Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_07-cv-00675/USCOURTS-azd-3_07-cv-00675-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:2201 Declaratory Judgment (Insurance)

---

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

Empire Fire and Marine Insurance

Company, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Judita Bittermann-Halbreich; and Klaus

Bloch, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 07-675-PHX-MHM

AMENDED ORDER

Pending before the Court is Defendant Judita Bittermann-Halbreich’s Motion for

Award of Attorney’s Fees. (Doc. # 31) On March 29, 2007, Plaintiff Empire Fire and

Marine Insurance Company (“Empire”) filed this declaratory judgment action seeking a

judicial determination that there was no coverage under the Empire Policy for any claims

asserted by Defendant in Coconino County Civil Cause No. CV-2006-0645. Defendant

moved to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that the Court should exercise its discretion

to decline jurisdiction in favor of the parallel state court action. (Doc. # 12) On September

8, 2008, the Court entered judgment in Defendant’s favor dismissing the complaint. (Doc.

# 29) Thereafter, Defendant moved for an award of attorney’s fees in the amount of

$19,846.50.

Plaintiff filed a Response, arguing, among other things, that because Defendant has

not yet made a recovery under her contingency fee agreement, she cannot recover attorney’s

Case 3:07-cv-00675-MHM Document 36 Filed 02/26/09 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 -

fees. In her Reply, Defendant agrees with Plaintiff that fees should not be awarded until

there is a recovery, see Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Stevens, 166 Ariz. 372, 802 P.2d 1071

(Ariz. App. 1990), and requests that the Court defer ruling on the attorney fees application

until the underlying case is resolved. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED denying without prejudice Defendant’s Motion for Award of

Attorney’s Fees. (Doc. # 31) Defendant may renew her request for attorney’s fees in the

event she is the prevailing party on the underlying claim.

DATED this 26th day of February, 2009.

Case 3:07-cv-00675-MHM Document 36 Filed 02/26/09 Page 2 of 2