Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00049/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00049-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of 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

Mattivi Brothers Leasing, Inc., a

California corporation, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Ecopath Industries, LLC, an Arizona

limited liability company, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-10-49-PHX-DGC

ORDER

In August 2008, Plaintiff Mattivi Brothers Leasing, Inc. purchased an asphalt rubber

blending plant from Defendant Ecopath Industries, LLC. Plaintiff claims that the plant is

defective and fails to conform to representations and covenants made in the sales contract.

Plaintiff filed a complaint seeking monetary damages and asserting claims for breach of

contract, breach of express warranty, rescission, and consumer fraud. Doc. 1. In an order

dated December 9, 2010, the Court entered default judgment against Defendant as a sanction

for its refusal to comply with Court orders and underlying discovery obligations. Doc. 33.

Plaintiff has filed a motion for attorneys’ fees. Doc. 34. No response has been filed,

and the time for filing one has passed. See LRCiv 54.2(b)(3).

Plaintiff seeks a fee award against Defendant in the total amount of $18,799.75

pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-341.01. Doc. 34. That statute provides that “[i]n any contested

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

reasonable attorney fees.” A.R.S. § 12-341.01(A). Given the default judgment against

Case 2:10-cv-00049-DGC Document 36 Filed 01/28/11 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

Defendant on the contract-based claims, Plaintiff clearly is entitled to a fee award under

section 12-341.01(A). Having reviewed Plaintiff’s supporting memorandum (Doc. 35) and

counsel’s declaration and statement of fees (Doc. 35-1), and 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 the requested fee award 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) (same). The Court

will grant Plaintiff’s motion and award it attorneys’ fees in the amount of $18,799.75.

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for attorneys’ fees (Doc. 34) is granted.

2. Plaintiff is awarded attorneys’ fees in the amount of $18,799.75.

DATED this 28th day of January, 2011.

Case 2:10-cv-00049-DGC Document 36 Filed 01/28/11 Page 2 of 2