Iron Partners LLC v. URS Corporation

Filing 62

ORDER denying 56 Motion for Attorney Fees, signed by Judge Ronald B. Leighton.(DN)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 v. DAMES & MOORE, a California limited partnership, URS CORPORATION, a Nevada corporation, and URS HOLDINGS, INC, a Delaware corporation, Defendants. _____________________________________ DAMES & MOORE, a California limited partnership, URS CORPORATION, a Nevada corporation, and URS HOLDINGS, INC, a Delaware corporation, Third Party Plaintiffs, v. OREGON IRON WORKS, INC., an Oregon corporation, Third party Defendant IRON PARTNERS, LLC, Plaintiff,

HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA

Case No. C07-5643RBL ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendants Dames & Moore, URS Corporation, and URS
ORDER Page - 1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Holdings' [Together "D&M"] Motion for attorneys' fees [Dkt.#56] following the Court's dismissal of Plaintiff's claims on Summary Judgment. [Dkt.#54]. D&M argues that Plaintiff's claims were frivolous under RCW §4.84.185. Specifically, it argues that the plaintiff never had any evidence of an actual misrepresentation, and that its claim was frivolous, even if not advanced for purposes of harassment, delay or spite. Plaintiff argues that the proper vehicle for addressing such a claim in Federal Court is Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, and that D&M has not followed that procedure. The Court agrees that Rule 11 and RCW 4.84.185 address different conduct, and that a frivolous claim under Washington law can be addressed and remedied in Federal Court. The court also agrees that Plaintiff's claims were ultimately unsustainable, as outlined in the Order Granting Summary Judgment. But the Court does not believe that a case which is relatively easily resolved on Summary Judgment is necessarily one that was frivolous at the outset. The issue presented is a close one. Plaintiff sued D&M for failing to discover and report environmental contamination that D&M warned Plaintiff might be there, and which Plaintiff elected not to investigate. Nevertheless, the Court does not conclude that Plaintiff's claims against D&M were frivolous, and for that reason the Motion for Attorneys' Fees is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated this 30th day of July, 2009.

A
RONALD B. LEIGHTON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

ORDER Page - 2