Ripa v. Federal National Mortgage Association et al
Filing
39
ORDER that Defendants' motion for attorneys' fees (Doc. 33 ) is granted. Defendants are awarded attorneys' fees and non-taxable expenses against Plaintiff in the amount of $16,686.80. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 4/23/2014.(KMG)
1
WO
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8
9
Alan Ripa,
No. CV-13-01612-PHX-DGC
Plaintiff,
10
11
v.
12
ORDER
Federal National Mortgage Association, et
al.,
13
Defendants.
14
15
16
On October 21, 2013, the Court granted Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss under
17
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(a), 9(b), and 12(b)(6). Doc. 27. Defendants Wells
18
Fargo Bank, N.A. and Federal National Mortgage Association have moved for an award
19
of attorney’s fees pursuant to Rule 54(d)(2), seeking fees for claims against them arising
20
out of contract under A.R.S. § 12-341.01(A). Doc. 33. The motion has been fully
21
briefed. Docs. 36, 38. The Court will grant the motion.
22
I.
Legal Standard.
23
Under Arizona law, “[i]n any contested action arising out of a contract, express or
24
implied, the court may award the successful party reasonable attorney fees.” A.R.S.
25
§ 12-341.01(A). Under Arizona law, the trial court has discretion regarding awarding
26
attorneys’ fees. See Wilcox v. Waldman, 744 P.2d 444, 450 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987).
27
Courts consider: (1) the merits of the unsuccessful party’s claim, (2) whether the
28
successful party’s efforts were completely superfluous in achieving the ultimate result,
1
(3) whether assessing fees against the unsuccessful party would cause extreme hardship,
2
(4) whether the successful party prevailed with respect to all relief sought, (5) whether
3
the legal question presented was novel or had been previously adjudicated, and
4
(6) whether a fee award would discourage other parties with tenable claims from
5
litigating. Velarde v. PACE Membership Warehouse, Inc., 105 F.3d 1313, 1319-20 (9th
6
Cir. 1997); Associated Indem. Corp. v. Warner, 694 P.2d 1181, 1184 (Ariz. 1985) (en
7
banc); Uyleman v. D.S. Rentco, 981 P.2d 1081, 1086 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1999). No single
8
factor is determinative – the court should weigh all factors in exercising its discretion.
9
See Wilcox, 744 P.2d at 450.
10
II.
Analysis.
11
A.
12
Plaintiff contends that the “non-contract claims,” including the consumer fraud
13
claims, statutory violation claims, negligent misrepresentation, and negligent supervision
14
claims, are not tied to the contract. Doc. 36 at 3-4. Defendants respond that all of
15
Plaintiff’s claims depend, explicitly or implicitly, on a contractual relationship between
16
the parties because they all related to the Note and Deed of Trust. Doc. 38 at 4. Where a
17
defendant allegedly breaches a duty that would not exist but for the contract, those claims
18
are found to arise in contract. Doc. 34 at 2-3; see Assyia v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins.
19
Co., 273 P.3d 668, 672-73 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012). Plaintiff asserted two breach of
20
contract claims in this case, and the Court finds that the remaining claims arose of out of
21
contract. Therefore, the Court will individually consider the six factors outlined above.
22
Appropriateness of Awarding Fees.
1.
Whether the Claims had Merit.
23
The Court dismissed all fourteen of Plaintiff’s claims. Doc. 27. Plaintiff asserts
24
that the claims should not have been dismissed, but he does not explain the reason for his
25
assertion. Doc. 36 at 7. This factor favors Defendants.
26
2.
Whether Defendants’ Efforts were Superfluous.
27
Plaintiff contends that Defendants made no offer to resolve the matter. Id. at 3.
28
Defendants respond argue that during the pendency of the motion to dismiss, they
-2-
1
reached out to Plaintiff’s counsel regarding potential settlement options and Plaintiff
2
never responded. Doc. 34 at 6; Exhibit D. Plaintiff has not shown that Defendants could
3
have avoided this litigation. This factor favors Defendants.
3.
4
Whether Imposition of Fees would be a Hardship for Plaintiff.
5
Plaintiff does not contend that imposition of fees would be a hardship. “[T]he
6
party asserting financial hardship has the burden of coming forward with prima facie
7
evidence of financial hardship.” Woerth v. City of Flagstaff, 808 P.2d 297, 305 (Ariz. Ct.
