Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-01699/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-01699-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 441
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Voting
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

Ralph Nader, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

Kenneth Bennett, in his official capacity as

Secretary of State, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-04-1699-PHX-FJM

ORDER

Plaintiffs appealed our orders granting their motion for attorney’s fees pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1988(b) (docs. 87, 93), raising several claims of error. The Ninth Circuit affirmed

the orders on each assignment of error, but remanded the case on the issue of whether

plaintiffs were entitled to fees incurred in the unsuccessful appeal of the denial of their

motion for preliminary injunction. The court stated that it was not clear whether we awarded

fees for all of the hours that contributed to the eventual victory. 

Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction and appeal of the order denying the

motion are not fairly characterized as either a “temporary setback” or a “necessary step to

[their] ultimate victory.” Cabrales v. County of Los Angeles, 935 F.2d 1050, 1053 (9th Cir.

1991). Quite the contrary, plaintiffs’ dilatory strategy in filing the motion renders the

expenditure of those fees unreasonable. See id. We reiterate our conclusion that the time

Case 2:04-cv-01699-FJM Document 103 Filed 02/14/11 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 -

spent on the unsuccessful preliminary injunction appeal did not contribute to the ultimate

victory in the lawsuit. 

DATED this 11th day of February, 2011.

Case 2:04-cv-01699-FJM Document 103 Filed 02/14/11 Page 2 of 2