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-03399-SMM Document 18 Filed 07/07/06 Page 7 of 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

-8-

Case 2:05-cv-03399-SMM Document 18 Filed 07/07/06 Page 8 of 8