Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_04-cv-01462/USCOURTS-azd-3_04-cv-01462-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other 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

Prescott Equities Holdings Limited

Partnership, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

JPMorgan Chase Bank, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 04-CV-1462-PHX-FJM

ORDER

The court has before it defendants' Motion for Award of Attorneys' Fees and Related

Non-Taxable Expenses (doc. 58), defendants' Memorandum in Support (doc. 70), plaintiffs'

Response (doc. 73), and defendants' Reply (doc. 75).

Defendants request an award of $92,995 of attorneys' fees pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-

341.01(A), which provides that "[i]n any contested action arising out of a contract, . . . the

court may award the successful party reasonable attorney fees." Six factors should be

considered in determining whether a fee award is appropriate: (1) whether the

unsuccessful party's claim or defense was meritorious; (2) whether the litigation could

have been avoided or settled and the successful party's efforts were completely

superfluous in achieving the result; (3) whether assessing fees against the unsuccessful

party would cause an extreme hardship; (4) whether the successful party prevailed with

respect to all relief sought; (5) whether the legal question presented was novel and

Case 3:04-cv-01462-FJM Document 76 Filed 11/28/05 Page 1 of 3
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

1

 We considered the limited settlement efforts by both sides, Memorandum, Exhibits

6, 7, 10, and the lack of novelty of the contract issues, but neither factor was relevant to our

decision to award attorneys' fees.

- 2 -

whether the claim or defense has previously been adjudicated in this jurisdiction; 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. Associated Indem. Corp. v. Warner, 143 Ariz.

567, 570, 694 P.2d 1181, 1184 (1985).

We award attorneys' fees to defendants. Defendants prevailed on all claims

under the plain language of the contract. Order at 6-8. (doc. 55). Although

plaintiffs argue that their claims have merit because "the Addendum was

reasonably susceptible to Plaintiff's interpretation," Response at 3, we already

stated that "[i]n no event is it reasonable to [so] interpret the clause." Order at 6. 

(doc. 55). Plaintiffs do not argue that the assessment of fees would cause them

extreme hardship. Furthermore, this award will not discourage other parties from

litigating their tenable contract claims. Had this been a non-commercial

(household) loan, this would have been a different case.1

Defendants' fee request is, however, excessive. Defendants request $3,520

for 16.8 attorney hours "in connection with the briefing of the attorneys fees

issue." Memorandum at 6; Memorandum, Exhibit 4 at 3. Defendants request an

additional $4,965 for 23.5 attorney hours for "finalizing the original fee

application, studying plaintiffs' response to that fee application, and preparing

defendants' reply." Reply, Exhibit 5 at 1-2. We think it unreasonable to spend

23.5 hours on the fee application after the memorandum was drafted.

Plaintiffs argue that defendants' request is also excessive because

defendants billed 141 more hours than plaintiffs and defendants billed more time

working with one expert than plaintiffs did working with four experts. Response

at 6-7. Defendants argue that they reasonably expended more hours than plaintiffs

Case 3:04-cv-01462-FJM Document 76 Filed 11/28/05 Page 2 of 3
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 -

because plaintiffs had more familiarity with the underlying transaction, plaintiffs

had greater access to the documentation, and defendants analyzed the case more

broadly than plaintiffs. Reply at 6-7. Standing alone, this evidence is insufficient

to show that defendants' fee request is unreasonable, but when combined with

defendants' excessive expenditure of time to prepare the reply to their fee request,

we conclude that defendants may have billed an unreasonable number of hours

over the course of the litigation. Nevertheless, an award of fees under § 12-

341.01(A) is made to mitigate the expense of litigation and need not equal or relate

to the fees actually paid or contracted. A.R.S. § 12-341.01(B). We think it fair to

shift about 2/3 of the fees billed to plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs also argue that defendants cannot recover for the hours that their

attorneys consulted with an expert witness because the expert's testimony had no

bearing on the outcome of the litigation. Response at 6. Plaintiffs' argument fails

because plaintiffs do not argue that it was unreasonable for the defendants to

consult the expert, and the consultation does not become unreasonable merely

because expert testimony is mooted by an underlying legal issue.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED GRANTING defendants' Motion for

Award of Attorneys' Fees and Related Non-Taxable Expenses in the amount of

$61,376.00 (doc. 58).

DATED this 28th day of November, 2005.

Case 3:04-cv-01462-FJM Document 76 Filed 11/28/05 Page 3 of 3