N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
FAULKNER

USA, INC
. , a

De la ware c orpora tion a

nd SAFEC O INSUR

ANC E C OM PANY OF AM ER IC A, a W a shington c orpora tion, Plaintiffs - Appe lla nts,
v. THE DUR

R ANT GR OUP, INC ., a W isc onsin c orpora tion; e t a l., De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 14-15299 D.C . No. 3:11-c v-08086-NVW
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Sta t e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz o na Ne il V. W a ke , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d M ay 9, 2016 Sa n Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : W ARDLAW , PAEZ, a nd B EA, C irc uit Judge s. Pla intiffs Fa

ulkne r USA, Inc . (“ FUSA” ) a nd Sa fe c o Insura

nc e C om pa ny of Am e ric a a ppe a l (1) the distric t c ourt’ s gra nt of Stra nd Assoc iate s, Inc .’ s Fe de ra l



# FIL ED MAY25 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

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

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

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.R

ule of C ivil Proc e dure 52(c ) m otion for judgm e nt on pa rtia l findings, ba se d on the Pla intiffs’ fa ilure to prove tha t Stra nd wa s profe ssiona lly

ne g lige nt in not disc ove ring a

nd re porting to FUSA tha t the M oha

ve C ounty

Flood C ontrol Distric t ha d jurisdic tion ove r the ja i l’ s off-site se we r line c rossing; a nd (2) the distric t c ourt’ s orde rs a

warding a ttorne y s’ fe e s a

nd c osts to The Durran t Group, Inc
. (“ Durrant” ), Strand Assoc ia te s, Inc . (“ Strand” ), an d PK Assoc iat e s, LLC (“ PK” ). W e hav e jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a nd we a ffirm

the distric t c ourt. 1. In re vie w ing a R

ule 52(c ) judgm e nt, we re vie w the distric t c ourt’ s findings of fa c t

for c le ar e rror a nd c onc lusions of la w de nov o . Se e Ziv k

ov ic v . S. C al. Edison C

o. , 302 F .3d 1080, 1088 (9th C ir . 2002); Fe d. R . C iv . P
. 52(a )(6).

“ The c le ar e rror sta

nda rd a lso a pplie s to the re sults of e s se ntia lly fa c tua l inquirie s a pply ing the la

w to the fa c ts.” Ziv k

o v ic , 302 F .3d a

t 1088 (inte rna l quota

t ion
m arks om itte d). The distric t c ourt’ s finding tha t S t ra nd’ s sc ope of duty

in re nde ring

“ pre lim ina

ry se rvic e s” did not inc lude an inve s tiga tion to de te rm ine whic h loc a l gove rnm e nt e ntity

ha d jurisdic tion ove r the of f-site se we r line c rossing is c le arly
e rrone ous only

if it wa s “ (1) illogic a l, (2) im pla usible , or (3) without support in infe re n c e s tha

t m ay be drawn from

the fa c ts in the re c ord.” Unite d S tate s v . Hink son , 585 F .3d 1247, 1262 (9th C ir . 2009) (e n ba n c ) (inte rna l quota

tion m arks
om i tte d). He re , e vide nc e in the re c ord supports the distric t c ourt’ s finding tha t the 2sc ope o f S tran d’ s duty did not inc lude an

obliga tion to disc o ve r the M oha v e C ounty Flood C ontrol Distric t’ s re quire m e nts for c onstruc t ion of the ja il’ s of f-site se we r line c rossing during the p re lim ina ry de sign pha se . Pla intif

fs did not c arry

the ir burde n of providing spe c ific e vide nc e de ta iling thesc ope of S trand’ s “ p re lim ina ry se rvic e s” in this c a se and whe the r the sc ope de s c ribe d in the pa rtie s’ pre lim ina

ry se rvic e s a gre e m e nt re quire d S trand to disc ove r the re gula t ory re quire m e nts for a

n of f-site se we r line c rossing. Thedistric t c ourt’ s findings re ga rding the sc ope of S trand’ s duty

and la c k of a

ny bre a c h we re not c l e arly

e rrone o us. 2. The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re t ion in a

warding a ttorne y s’ fe e s and c osts to Durra

nt, S trand, a

nd PK a fte r e nte ring fina l judgm e nt in the ir fa vor with re spe c t to Pla intif

fs’ c ontra c t c la im s. Durra nt a n d FUSA’ s c ontra c t provide d for a ttorne y s’ fe e s a

nd c osts to beawarde d to the pre va iling pa rty , a nd Durra nt de fe a te d FUSA’ s c ontra c t c la i m s during a be nc h tria l. The pa

rtie s did not wa ive the i r c l a im to a

ttorne y s’ fe e s, se e Fe d. R
. C iv . P . 54(d)(2)(A), a

nd the distric t c ourt wa s within its disc

re tion to find Durra

nt to be the pre va i ling pa

rty with re spe c t to FUSA’ s c ontra c t c la im s. Se e Be rry v . 352 E. V ir ginia, L.L.C ., 261 P

.3d 784, 788 (Ariz
. C t. App. 201 1); c

f . K aman Ae r ospac e C orp. v . Ariz. Bd. of Re

ge nts , 171 P .3d 599, 609 (Ariz . C t. App. 2007). The distric t c ourt wa s a lso within its disc re tion to a

ward Stra nd a nd PK the ir fe e s inc urre d

up to the tim e the c o ntra c t
3c la im s a ga inst the m we re dism isse d on sum m ary judgm e n t . Ariz . R e v. Stats. § 12- 341.01.A (“ In an y

c onte s te d a c tion a

rising out of a

c ontra c t, e x p re ss or im

plie d, the
c ourt m ay award the suc c e ssful pa

rty re a sona ble a ttorne y

fe e s.” ); se e R u dinsk

y v . Harris , 290 P.3d 1218, 1224 (Ariz . C t. App. 2012); Modular Mining Sy s., Inc . v . J igsaw Te c hs., Inc
. , 212 P.3d 853, 859–60 (Ariz
. C t. App. 2009). W e de ny Strand’ s a

n d PK’ s re que st for a

ttorne y s’ fe e s on a

p pe a l without pre j udic e to filing a

prope r m otion pursua

nt to Ninth C irc uit R

u le 39-1.6. AFFIRM E D.

4