Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_04-cv-02313/USCOURTS-azd-3_04-cv-02313-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

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

Stephen and Kelly Murdock, 

husband and wife,

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

Mingus Union High School District;

Mingus Union Governing Board; Does IX; Black Corps., Associations and

Partnerships,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-04-2313-PHX-DGC

ORDER

Defendants have filed a Motion for Attorneys’ Fees. Doc. #80. For the reasons set

forth below, the Court will deny the motion.

Defendants seek to recover attorneys’ fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988. Fees may be

awarded under this statute only “upon a finding that the plaintiff’s action was frivolous,

unreasonable, or without foundation, even though not brought in subjective bad faith.”

Christianburg Garment Co. v. EEOC, 434 U.S. 412, 421 (1978). The Supreme Court has

cautioned that courts should “resist the understandable temptation to engage in post hoc

reasoning by concluding that, because a plaintiff did not ultimately prevail, his action must

have been unreasonable or without foundation.” Id. at 421-22. Although ultimately

unsuccessful, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs’ claims were sufficiently colorable to

warrant a denial of Defendants’ fee request. The claims were not frivolous, unreasonable,

or without foundation within the meaning of § 1988. 

Case 3:04-cv-02313-DGC Document 91 Filed 07/25/06 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 -

Defendants also seek to recover their attorneys’ fees under A.R.S. § 12-341.01(A).

Arizona courts have made clear, however, that courts should consider whether a fee award

under this statute “would cause undue hardship” to a plaintiff. Woerth v. City of Flagstaff,

808 P.2d 297, 305 (Ariz. App. 1990). Plaintiffs have submitted an affidavit stating that Mr.

Murdock has not found employment as a teacher since the non-renewal of his contract by

Defendants and that he currently is working in seasonal agricultural. Although Mrs.

Murdock is also working, the affidavit states that the family is on a limited budget, paying

a mortgage, and without the financial resources to pay an attorneys’ fees award. Defendants

criticize Plaintiffs for failing to provide household expense information, but they provide no

evidence to contradict Plaintiffs’ assertion that an attorneys’ fees award would impose undue

hardship. The Court concludes, in its discretion, that an award of fees should not be made

under § 12-341.01.

Finally, Defendants seek to recover fees under A.R.S. § 12-349. This statute requires

Defendants to show that Plaintiffs’ claims were “groundless, in bad faith and harassing.”

Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Dept. of Corrections, 934 P.2d 801, 808 (Ariz. App. 1997).

Having concluded that Plaintiffs’ claims were sufficiently colorable to escape an award of

fees under § 1988, the Court also concludes that they are not subject to an award under § 12-

349. The Court has seen no evidence to suggest that Plaintiffs’ claim was brought in bad

faith or for the purpose of harassment.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Attorneys’ Fees (Doc. #80)

is denied.

DATED this 25th day of July, 2006.

Case 3:04-cv-02313-DGC Document 91 Filed 07/25/06 Page 2 of 2