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 

Pinnacle Nissan, LLC, 

Third-Party Plaintiff/Cross 

Defendant, 

v. 

Manheim Phoenix, dba Manheim 

Remarketing, Inc. and Marcos Vidal Lopez, 

True Credit Auto. 

Third-Party 

Defendants/Cross-Defendant.

No. CV16-0170-PHX DGC

ORDER 

 The Court previously granted default judgment in favor of Defendant and thirdparty Plaintiff Pinnacle Nissan, LLC, and against third-party Defendants Marcos Vidal 

Lopez and True Credit Auto Wholesale. Doc. 96. The judgment was for common law 

indemnity. Docs. 75, 96. The Court directed Pinnacle to file a memorandum on the 

amount of damages to be awarded, and Pinnacle has done so. Doc. 108. The third-party 

Defendants have not appeared or opposed the memorandum, and Pinnacle has not 

requested oral argument. 

I. Background. 

 Plaintiffs Tom and Marcine Raatz sued Pinnacle, True Credit, and others for 

breach of contract and violations of the Federal Motor Vehicle Information and Cost 

Savings Act, also known as the Federal Odometer Act, 49 U.S.C. § 32701, alleging that 

Tom Raatz purchased a vehicle with an altered odometer reading. Id., ¶ 1. The vehicle at 

Case 2:16-cv-00170-DGC Document 113 Filed 02/21/17 Page 1 of 3
- 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 

issue had the following history: True Credit, through its principal and agent, Lopez 

(Doc. 108 at 3), placed the vehicle in an auction, Pinnacle purchased the vehicle in the 

auction and then returned it (id. at 2), another dealer then purchased the vehicle from the 

auction and sold it to Tom Raatz (id.). Pinnacle asserted third-party claims against Lopez 

and cross-claims against True Credit. Doc. 34. 

II. Legal Standard. 

 The damages Pinnacle seeks to recover from Lopez and True Credit are attorneys’ 

fees Pinnacle has incurred in this litigation. “In Arizona, courts generally do not construe 

‘damages’ to include attorneys’ fees.” City Ctr. Exec. Plaza, LLC v. Jantzen, 344 P.3d 

339, 343 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015). But “[i]t is generally held that where the wrongful act of 

the defendant has involved the plaintiff in litigation with others or placed him in such 

relation with others as makes it necessary to incur expense to protect his interest, such 

costs and expenses, including attorneys’ fees, should be treated as the legal consequences 

of the original wrongful act and may be recovered as damages.” United States Fid. & 

Guar. Co. v. Frohmiller, 227 P.2d 1007, 1009 (Ariz. 1951). “In order to recover 

attorneys’ fees under this principle, the plaintiff must show: (1) that the plaintiff had 

become involved in a legal dispute either because of a breach of contract by the 

defendant or because of the defendant’s tortious conduct; (2) that the dispute was with a 

third party not with the defendant; and (3) that the plaintiff incurred attorneys’ fees 

connected with that dispute.” Spanier v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co., 623 P.2d 19, 29 

(Ariz. Ct. App. 1980). 

III. Analysis. 

Pinnacle requests judgment in the amount of $26,544 for the cost of defending 

against the Raatzes’ claim. To recover attorneys’ fees as damages, Pinnacle must show 

that it became involved in this lawsuit because of the conduct of Lopez and True Credit. 

Spanier, 623 P.2d at 29. Pinnacle purchased the vehicle with the altered odometer from 

True Credit and Lopez, was sued by the Raatzes as a predecessor in the chain of title, but 

Lopez and True Credit were the predecessors to Pinnacle. Doc. 96 at 2-3. 

Case 2:16-cv-00170-DGC Document 113 Filed 02/21/17 Page 2 of 3
- 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 

 Pinnacle cannot recover attorneys’ fees incurred in litigating against Lopez and 

True Credit. Spanier, 623 P.2d at 29. The Court subtracts from Pinnacle’s requested 

damages $1,692.50 for 6.9 hours Pinnacle spent litigating against Lopez and True Credit. 

Doc. 108-1 at 8-10, 13. The Court concludes that Pinnacle may recover attorneys’ fees 

totaling $24,851.50. Id. at 6-16. See Collins v. First Fin. Servs., Inc., 815 P.2d 411 

(Ariz. Ct. App. 1991) (defendant that incurred attorneys’ fees defending against an action 

permitted to recover the fees from the entity that caused it to be sued). 

 IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment is granted in the 

amount of $24,851.50 against Marcos Vidal Lopez and True Credit Auto Wholesale.

Dated this 17th day of February, 2017. 

 

Case 2:16-cv-00170-DGC Document 113 Filed 02/21/17 Page 3 of 3