Pure Wafer Incorporated v. Prescott, City of et al
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)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Pure Wafer Incorporated,
City of Prescott, et al.,
Pending before the Court is the City Defendants’ Motion for Clarification of
Attorneys’ Fees Award and Costs Award (Doc. 111). The Court now rules on the motion.
Defendants contend in this motion that the Court’s award of attorneys’ fees to
Pure Wafer (Doc. 107) was ambiguous because it did not specify “against which
defendant(s) the award was made.” (Doc. 111 at 2). The Court’s Order stated that “IT IS
FURTHER ORDERED awarding Pure Wafer $173,409 in attorneys’ fees.” (Doc. 107 at
Defendants argue that this award was ambiguous as to whether Pure Wafer may
recover from the individual defendants, who are named solely in their official capacities.
(Doc. 111 at 2). Defendants ask the Court to clarify that the award of attorneys’ fees and
costs is recoverable from only the City of Prescott. (Id.) Pure Wafer disagrees that
clarification is necessary, but agrees that only the City of Prescott is responsible for
payment of attorneys’ fees and costs. (Doc. 112 at 1-2). Pure Wafer stated in its response
that it would agree to a “proposed stipulated order to this effect.” (Id. at 2). The City has
since submitted a proposed order.
At the time of issuing the award, the Court contemplated this same question of
against which parties the award should be made. The Court could not discern a principled
legal reason for entering an award against fewer than all Defendants. Additionally, the
Court’s decision was guided by the well-established proposition that when a
governmental official is named as a defendant in his or her official capacity only, any
award of monetary damages is recoverable only against the governmental entity. See
Cmty. House, Inc. v. City of Boise, 623 F.3d 945, 966-67 (9th Cir. 2010). The Court finds
no ambiguity in its Order awarding of attorneys’ fees and costs.
Nevertheless, because the parties have stipulated that the award shall be
recoverable only from the City of Prescott, the Court grants the parties’ stipulation.1
IT IS ORDERED granting the City Defendants’ Motion for Clarification of
Attorneys’ Fees Award and Costs Award (Doc. 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
Dated this 24th day of September, 2014.
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).
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?