Precision Sampling Incorporated v. EA Engineering, Science and Technology Incorporated

Filing 42

ORDER granting 37 defendant's Motion for Attorney Fees and non-taxable costs in the total amount of $15,644.69. Signed by Senior Judge Frederick J Martone on 10/8/13.(LSP)

Download PDF
1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) EA Engineering, Science and Technology,) ) Inc., ) ) Defendant. ) ) Precision Sampling, Inc., No. CV-12-02228-PHX-FJM ORDER 16 17 Before the court is defendant EA Engineering, Science and Technology, Inc.’s motion 18 for an award of attorney’s fees and non-taxable costs (doc. 37) and memorandum in support 19 (doc. 41). Plaintiff did not file a response and the time for doing so has expired. See LRCiv. 20 54.2(b)(3). 21 Plaintiff’s motion for an award of attorney’s fees is based on A.R.S. § 12-341.01, 22 which authorizes a court to award fees in “any contested action arising out of a contract.” 23 It is clear that this action arose out of the parties’ Subcontractor Service Order Agreement 24 dated April 16, 2012, and that defendant is the prevailing party. In deciding a motion for an 25 award of fees, we consider the factors outlined in Associated Indem. Corp. v. Warner, 143 26 Ariz. 567, 570, 694 P.2d 1181, 1184 (1985), including (1) the merits of the unsuccessful 27 party’s claim, (2) whether the litigation could have been avoided or settled, (3) whether 28 1 assessing fees would cause an extreme hardship, (4) the extent of the prevailing party’s 2 success, (5) whether the legal question presented was novel, and (6) whether an award of fees 3 would discourage litigation of meritorious claims. 4 Each of these factors weighs in favor of an award of fees. Plaintiff’s claim was 5 without merit. There is no indication that the litigation could have been avoided or that an 6 award would cause extreme hardship. Defendant prevailed on all relief sought. The legal 7 question was not novel and there is no showing that an award of fees would inhibit litigation 8 of meritorious claims. Therefore, we conclude that defendant is entitled to recover its 9 reasonable fees and costs. 10 Defendant seeks an award of fees and costs totaling $15,644.69. Its hourly rates for 11 partners are between $200 and $230, and for paralegals $90. These rates are comparable to 12 the prevailing rates in Phoenix, Arizona and are therefore reasonable. Defendant seeks fees 13 for a total of 72.8 hours, which we also consider reasonable under the circumstances in this 14 case. Finally, defendant’s request for reimbursement of its non-taxable costs in the amount 15 of $979.69 is also reasonable. 16 17 18 Therefore, IT IS ORDERED GRANTING defendant’s motion for award of attorney’s fees and non-taxable costs in the total amount of $15,644.69 (doc. 37). DATED this 8th day of October, 2013. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -2-

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?