Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-00702/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-00702-1/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 

Azadeh Famili, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Wells Fargo Bank NA, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-13-00702-PHX-DGC

ORDER 

 The Court granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on December 19, 

2013. Doc. 33. Defendants now ask the Court to award attorneys’ fees in the amount of 

$8,270.00 in connection with this action, and have filed a memorandum in support of the 

motion. Doc. 35. Plaintiff has not responded to the motion and Defendants have not 

requested oral argument. For the reasons that follow, the Court will grant the motion. 

 Defendants request fees under A.R.S. § 12-341.01 and section nine of the Deed of 

Trust. Doc. 35 at 2; Doc. 1-1 at 40-41. Because Defendants prevailed on a matter arising 

out of contract – specifically, the Deed of Trust – a fee award is authorized. 

 The Court has discretion to award fees under section 12-341.01. Wenk v. Horizon 

Moving & Storage Co., 639 P.2d 321, 323 (Ariz. 1982). Because Plaintiff’s position 

lacked merit, litigation could have been avoided, Plaintiff has made no showing of 

extreme hardship, Defendants prevailed on all points, the issues were not novel, and no 

improper deterrence of actions would occur, the Court concludes that an award of 

attorneys’ fees is appropriate. See Velarde v. PACE Membership Warehouse, Inc., 105 

Case 2:13-cv-00702-DGC Document 40 Filed 04/23/14 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 

F.3d 1313, 1319-20 (9th Cir. 1997). 

 Defendants discuss most of the factors outlined in Schweiger v. China Doll 

Restaurant, Inc., 673 P.2d 927, 932 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1983), including (1) the qualities of 

the advocate; (2) the work actually performed, including the skill, time and attention 

given to the work; and (3) the result. Defendants’ attorney contends that the billing rates 

charged were “below market [hourly rates] for attorneys with [his] experience.” Doc. 36 

at 2. Defendants’ attorneys have a combined thirty five years of experience litigating in 

the area of real estate. Id. 

 The Court finds the hourly rates charged by Defendants’ legal team to be 

reasonable for the Phoenix market and for attorneys of the skill and experience needed 

for a case such as this. The Court also finds the time records provided by defense counsel 

to be sufficiently detailed, and the hours incurred in defending this case to be reasonable. 

Having considered the record as a whole and the relevant fee award factors, see 

Associated Indemnity Corporation v. Warner, 694 P.2d 1181, 1184 (Ariz. 1985), the 

Court finds the requested fee award to be reasonable and appropriate. See also LRCiv 

54.2(c)(3)(A)-(M) (listing factors bearing on the reasonableness of a fee award). 

IT IS ORDERED: 

1. That Defendants’ motion for attorneys’ fees (Doc. 35) is granted. 

2. Defendants are awarded attorneys’ fees in the amount of $8,270.00

pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-341.01(A). 

Dated this 23rd day of April, 2014. 

Case 2:13-cv-00702-DGC Document 40 Filed 04/23/14 Page 2 of 2