Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-02228/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-02228-2/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

Precision Sampling, Inc., 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

EA Engineering, Science and Technology,

Inc., 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-12-02228-PHX-FJM

ORDER

Before the court is defendant EA Engineering, Science and Technology, Inc.’s motion

for an award of attorney’s fees and non-taxable costs (doc. 37) and memorandum in support

(doc. 41). Plaintiff did not file a response and the time for doing so has expired. See LRCiv.

54.2(b)(3). 

Plaintiff’s motion for an award of attorney’s fees is based on A.R.S. § 12-341.01,

which authorizes a court to award fees in “any contested action arising out of a contract.”

It is clear that this action arose out of the parties’ Subcontractor Service Order Agreement

dated April 16, 2012, and that defendant is the prevailing party. In deciding a motion for an

award of fees, we consider the factors outlined in Associated Indem. Corp. v. Warner, 143

Ariz. 567, 570, 694 P.2d 1181, 1184 (1985), including (1) the merits of the unsuccessful

party’s claim, (2) whether the litigation could have been avoided or settled, (3) whether

Case 2:12-cv-02228-FJM Document 42 Filed 10/08/13 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 -

assessing fees would cause an extreme hardship, (4) the extent of the prevailing party’s

success, (5) whether the legal question presented was novel, and (6) whether an award of fees

would discourage litigation of meritorious claims. 

Each of these factors weighs in favor of an award of fees. Plaintiff’s claim was

without merit. There is no indication that the litigation could have been avoided or that an

award would cause extreme hardship. Defendant prevailed on all relief sought. The legal

question was not novel and there is no showing that an award of fees would inhibit litigation

of meritorious claims. Therefore, we conclude that defendant is entitled to recover its

reasonable fees and costs.

Defendant seeks an award of fees and costs totaling $15,644.69. Its hourly rates for

partners are between $200 and $230, and for paralegals $90. These rates are comparable to

the prevailing rates in Phoenix, Arizona and are therefore reasonable. Defendant seeks fees

for a total of 72.8 hours, which we also consider reasonable under the circumstances in this

case. Finally, defendant’s request for reimbursement of its non-taxable costs in the amount

of $979.69 is also reasonable.

Therefore, IT IS ORDERED GRANTING defendant’s motion for award of

attorney’s fees and non-taxable costs in the total amount of $15,644.69 (doc. 37). 

DATED this 8th day of October, 2013.

Case 2:12-cv-02228-FJM Document 42 Filed 10/08/13 Page 2 of 2