Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00533/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00533-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Employment Discrimination

---

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

Barbara Soto; and Victoria Craun, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Quechan Tribally Designated Housing

Entity; Robert Letendre, Executive

Director; Tad Zvodsky, Supervisor; and

Housing and Urban Development,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-10-533-PHX-DGC

ORDER

Plaintiffs Barbara Soto and Victoria Craun claim that they were discriminated against

in the workplace on the basis of perceived sexual orientation. They brought suit against

Quechan Tribally Designated Housing Entity (“Quechan Housing”), that entity’s executive

director and supervisor, and the United States Department of Housing and Urban

Development. Doc. 1. The complaint asserted claims under Executive Order 13,087,

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Id. ¶¶ 36-77.

In an order entered July 1, 2010 (Doc. 28), the Court granted Defendants’ motions to

dismiss (Docs. 15, 22) on the ground that the complaint fails to state a valid claim to relief.

Defendants Quechan Housing, Robert Letendre, and Tad Zvodsky have filed a motion for

attorneys’ fees and costs. Doc. 30. No response has been filed, and the time for doing so has

expired. See LRCiv 54.2(b)(3). For reasons stated below, the Court will grant the motion

in part and award Defendants $29,947.50 in fees and $1,109.52 in costs.

Case 2:10-cv-00533-DGC Document 32 Filed 09/16/10 Page 1 of 3
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 -

“[A] district court may in its discretion award attorney’s fees to a prevailing defendant

in a Title VII case upon a finding that the plaintiff’s action was frivolous, unreasonable, or

without foundation, even though not brought in subjective bad faith.” Christianburg

Garment Co. v. EEOC, 434 U.S. 412, 421 (1978). Similarly, fees may be awarded to a

prevailing defendant in a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 where the suit is

“meritless in the sense that it is groundless or without foundation.” Hughes v. Rowe, 449

U.S. 5, 10 (1980); see also 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(k); 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b).

Plaintiffs’ claims were entirely lacking in foundation. No private right of action exists

under Executive Order 13,087. See Exec. Order No. 13152, 65 Fed. Reg. 26115 (May 2,

2000); Centola v. Potter, 183 F. Supp. 2d 403, 413 (D. Mass. 2002). Indian tribes and their

agencies are exempt from the requirements of Title VII. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b)(1); Pink

v. Modoc Indian Health Project, Inc., 157 F.3d 1185, 1188 (9th Cir. 1998). Title VII claims

may not be asserted against individual employees. See Pink, 157 F.3d at 1189; Coffin v.

Safeway, Inc., 323 F. Supp. 2d 997, 1002 (D. Ariz. 2004). Because Indian tribes are separate

and distinct sovereigns, no claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 can be maintained in federal court

for persons alleging deprivation of federal rights under color of tribal law. See R.J. Williams

Co. v. Fort Belknap Hous. Auth., 719 F.2d 979, 982 (9th Cir. 1983). In opposing

Defendants’ motion to dismiss, Plaintiffs failed to address the legal challenges to the

complaint. Docs. 15, 25. Concluding that the complaint’s deficiencies could not be cured

through amendment, the Court dismissed the complaint without leave to amend. Doc. 28 at

6-7. The Court finds that Defendants, as prevailing parties on utterly unfounded claims, are

entitled to an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. 

Defendants request an award of fees in the amount of $34,963.25. Doc. 30 at 3.

Having reviewed the supporting memorandum, affidavit of counsel, and itemized statement

of fees (Doc. 31), and having considered the record as a whole and the relevant fee award

factors, see Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 429-30 & n.3 (1983), the Court finds a

reasonable fee to be $29,947.50. The Court will not award fees ($1,895.50) incurred in

connection with Defendants’ erroneous motion for summary ruling. See Docs. 17, 23. Nor

Case 2:10-cv-00533-DGC Document 32 Filed 09/16/10 Page 2 of 3
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 -

will the Court award fees ($3,120.25) for the time spent reviewing “Hudson guidelines for

pre-trial report[.]” Doc. 31-1 at 36-37. Defendants provide no explanation as to the nature

of this review and why it was necessary to the litigation. The Court, pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§ 2000e-5(k) and 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b), will grant Defendants’ motion in part and award them

attorneys’ fees in the amount of $29,947.50. The Court also will award costs in the amount

of $1,109.52.

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Defendants’ motion for attorneys’ fees and costs (Doc. 30) is granted in part

and denied in part.

2. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(k) and 4 2 U.S.C. § 1988(b), attorneys’ fees

in the amount of $29,947.50, and costs in the amount of $1,109.52, are

awarded in favor of Defendants Quechan Tribally Designated Housing Entity,

Robert Letendre, and Tad Zvodsky.

3. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

DATED this 16th day of September, 2010.

Case 2:10-cv-00533-DGC Document 32 Filed 09/16/10 Page 3 of 3