Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01193/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01193-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Contract Default

---

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

Arizona Bank & Trust, an Arizona

corporation, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Mark A. Ramundo; Jane Doe Ramundo,

husband and wife, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 08-1193-PHX-JAT

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Arizona Bank & Trust’s Motion for Award of

Attorneys' Fees and Expenses (Doc. 69). For the reasons that follow, the Court grants

Plaintiff’s motion.

After a two day bench trial, the Court found that Plaintiff was entitled to a deficiency

judgment in the amount of $592,553.64. Plaintiff now seeks its reasonable attorneys' fees

an costs.

Under Arizona law, "[i]n any contested action arising out of a contract, express or

implied, the court may award the successful party reasonable attorney fees." A.R.S. § 12-

341.01(a). In order to award attorneys' fees to Plaintiff under this statute, the Court must find

that Plaintiff is the successful party, that the action arose out of a contract, that the award of

attorney’s fees is appropriate, and that the fees are reasonable.

Case 2:08-cv-01193-JAT Document 73 Filed 09/29/10 Page 1 of 4
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 -

There is no dispute between parties that the underlying claim arises out of contract.

Moreover, Defendant does not dispute Plaintiff is the prevailing party. The only issues left

for consideration are the appropriateness of a fee award, and the reasonableness of Plaintiff's

requested award.

APPROPRIATENESS

Under Section 12-341.01, the Court may award reasonable attorneys' fees. There is

no presumption in favor of granting attorneys' fees in contract actions; rather, it is a matter

within the discretion of the Court. Associated Indem. Corp. v. Warner, 694 P.2d 1181, 1183-

84 (Ariz. 1985). The Arizona Supreme Court has propounded six factors that courts must

consider when deciding whether to award attorney’s fees to a prevailing party: (1) the merits

of the unsuccessful party’s claim or defense; (2) whether litigation could have been avoided

or settled; (3) whether assessing fees against the unsuccessful party would cause extreme

hardship; (4) whether the successful party prevailed with respect to all relief sought; (5) the

novelty of the issues; and (6) whether the award would discourage other parties with tenable

claims or defenses from litigating or defending legitimate contract issues for fear of incurring

liability for substantial amounts of attorney’s fees. Id. at 1184.

First, the Court finds that Defendant failed to assert any tenable defenses to Plaintiff's

allegations. Defendant did not dispute at trial that he owed the alleged amount due under the

promissory note. In support of his lone defense, Defendant did not cite any controlling law

for his theory concerning an alleged breach by Plaintiff and a subsequent recoupment. As

such, the Court finds that this factor weighs in favor of awarding attorneys' fees.

Second, given Defendant's admissions at trial, the Court believes litigation could have

been avoided. The essential facts were undisputed by Defendant. Although Defendant

maintained a theory for setoff or recoupment through trial, and litigants are entitled to a

decision on the merits, litigation could have likely been avoided in this case. The Court finds

that this factor weighs in favor of awarding fees.

Case 2:08-cv-01193-JAT Document 73 Filed 09/29/10 Page 2 of 4
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 - 3 -

Third, there is no evidence, nor does Defendant so suggest in his opposition to

Plaintiff's request for an award of fees, that assessing fees against Defendant will cause him

extreme hardship. This factor weighs in favor of awarding fees.

Fourth, Plaintiff prevailed on the entirety of its claims, and judgment was entered for

the full amount of the deficiency Plaintiff was seeking. The fourth factor weighs in favor of

awarding fees.

Fifth, Plaintiff brought a deficiency judgment claim against Defendant. These matters

are adjudicated on a routine basis. Additionally, there was nothing novel about the facts or

issues of this particular case. Thus, this factor weighs in favor of awarding attorneys' fees.

Finally, the Court cannot see why an award of attorneys' fees would discourage other

parties with tenable claims from defending legitimate contract issues for fear of incurring

liability for substantial amounts of attorneys' fees. Contrary to discouraging the assertion of

colorable defenses, awarding attorneys' fees in this case would encourage litigants to put

forth the effort to support their defenses with sufficient law and evidence. Awarding

attorneys' fees in this case would also have the effect of dissuading litigants from taking a

case to trial when there is an insufficient basis for doing so.

Therefore, after considering the six Warner factors, the Court finds that an award of

attorney’s fees is appropriate in this case.

REASONABLENESS

The final step in the attorneys' fees analysis is to determine whether the fees sought

are reasonable. Plaintiff seeks an award of fees and costs in the amount of $45,641.20. In

Schweiger v. China Doll Rest., Inc., 673 P.2d 927 (Ariz. Ct. App.1983), the Arizona Court

of Appeals held that an attorney's affidavit supporting a fee application should include “the

type of legal services provided, the date the service was provided, the attorney providing the

service . . . and the time spent in providing the service.” 673 P.2d at 932. The affidavit

submitted by Plaintiff's counsel sets forth this information with sufficient detail.

Case 2:08-cv-01193-JAT Document 73 Filed 09/29/10 Page 3 of 4
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 - 4 -

Nevertheless, Defendant argues that given the simplicity of this case, Plaintiff's

requested amount is unreasonable. Defendant's argument fails as a matter of law. "Once a

party establishes its entitlement to fees and meets the minimum requirements in its

application and affidavit for fees, the burden shifts to the party opposing the fee award to

demonstrate the impropriety or unreasonableness of the requested fees." Nolan v. Starlight

Pines Homeowners Ass'n, 167 P.3d 1277, 1286 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007). “[A]n opposing party

does not meet [this] burden merely by asserting broad challenges to the application." State

ex rel. Corbin v. Tocco, 845 P.2d 513, 520 (Ariz. Ct. App.1992).

Defendant did not present specific objections to the reasonableness of the fees

requested. Rather, Defendant argues generally that "this case could have been handled in a

much more efficient manner that did not cost in excess of $44,000." (Doc. 70 at p. 2.) In its

reply to Defendant's objection to the fee application, Plaintiff gave an adequate explanation

of why the fees were in proportion to the alleged simplicity of this case. The Court finds that

Defendant has failed to demonstrate the unreasonableness of the requested fees.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff Arizona Bank & Trust’s Motion for Award of

Attorneys' Fees and Expenses (Doc. 69) is granted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment in the

amount of $45,641.20, plus interest from the date of judgment until paid, in favor of the

Plaintiff and against the Defendant.

DATED this 28th day of September, 2010.

Case 2:08-cv-01193-JAT Document 73 Filed 09/29/10 Page 4 of 4