Texarkana Behavioral Associates, L.C. v. Universal Health Services, Inc.

Filing 149

ORDER denying Defendant's 137 Motion for Attorney Fees as set forth. Signed by Honorable Harry F. Barnes on May 12, 2011. (mfr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
TEXARKANA DIVISION

TEXARKANA BEHAVIORAL
ASSOCIATES, L.C., a wholly
owned subsidiary of NEW
BOSTON ENTERPRISES, INC.

V.

PLAINTIFF

CASE NO. 08-CV-4031

UNIVERSAL HEALTH SERVICES, INC.

DEFENDANT

ORDER
Before the Court is Defendant’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs. (Doc. 137). Plaintiff
has responded to the motion. (Doc. 139). Defendant has filed a reply. (Doc. 148). The Court finds
the matter ripe for consideration.
The applicable Arkansas statute states that a prevailing party in a contract suit “may be
allowed a reasonable attorney’s fee to be assessed by the court.” Ark. Code Ann. § 16-22-308. The
statute provides the Court with the discretion to award fees. Angelo Iafrate Const., LLC v.
Potashnick Constr., Inc., 370 F.3d 715, 723 (8th Cir. 2004). In other words, no award of fees is
mandatory. Id.
Defendant is the prevailing party in this case. In support of its assertion that it should be
awarded attorneys’ fees, Defendant states that this case is primarily a breach of contract case and that
it spent a considerable amount of time and resources defending this matter. However, the Court
notes that Plaintiff asserted two other claims in this case along with the breach of contract claim:

(1) misappropriation of trade secrets and (2) tortious interference with a contractual relationship.
The Court notes that when an action asserts a contract claim in addition to other bases of recovery,
statutory attorneys’ fees may be awarded when the action is based primarily in contract. Jiles v.
Union Planters Bank, 90 Ark. App. 245, 247, 205 S.W.3d 187, 189 (2005). However, this case
sounds in both tort and contract, and the Court is not convinced that the action is based primarily in
contract. Even if the case was primarily a contract case, the Court would be hesitant to award
attorneys’ fees in this particular matter. Accordingly, the Court declines to award attorneys’ fees to
Defendant in this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 12th day of May, 2011.

/s/ Harry F. Barnes
Hon. Harry F. Barnes
United States District Judge

2