N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT PR ESTON C OLLEC T ION INC ORPOR

ATED, Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. STEVEN YOUTSEY,

De fe nda nt-Appe l la

nt. No. 19-15525

D.C . No. 2:15-c v-00607-NVW M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz o na Ne il V. W ake , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d M ay

6, 2020 ** Se attle , W a s hington B e fore : KLEINFELD, W . FLETC HER , a n d R AW LINSON, C irc uit Judge s. De fe nda nt Ste v e n Youtse y

a ppe a ls from

the distric t c ourt’ s gra

nt of a dditional attorne y s’ fe e s pursua nt to Ariz ona R e vise d Statute s § 12-341.01(A),



# FIL ED JUN 29 2020 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.
* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).whic h give s the distric t c ourt disc re tion to a

w ard fe e s to “ the suc c e ssful pa rty ” in

“ any c onte ste d a c tion a

rising out of a

c ontra c t , e xpre ss or im

plie d.” W e have jurisdic tion pursua

nt to 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a

nd we a ffirm . A distric t c o urt’ s de c ision re ga rding a n a ward of attorne y s ’ fe e s unde r state la w is re vie we d for a

b use of disc re tion. S

e e Me d . Prote c tiv e C

o. v . Pang , 740 F.3d 1279, 1282 (9th C ir. 2013). W e c onc lude tha t the distric t

c o urt a p propria te ly e xe rc ise d its disc re tion he re . Princ ipa lly , and de spite Youtse y ’ s re pe ate d c la im s to the c ontra ry , Pre ston C olle c tion ha d a n inte re st in e nsuring tha

t the poste d supe rse de a s bond wa s not voida ble or othe rwise subje c t

to ga rnishm e nt or c la wba c k. W e hold tha

t the post-judgme nt dispute ove r the supe rse de a s bond, under A.R .S. § 12-341.01(A), still a rose from c ontra c t. Youtse y ’ s c ita

tions to Doole

y v . O’Brie n , 244 P.3d 586 (Ariz . C t. App. 2010), a n d Be nne tt Blum, M.D., Inc . v . C ow an , 330 P.3d 961 (Ariz . C t. App. 2014), a re una va iling. Sinc e the form e r c a se involve d a

la wsuit ba se d in pa

rt on a fraudule nt c onve y anc e the o ry of lia bility , a nd the l atte r c a se involve d se pa rate ga rnishm e nt proc e e dings, both a re ina pposite . Pre ston C olle c t ion ne ithe r a sse rte d a fra udule nt c onve y a

nc e c a use of a c tion nor 2initia

te d ga rnishm e nt proc e e d ings. Inste a d, the c o m pa ny obje c te d to thebond tha

t Youtse y poste d be c a

use it did not a fford se c urity . W e a lso hold tha

t Pre ston C olle c tion wa s a “ suc c e ssful pa

rty ” unde r A.R .S. § 12-341.01(A). Ariz ona c ourts ha ve re pe ate dly

a c knowle dge d tha

t an

“ a d judic ation on the

m e rits is not a

pre re quisite to re c o v e ring a ttorne y s ’ fe e s unde r A.R .S. § 12–341.01.” Fulton Home s C orp. v . BBP C

onc re te , 155 P.3d 1090, 1096 (C t. App. 2007). W e have pre viously re c ogniz e d this in our own pre c e de nt. Me d. Prote c tiv e , 740 F.3d a

t 1283 (c olle c ting c a se s ). Furthe r, a distric t c ourt ha s

“ substa ntia l disc re tion” in m aking this dete rm ination. Fulton Home s , 155 P.3d a

t 1096. In this insta

nc e , the distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion by

finding tha

t Pre ston C olle c t ion wa s the suc c e ssful pa rty . While the disputeove r the bond wa s re solve d by

joint stipula

t ion ra the r tha n c ourt orde r, Youtse y fought Pre ston C olle c tion for m onths be fore e ve ntua lly a c q uie sc ing to its position. W e disa gre e with Youtsey ’ s obje c tions to the fe e am ount. Although he

“ offe re d” to substitute the supe rse de a s bond on Ja nua ry 11, 2018, hedid not ne e d Pre ston C olle c t ion’ s c onse nt to m ake this c ha n g e , nor c ould the e ve ntua l stipula tion befa irly

c ha ra c te riz e d a s the “ sam e re lie f.” Sim ila rly , we c onc lude tha

t 3Youtse y

is not e ntitle d to his fe e s inc urre d a fte r Ja nua ry 11. His “ offe r” wa s not a

“ writte n se ttle m e nt offe r” a s re quire d by § A.R .S. 12-341.01(A), a nd in a ny e ve nt, wa s not the“ sam e re lie f” a s c om pa re d to the e ve ntua l stipula tion. Fina lly , we hold tha

t Youtse y is not e ntitle d to his fe e s on a ppe a l unde r A.R .S. § 12-341.01. As he did not suc c e e d on the m e rits of his a ppe a l, he pla inly doe s not qua lify

for fe e s. AFFIRM E D .

4