Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-01182/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-01182-1/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

Antonio M. Aguirre,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Schomac Group, Inc., Schomac Property

Management, Inc.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 04-1182 PHX-DGC

ORDER

Defendants have filed a motion for attorneys’ fees, an amended motion for attorneys’

fees, and a memorandum in support of the motions. Docs. ##120, 121, 122. Plaintiff has not

responded. For the reasons set forth below, the Court will deny Defendants’ motion and

amended motion.

Defendants seek to recover attorneys’ fees under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(k). The Ninth

Circuit has held, however, that fees may be awarded to a defendant under this statute only

in “exceptional cases.” Mitchell v. Office of the Los Angeles County Superintendent of

Schools, 805 F.2d 844, 848 (9th Cir. 1986). Fees are appropriate only when a plaintiff’s case

had “‘no legal or factual basis.’” Id. at 847 (quoting Christianburg Garment Co. v. EEOC,

434 U.S. 412, 420 (1978)) (emphasis in original). “[A] district court must resist the

‘understandable temptation to engage in post hoc reasoning’ once a plaintiff has

unsuccessfully pursued a claim.” Id. (quoting Christianburg, 434 U.S. at 421-22).

Case 2:04-cv-01182-DGC Document 123 Filed 08/16/06 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 -

Following a bench trial, the Court concluded that Plaintiff had failed to prove his case.

Doc. #111. The Court cannot conclude, however, that Plaintiff’s claims had no legal or

factual basis. The Court denied Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, concluding that

Plaintiff had presented sufficient evidence to raise a triable issue of fact. Docs. ##55, 68. 

Defendants also seek attorneys’ fees under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure. The Court cannot conclude that Plaintiff’s action was baseless. As already noted,

the Court denied Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. 

IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ motion for attorneys’ fees (Doc. #120) and

amended motion for attorneys’ fees (Doc. #121) are denied.

DATED this 15th day of August, 2006.

Case 2:04-cv-01182-DGC Document 123 Filed 08/16/06 Page 2 of 2