Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-02677/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-02677-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

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

Donald W. Harwood

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Avalon Care Center-Chandler, LLC,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-04-2677-PHX-DGC

ORDER

On August 11, 2006, the Court granted Defendant Avalon Care Center-Chandler,

LLC’s motion for summary judgment. Dkt. #40. Defendant has now filed a Motion for

Attorneys’ Fees and Costs. Dkt. #42.

The Supreme Court has held that a prevailing Defendant in a Title VII case may

recover attorneys’ fees and costs only if the plaintiff’s claim was frivolous, unreasonable, or

groundless, or the plaintiff continued to litigate after his complaint clearly became so.

Christianburg Garment Co. v. EEOC, 434 U.S. 412, 422 (1978). Defendant notes that

Plaintiff, after filing this lawsuit, took virtually no action to litigate it. Plaintiff filed an initial

disclosure statement, but conducted no discovery and even failed to attend the one deposition

noticed by Defendant. In response to Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, Plaintiff

presented insufficient evidence to support his claim, responding largely with conclusory

denials. See Dkt. #40. 

Although these facts make clear that Plaintiff’s counsel did not litigate the case

vigorously or thoroughly, the Court cannot conclude that this was due to Plaintiff or

Case 2:04-cv-02677-DGC Document 59 Filed 11/27/06 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 -

weakness in his claim. The Supreme Court has cautioned that “assessing attorney’s fees

against plaintiffs simply because they do not finally prevail would substantially add to the

risks inhering in most litigation and would undercut the efforts of Congress to promote the

vigorous enforcement of the provisions of Title VII.” Id. Because the Court cannot conclude

that Plaintiff’s claim was frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless, Defendant’s motion will be

denied. 

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Defendant’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs (Dkt. #42) is denied.

2. Defendant’s Motion to Strike (Dkt. #57) is denied as moot. The Court did not

consider Plaintiff’s supplemental filing in resolving the request for attorneys’

fees and costs.

DATED this 27th day of November, 2006.

Case 2:04-cv-02677-DGC Document 59 Filed 11/27/06 Page 2 of 2