Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00633/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00633-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

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

Charles Okonkwo, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Glendale Union High School District, et

al., 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-08-633-PHX-MHM

ORDER

Currently pending before the Court are Defendants Glendale Union High School

District, et al.’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees, (Dkt.#95), and Defendants’ Motion for Entry

of Judgment, (Dkt.#94), as well as Plaintiff Charles Okonkwo’s Motion for

Reconsideration/and or Motion to Vacate the Court’s February 25, 2010 Order, (Dkt.#100).

After reviewing the record and determining oral argument unnecessary, the Court issues the

following Order.

There is no need to go through the history of this lawsuit in much detail for purposes

of the instant Order. Due to his attorney’s continuous refusal to follow this Court’s clear

instructions, on February 25, 2010, the Court issued an Order dismissing Plaintiff’s lawsuit

in its entirety. (Dkt.#91). Defendants have now moved the Court for an award of attorneys’

fees based on their successful defense of Mr. Okonkwo’s lawsuit, which alleged claims of

Case 2:08-cv-00633-SRB Document 101 Filed 05/20/10 Page 1 of 4
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 -

federal employment discrimination under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the

Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and state law claims for breach of the covenant of

good faith and fair dealing, harassment, breach of contract, and tortuous interference with a

contractual agreement. Defendants have requested fees in an amount totaling $32, 707.80,

although they argue that the actual amount of fees incurred in defense of this lawsuit

accounts for more than $54,500.00. 

While Defendants are potentially entitled to recover attorneys’ fees based on

Plaintiff’s unsuccessful state law claims as well as his unsuccessful federal claims,

Defendants have chosen to move for an award of fees under Arizona law alone. To this end,

A.R.S. § 12-341.01 permits a prevailing party to recover reasonable attorneys’ fees “[i]n any

contested action arising out of a contract, express or implied.” See A.R.S. § 12-341.01.

Attorneys’ fees are also recoverable under the statute for certain tort claims that are

“interwoven” with a contract or “arise out” of the parties contractual relationship. See

Ramsey Air Meds, L.L.C. v. Cutter Aviation, Inc., 6 P.3d 315, 318 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2000).

There is no dispute that Plaintiff’s claims for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair

dealing, harassment, breach of contract, and tortuous interference with a contractual

agreement fall within this rule and are subject to a recover of fees under A.R.S. § 12-341.01.

Nelson v. Phoenix Resort Corp., 888 P.2d 1375, 1388 (Ariz. App. 1994) (terminated

employee’s unsuccessful claim for breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing arose

from contract and, thus, the court awarded defendant attorneys’ fees); Barrow v. Ariz. Bd.

of Regents, 761 P.2d 145, 154 (Ariz. App. 1988) (award of attorneys’ fees to defendant was

appropriate with regard to plaintiff’s interference with contract cause of action).

A variety of factors are considered in reviewing a request for attorneys’ fees under

A.R.S. § 12-341.01. See Wilcox v. Waldman, 744 P.2d 444, 450 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987). The

factors include: (1) the merits of the claim or defense presented by the unsuccessful party;

(2) whether the litigation could have been avoided or settled and the successful party’s efforts

were completely superfluous in achieving the result; (3) whether assessing fees against the

unsuccessful party would cause extreme hardship; (4) whether the successful party prevailed

Case 2:08-cv-00633-SRB Document 101 Filed 05/20/10 Page 2 of 4
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 -

with respect to all of the relief sought; (5) the novelty of the legal question presented; (6)

whether the successful party's claim or defense was adjudicated previously in this

jurisdiction; and (7) whether an award would discourage other parties with tenable claims

or defenses from litigating or defending legitimate contract issues. Dometri Invs., LLC v.

Lind (In re Estate of Parker), 177 P.3d 305, 312 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008) (citing Scottsdale

Mem'l Health Sys., Inc. v. Clark, 791 P.2d 1094, 1098 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1990). 

After considering the relevant factors, the Court cannot authorize an award of

attorneys’ fees, given the highly irregular nature of the facts presented here. The Court is not

aware, and Defendants have not cited to, an analogous case in Arizona where an award of

attorneys’ fees was permitted against a party whose lawsuit was subject to dismissal based

on his attorney’s misconduct. Although the Court has serious reservations as to the

substantive merits of Mr. Okonkwo’s claims, there has not any been findings made with

respect to the underlying merits. Without going over the entire history of this lawsuit in yet

another Order, (See Dismissal Order, Dkt.#91), the Court must point out that the record is

replete with evidence of Mr. Okonkwo’s attorney’s bizarre behavior and gross incompetence.

On more than one occasion, the Court granted Mr. Okonkwo’s attorney additional time to

conduct discovery on his client’s behalf, yet there is nothing to indicate that any

supplemental discovery took place. Mr. Okonkwo’s attorney was repeatedly ordered by the

Court to file a brief in response to Defendants’ summary judgment motion, yet no brief was

filed. In fact, Mr. Okonkwo’s attorney’s behavior in this and other cases was so troubling that

another Judge in the District of Arizona entered an order to show cause whether he should

be disbarred from practice within the District. See Oladiran v. SunTrust Mortgage, No.

CV-09-01471-PHX-GMS, (Dkt.#78). 

While “the strong policy underlying the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure favor[s]

decisions on the merits,” Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471 (9th Cir. 1986), for a variety

of reasons not all cases are capable of being resolved on the merits. In many instances, the

lack of a merits based disposition does not necessarily preclude a court from granting

attorneys’ fees to the prevailing party. However, in a case like this, where a previously pro

Case 2:08-cv-00633-SRB Document 101 Filed 05/20/10 Page 3 of 4
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

- 4 -

se plaintiff hires a lawyer who engages in misconduct so widespread and severe that the

Court has little choice but to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint in its entirety, an award of

attorneys’ fees would be both unfair and unjust. 

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED denying Defendant Glendale Union High School

District, et al.’s Motion for Attorney Fees. (Dkt.#95).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Plaintiff Charles Okonkwo’s Motion for

Reconsideration/and or Motion to Vacate the Court’s February 25, 2010 Order. (Dkt.#100).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting Defendants’ Motion for Entry of Judgment.

(Dkt.#94).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk to issue a separate Entry of

Judgment to reflect Judge Anderson’s March 4, 2009 Order sanctioning Plaintiff. (See

Dkt.#51, p. 8-10). The separate Entry of Judgment shall be in favor of Defendants Glendale

Union High School District, Michael Fowler, Linda Rossness, Jennifer Johnson, Warren K

Jacobson, Vicki Johnson, Kevin Clayborn, Steve Burke, Kathy Jacka, and Donna Stout. The

Judgment shall be against Plaintiff Charles Okonkwo, and shall be for the sum of $3,958.50,

plus interest at the legal rate until the Judgment is paid in full. 

DATED this 17th day of May, 2010.

Case 2:08-cv-00633-SRB Document 101 Filed 05/20/10 Page 4 of 4