Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01113/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01113-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- 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 

Andy B. Oraha, a single man, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Metrocities Mortgage, LLC, a California 

limited liability company; U.S. Bank 

National Association, as Successor Trustee 

to Bank of America, National Association 

(successor by merger to LaSalle Bank 

National Association) as Trustee for 

Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 

2007-1XS; Mortgage Electronic System 

(“MERS”), a corporation, America’s 

Servicing Company, a corporation; Wells 

Fargo Home Improvement, a corporation; 

Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, a 

corporation; Black Corporation I-X, John 

Doe I-X and Jane Does I-X, their spouses, 

Defendants. 

No. CV-11-01113-PHX-JAT 

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court is Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., U.S. Bank National 

Association, and Mortgage Electronic Systems, Inc.’s (the “Moving Defendants”) Motion 

for Award of Attorneys’ Fees (Doc. 46). Pro se Plaintiff did not file a response to the 

Motion. 

 On March 30, 2011, Plaintiff pro se filed a complaint in Maricopa County 

Superior Court against Defendants alleging claims for declaratory judgment/injunction 

Case 2:11-cv-01113-JAT Document 49 Filed 07/29/13 Page 1 of 4
- 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 

(Count I), Breach of Contract/Injunction (Count II), Breach of Contract/Violation of 

Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing (Count III), and Wrongful 

Foreclosure/Forfeiture (Count IV). (Doc. 1-1 at 13-26). On January 10, 2012, the Court 

granted Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon 

which relief could be granted pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). 

(Doc. 28). The Court also granted Plaintiff leave to amend his Complaint. (Doc. 28). 

On March 5, 2012, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint (Doc. 33). In his Amended 

Complaint, Plaintiff asserted a breach of contract claim against all Defendants and a 

wrongful foreclosure claim against Defendant LaSalle. (Id.). 

 On October 2, 2012, the Court granted Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss Plaintiff’s 

Amended Complaint and directed the Clerk of the Court to enter judgment for 

Defendants. (Doc. 44). 

 The Moving Defendants now move for attorneys’ fees in the amount of 

$26,405.90 pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes section 12-341.01(A). As previously 

noted, Plaintiff did not file a response to the Motion for Attorneys’ Fees. 

 Under Arizona law, “[i]n any contested action arising out of a contract, express or 

implied, the court may award the successful party reasonable attorney fees.” Ariz. Rev. 

Stat. § 12–341.01(A). The trial court has discretion regarding an award of attorneys’ 

fees. See Wilcox v. Waldman, 744 P.2d 444, 450 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987). To determine 

whether to award attorneys’ fees, courts consider the merits of the unsuccessful party’s 

claim, whether the successful party’s efforts were completely superfluous in achieving 

the ultimate result, whether assessing fees against the unsuccessful party would cause 

extreme hardship, whether the successful party prevailed with respect to all relief sought, 

whether the legal question presented was novel or had been previously adjudicated, and 

whether a fee award would discourage other parties with tenable claims from litigating. 

Assoc. Indem. Corp. v. Warner, 694 P.2d 1181, 1184 (Ariz. 1985). No single factor can 

be determinative and the court is to weigh all of the factors in exercising its discretion. 

Wilcox v. Waldman, 744 P.2d 444, 450 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987). 

Case 2:11-cv-01113-JAT Document 49 Filed 07/29/13 Page 2 of 4
- 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 

 Plaintiff’s failure to respond has made the Court’s task of balancing these factors a 

difficult one. See LRCiv 7.2(i) (stating that if the required answering memoranda are not 

served and filed, such noncompliance may be deemed consent to the granting of the 

motion and the Court may dispose of the motion summarily.). Nonetheless, the Court 

will consider each of the necessary factors to determine if Moving Defendants are 

entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees. 

 In this case, Plaintiff failed to meet the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 12(b)(6) and asserted causes of actions that had previously been rejected by 

this Court. Accordingly, the first factor favors granting the Motion for Attorneys’ Fees. 

The Moving Defendants filed two Motions to Dismiss and both Motions to Dismiss were 

granted by this Court. Accordingly, Defendants’ actions were not completely 

superfluous in achieving the ultimate result and the second factor favors granting the 

Motion for Attorneys’ Fees. With regard to the third factor, Plaintiff has presented no 

evidence that assessing fees would cause extreme hardship, and thus, this factor favors 

granting the Motion for Attorneys’ Fees. With regard to the fourth factor, Defendants did 

prevail on all relief sought and this factor favors granting attorneys’ fees. With regard to 

the fifth factor, as noted above, Plaintiff’s legal theories were not novel and had been 

previously rejected by this Court. Accordingly, the fifth factor favors granting attorneys’ 

fees. 

 With regard to the sixth factor, Plaintiff’s claims have been previously rejected by 

this Court. Accordingly, granting attorneys’ fees in this case would not discourage other 

parties with tenable claims from litigation. 

 Assuming a party establishes its eligibility for fees, “the burden shifts to the party 

opposing the fee award to demonstrate the impropriety or unreasonableness of the 

requested fees.” Nolan v. Starlight Pines Homeowners Ass’n, 167 P.3d 1277, 1286 (Ariz. 

Ct. App. 2007). As noted above, Plaintiff has not challenged the reasonableness of the 

fees requested. 

 Based on the foregoing, the Court will award Defendants attorneys’ fees in the 

Case 2:11-cv-01113-JAT Document 49 Filed 07/29/13 Page 3 of 4
- 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 

amount of $26,405.90. 

 Accordingly, 

 IT IS ORDERED that Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., U.S. Bank National Association, 

and Mortgage Electronic Systems, Inc.’s Motion for Award of Attorneys’ Fees (Doc. 46) 

is granted in the amount of $26,405.90. 

 Dated this 29th day of July, 2013. 

Case 2:11-cv-01113-JAT Document 49 Filed 07/29/13 Page 4 of 4