Pure Wafer Incorporated v. Prescott, City of et al

Filing 115

ORDER granting the City Defendants' Motion for Clarification of Attorneys' Fees Award and Costs Award 111 , which is now a stipulation as follows: Pure Wafer shall collect all awards of attorneys fees and costs from only the City of Prescott. Pure Wafer shall not attempt to collect any such awards from any individual Defendant. Signed by Senior Judge James A Teilborg on 9/24/2014.(ALS)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Pure Wafer Incorporated,
Plaintiff,

10
11

ORDER

v.

12

No. CV-13-08236-PCT-JAT

City of Prescott, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14

Pending before the Court is the City Defendants’ Motion for Clarification of

15

Attorneys’ Fees Award and Costs Award (Doc. 111). The Court now rules on the motion.

16

Defendants contend in this motion that the Court’s award of attorneys’ fees to

17

Pure Wafer (Doc. 107) was ambiguous because it did not specify “against which

18

defendant(s) the award was made.” (Doc. 111 at 2). The Court’s Order stated that “IT IS

19

FURTHER ORDERED awarding Pure Wafer $173,409 in attorneys’ fees.” (Doc. 107 at

20

20).

21

Defendants argue that this award was ambiguous as to whether Pure Wafer may

22

recover from the individual defendants, who are named solely in their official capacities.

23

(Doc. 111 at 2). Defendants ask the Court to clarify that the award of attorneys’ fees and

24

costs is recoverable from only the City of Prescott. (Id.) Pure Wafer disagrees that

25

clarification is necessary, but agrees that only the City of Prescott is responsible for

26

payment of attorneys’ fees and costs. (Doc. 112 at 1-2). Pure Wafer stated in its response

27

that it would agree to a “proposed stipulated order to this effect.” (Id. at 2). The City has

28

since submitted a proposed order.

1

At the time of issuing the award, the Court contemplated this same question of

2

against which parties the award should be made. The Court could not discern a principled

3

legal reason for entering an award against fewer than all Defendants. Additionally, the

4

Court’s decision was guided by the well-established proposition that when a

5

governmental official is named as a defendant in his or her official capacity only, any

6

award of monetary damages is recoverable only against the governmental entity. See

7

Cmty. House, Inc. v. City of Boise, 623 F.3d 945, 966-67 (9th Cir. 2010). The Court finds

8

no ambiguity in its Order awarding of attorneys’ fees and costs.

9

Nevertheless, because the parties have stipulated that the award shall be

10

recoverable only from the City of Prescott, the Court grants the parties’ stipulation.1

11

Accordingly,

12

IT IS ORDERED granting the City Defendants’ Motion for Clarification of

13

Attorneys’ Fees Award and Costs Award (Doc. 111), which is now a stipulation as

14

follows: Pure Wafer shall collect all awards of attorneys’ fees and costs from only the

15

City of Prescott. Pure Wafer shall not attempt to collect any such awards from any

16

individual Defendant.

17

Dated this 24th day of September, 2014.

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
1

28

Absent this stipulation, the City’s request would be untimely because any motion
to alter or amend a judgment “must be filed no later than 28 days after the entry of the
judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e).
-2-