Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00057/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00057-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1981 Job Discrimination (Race)

---

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 

Taloren Govan, an unmarried man,

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

Security National Financial Corporation, a 

Utah corporation; Crystal Rose Funeral 

Home, Inc., an Arizona corporation; and 

Greer-Wilson Funeral Home, Inc., an 

Arizona corporation, 

Defendants.

No. CV-10-0057-PHX-DGC

ORDER 

 Plaintiff commenced this employment law action by filing a complaint against 

Defendants on January 8, 2010. Doc. 1. On May 16, 2011, the Court granted summary 

judgment in favor of Defendants and the Clerk entered judgment accordingly. Docs. 

92, 93. Plaintiff has appealed. Doc. 96. 

 Defendants have filed a motion for a cost bond on appeal in the amount of 

$5,306.60. Doc. 99. The motion is fully briefed. Docs. 100, 104. Oral argument has not 

been requested. For reasons stated below, the motion will be denied. 

 Defendants estimate that their attorneys’ fees on appeal will be not less than 

$5,000. Pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-341.01(C), which requires an award of attorney fees 

where a claim is groundless and constitutes harassment, Defendants request an order 

requiring Plaintiff to post an appeal bond sufficient to cover their estimated attorneys’ 

fees. Doc. 99 at 3-4. 

 Plaintiff argues, correctly, that A.R.S. § 12-341.01(C) has no application in federal 

Case 2:10-cv-00057-DGC Document 106 Filed 07/12/11 Page 1 of 2
- 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 

court. Doc. 100 at 3. This Circuit has made clear that it is not proper to use an Arizona 

sanction statute, including A.R.S. § 12-341.01(C), in federal litigation. In re Larry’s 

Apartment, L.L.C., 249 F.3d 832, 838-40 (9th Cir. 2001). Defendants assert in their reply 

that Title VII is an applicable fee-shifting statute (Doc. 104 at 2), but it is well established 

that “courts will not consider arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief.’” Bach 

v. Forever Living Prods. U.S., Inc., 473 F. Supp. 2d 1110, 1122 n.6 (W.D. Wash. 2007) 

(citing Lentini v. Cal. Ctr. for the Arts, 370 F.3d 837, 843 n.6 (9th Cir. 2004)); see Gadda 

v. State Bar of Cal., 511 F.3d 933, 937 n.2 (9th Cir. 2007). 

 Defendants’ motion will be denied with respect to the $5,000 in estimated 

attorneys’ fees. The Court also declines to grant the motion with respect to the $306.06 

in estimated copying costs. Doc. 99 at 2. Defendants, consistent with applicable rules of 

procedure, may seek an award of fees and costs after the appeal has been resolved. 

IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ motion for cost bond on appeal (Doc. 99) is 

denied. 

 Dated this 12th day of July, 2011. 

Case 2:10-cv-00057-DGC Document 106 Filed 07/12/11 Page 2 of 2