Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-01771/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-01771-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 870
Nature of Suit: Tax Suits
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Action for Interpleader

---

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 

Nancy K. Duckett, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Dennis M. Enomoto, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. CV-14-01771-PHX-NVW

ORDER 

Before the Court are Plaintiff’s Motion for Discharge (Doc. 65), Plaintiff’s 

Memorandum in Support of Fee and Expense Application (Doc. 82), and the parties’ 

accompanying briefs. 

The Court previously determined that Plaintiff properly brought this interpleader 

action and is therefore entitled to withdraw from the interpleaded funds the costs and 

attorney’s fees she reasonably incurred in bringing the action. (Doc. 79 at 9-11.) The 

Court ordered Plaintiff to file a motion pursuant to LRCiv 54.2 establishing the amount 

and reasonableness of the requested costs and fees, bearing in mind that such fees are 

“normally not high.” (Id. at 11 (quoting Michelman v. Lincoln Nat. Life Ins. Co., 685 

F.3d 887, 898 (9th Cir. 2012)).) Accordingly, Plaintiff filed a memorandum explaining 

the steps taken in this action and requesting attorney’s fees in the amount of $24,880 and 

costs in the amount of $414.36. (Doc. 82 at 7.) 

Case 2:14-cv-01771-NVW Document 87 Filed 12/30/15 Page 1 of 2
- 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 

The Court finds these amounts reasonable. The fees and costs were incurred in 

connection with the initiation of this action, Plaintiff’s own motions, and Plaintiff’s 

responses to Defendants’ various motions. These steps were necessary to represent 

Plaintiff’s interests in a complicated case. While it is true that “in the usual case the fee 

[award] will be relatively modest,” this is a case “in which the award is quite substantial 

because of the difficulties encountered by the stakeholder’s attorney.” 7 Charles Alan 

Wright, Arthur R. Miller, & Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice & Procedure § 1719 (3d 

ed. 2001) (collecting cases). 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for an award of costs and 

fees (Docs. 65, 82) is granted in the total amount of $25,294.36, to be withdrawn from 

the interpleaded funds. 

In keeping with the Court’s prior ruling (Doc. 79 at 14), Plaintiff will be directed 

by separate order to pay the balance of the funds to the Trustee, to be held in their 

entirety until the Court orders otherwise. Upon transfer of those funds, Plaintiff’s Motion 

for Discharge (Doc. 65) will be granted by separate order to the extent that Plaintiff will 

be discharged from this action free of liability to Defendants for or in connection with the 

interpleaded funds and shall be dismissed from further participation in these proceedings. 

Dated this 30th day of December, 2015. 

Neil V. Wake

United States District Judge

Case 2:14-cv-01771-NVW Document 87 Filed 12/30/15 Page 2 of 2