Oraha v. Metrocities Mortgage LLC et al
Filing
49
ORDER that Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., U.S. Bank National Association, and Mortgage Electronic Systems, Inc.'s Motion for Award of Attorneys' Fees (Doc. 46 ) is granted in the amount of $26,405.90. Signed by Senior Judge James A Teilborg on 7/29/2013.(KMG)
1
WO
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8
Andy B. Oraha, a single man,
No. CV-11-01113-PHX-JAT
9
Plaintiff,
10
11
v.
12
ORDER
Metrocities Mortgage, LLC, a California
limited liability company; U.S. Bank
National Association, as Successor Trustee
to Bank of America, National Association
(successor by merger to LaSalle Bank
National Association) as Trustee for
Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust
2007-1XS; Mortgage Electronic System
(“MERS”), a corporation, America’s
Servicing Company, a corporation; Wells
Fargo Home Improvement, a corporation;
Wells
Fargo
Home
Mortgage,
a
corporation; Black Corporation I-X, John
Doe I-X and Jane Does I-X, their spouses,
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Defendants.
23
Pending before the Court is Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., U.S. Bank National
24
Association, and Mortgage Electronic Systems, Inc.’s (the “Moving Defendants”) Motion
25
for Award of Attorneys’ Fees (Doc. 46). Pro se Plaintiff did not file a response to the
26
Motion.
27
On March 30, 2011, Plaintiff pro se filed a complaint in Maricopa County
28
Superior Court against Defendants alleging claims for declaratory judgment/injunction
1
(Count I), Breach of Contract/Injunction (Count II), Breach of Contract/Violation of
2
Covenant
3
Foreclosure/Forfeiture (Count IV). (Doc. 1-1 at 13-26). On January 10, 2012, the Court
4
granted Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon
5
which relief could be granted pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
6
(Doc. 28). The Court also granted Plaintiff leave to amend his Complaint. (Doc. 28).
7
On March 5, 2012, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint (Doc. 33). In his Amended
8
Complaint, Plaintiff asserted a breach of contract claim against all Defendants and a
9
wrongful foreclosure claim against Defendant LaSalle. (Id.).
of
Good
Faith
and
Fair
Dealing
(Count
III),
and
Wrongful
10
On October 2, 2012, the Court granted Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss Plaintiff’s
11
Amended Complaint and directed the Clerk of the Court to enter judgment for
12
Defendants. (Doc. 44).
13
The Moving Defendants now move for attorneys’ fees in the amount of
14
$26,405.90 pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes section 12-341.01(A). As previously
15
noted, Plaintiff did not file a response to the Motion for Attorneys’ Fees.
16
Under Arizona law, “[i]n any contested action arising out of a contract, express or
17
implied, the court may award the successful party reasonable attorney fees.” Ariz. Rev.
18
Stat. § 12–341.01(A). The trial court has discretion regarding an award of attorneys’
19
fees. See Wilcox v. Waldman, 744 P.2d 444, 450 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987). To determine
20
whether to award attorneys’ fees, courts consider the merits of the unsuccessful party’s
21
claim, whether the successful party’s efforts were completely superfluous in achieving
22
the ultimate result, whether assessing fees against the unsuccessful party would cause
23
extreme hardship, whether the successful party prevailed with respect to all relief sought,
24
whether the legal question presented was novel or had been previously adjudicated, and
25
whether a fee award would discourage other parties with tenable claims from litigating.
26
Assoc. Indem. Corp. v. Warner, 694 P.2d 1181, 1184 (Ariz. 1985). No single factor can
27
be determinative and the court is to weigh all of the factors in exercising its discretion.
28
Wilcox v. Waldman, 744 P.2d 444, 450 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987).
-2-
1
Plaintiff’s failure to respond has made the Court’s task of balancing these factors a
2
difficult one. See LRCiv 7.2(i) (stating that if the required answering memoranda are not
3
served and filed, such noncompliance may be deemed consent to the granting of the
4
motion and the Court may dispose of the motion summarily.). Nonetheless, the Court
5
will consider each of the necessary factors to determine if Moving Defendants are
6
entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees.
7
In this case, Plaintiff failed to meet the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil
8
Procedure 12(b)(6) and asserted causes of actions that had previously been rejected by
9
this Court. Accordingly, the first factor favors granting the Motion for Attorneys’ Fees.
10
The Moving Defendants filed two Motions to Dismiss and both Motions to Dismiss were
11
granted by this Court.
12
superfluous in achieving the ultimate result and the second factor favors granting the
13
Motion for Attorneys’ Fees. With regard to the third factor, Plaintiff has presented no
14
evidence that assessing fees would cause extreme hardship, and thus, this factor favors
15
granting the Motion for Attorneys’ Fees. With regard to the fourth factor, Defendants did
16
prevail on all relief sought and this factor favors granting attorneys’ fees. With regard to
17
the fifth factor, as noted above, Plaintiff’s legal theories were not novel and had been
18
previously rejected by this Court. Accordingly, the fifth factor favors granting attorneys’
19
fees.
Accordingly, Defendants’ actions were not completely
20
With regard to the sixth factor, Plaintiff’s claims have been previously rejected by
21
this Court. Accordingly, granting attorneys’ fees in this case would not discourage other
22
parties with tenable claims from litigation.
23
Assuming a party establishes its eligibility for fees, “the burden shifts to the party
24
opposing the fee award to demonstrate the impropriety or unreasonableness of the
25
requested fees.” Nolan v. Starlight Pines Homeowners Ass’n, 167 P.3d 1277, 1286 (Ariz.
26
Ct. App. 2007). As noted above, Plaintiff has not challenged the reasonableness of the
27
fees requested.
28
Based on the foregoing, the Court will award Defendants attorneys’ fees in the
-3-
1
amount of $26,405.90.
2
Accordingly,
3
IT IS ORDERED that Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., U.S. Bank National Association,
4
and Mortgage Electronic Systems, Inc.’s Motion for Award of Attorneys’ Fees (Doc. 46)
5
is granted in the amount of $26,405.90.
6
Dated this 29th day of July, 2013.
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-4-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?