8
App. 1990). Plaintiff has failed to meet this burden. This factor favors Defendants.
4.
9
Whether Defendant Succeeded with Respect to All Relief.
10
The Court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. 27) and entered judgment
11
in favor of Defendants (Doc. 30). Because Defendants prevailed on all claims, this factor
12
favors Defendants.
5.
13
Whether Legal Issues were Novel.
14
Defendants contend that the legal issues were not novel and that many of the same
15
issues in the complaint had been pled and rejected in this court. Doc. 34 at 7; see Raup v.
16
Wells Fargo Bank, NA, No. CV-13-00137-PHX-GMS, 2013 WL 3216175 (D. Ariz. June
17
25, 2013). Plaintiff does not contend that the legal issues were novel; he only notes that
18
in Raup, the court did not dismiss all claims. Doc. 36 at 6. The Court agrees with
19
Defendants that the legal issues were not novel. This factor favors Defendants.
6.
20
Whether a Fee Award would Discourage Meritorious Litigation.
21
Defendants contend that an award of attorneys’ fees would protect against
22
“groundless, yet time-consuming suits.” Doc. 34 at 8. Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s
23
counsel, who was also counsel for plaintiffs in Raup, was aware of the pleading
24
deficiencies in the complaint but proceeded to pursue his claims. Id. at 7-8. Therefore,
25
Defendants contend that an award of fees would enforce the principle that “a plaintiff
26
should not proceed on meritless claims in contract actions.” Id. at 8. Plaintiff does not
27
argue that a fee would discourage meritorious litigation. This factor favors Defendants.
28
///
-3-
1
2
In sum, the Court finds that all six factors favor Defendants and that an award of
fees is appropriate.
3
B.
Reasonableness of Requested Fees.
4
Defendants request a total of $16,686.60 in fees.
Doc. 34 at 1-2.
Plaintiff
5
contends that the only work completed in this matter involved the dismissal of the claims,
6
and that “it is unconscionable” that “this amount should be charged for a case that went
7
no further than a Rule 12 Motion.” Doc. 36 at 7. Local Rule 54.2(f) states that a
8
memorandum in opposition to a motion for an award of attorney’s fees “shall identify
9
with specificity all disputed issues of material fact and shall separately identify each and
10
every disputed time entry or expense item.” LRCiv 54.2(f). Plaintiff has not specifically
11
identified a single disputed expense.
12
Defendants discuss the factors used to determine reasonable attorneys’ fees as
13
outlined in Schweiger v. China Doll Rest., Inc., 673 P.2d 927, 931 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1983),
14
including (1) the qualities of the advocate, (2) the character of the work, including its
15
difficulty and importance, (3) the work actually performed, including the skill, time and
16
attention given to the work, and (4) the result. Doc. 34 at 8. Defendants contend that the
17
work performed was “necessary to respond and defend against claims in this action,” and
18
the number of hours expended was reasonable because they were earned by performing
19
services that “would have been undertaken by a reasonable and prudent lawyer to
20
advance or protect his client’s interests.” Doc. 34 at 9. Defendants further contend that
21
the average billing rate was equal to $174.86 per hour, which is similar to or lower than
22
rates charged by other Phoenix law firms. Id. at 10. Defendants also note that their
23
attorneys have a combined total of more than seven years of experience representing
24
banks and other financial institutions, and the paralegal’s rates were justified because the
25
paralegal “works regularly with members of the firm’s financial services litigation
26
subgroup in a litigation support role.” Id. Plaintiff does not address any of these issues.
27
The Court finds the hourly rates charged by Defendants’ legal team to be
28
reasonable for the Phoenix market and for attorneys of the skill and experience needed
-4-
1
for a case such as this. The Court also finds the time records provided by defense counsel
2
to be sufficiently detailed, and the hours incurred in defending this case to be reasonable.
3
Having considered the record as a whole and the relevant fee award factors, see Warner,
4
694 P.2d at 1184, the Court finds the requested fee award to be reasonable and
5
appropriate.
6
reasonableness of a fee award).
7
See also LRCiv 54.2(c)(3)(A)-(M) (listing factors bearing on the
IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ motion for attorneys’ fees (Doc. 33) is
8
granted.
9
Plaintiff in the amount of $16,686.80.
10
Defendants are awarded attorneys’ fees and non-taxable expenses against
Dated this 23rd day of April, 2014.
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-5-
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?