Section 12-341 - Recovery of costs

10 Citing briefs

  1. Busch et al v. Welling et al

    MOTION for Summary Judgment

    Filed December 1, 2016

    Because it cannot prevail upon any of its claims against the Busch Parties, YBR is not entitled to recover attorney fees or costs in this action as it is not the prevailing party. A.R.S. § 12-341 and A.R.S. § 12-341.01. Case 2:13-cv-02517-JJT Document 121 Filed 12/01/16 Page 16 of 18 17 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 G. Declaratory Relief.

  2. Strojnik v. Costar Realty Information, Inc. et al

    MOTION for Attorney Fees and Expenses

    Filed January 6, 2009

    III. CONCLUSION. Based on the foregoing, Defendants request that they be awarded $26,616.50 for their reasonable attorneys’ fees, and $1,961.63 for their costs and expenses associated with defending against Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-341(C) and 28 U.S.C. § 1927. 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 - 10 - RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 6th day of January, 2009.

  3. Strojnik v. Costar Realty Information, Inc. et al

    REPLY in Support re MOTION for Attorney Fees and Expenses Defendants' Reply in Support of Their Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees and Expenses

    Filed January 22, 2009

    Defendants were not aware of the cited cases until after filing their Motion. A.R.S. § 12-341(c) is not necessary for this Court to award Defendants their requested fees. Strojnik v. Costar Realty Information, Inc. et al Doc.

  4. Westworld Consulting Llc v. Vanity Group Pty Limited et al

    MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction Defendant's Corrected Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction, and Memorandum in Support

    Filed June 29, 2017

    Because both general and specific jurisdiction are lacking, Vanity respectfully requests that the Court grant its Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Vanity further requests an award of its attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 12-341 and 12-341.01. Case 2:16-cv-03361-DGC Document 19 Filed 06/29/17 Page 17 of 19 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 -18- Dated: June 29, 2017 PERKINS COIE LLP By: s/ Jessica L. Everett-Garcia Jessica L. Everett-Garcia 2901 North Central Avenue, Suite 2000 Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2788 Attorneys for Defendants Case 2:16-cv-03361-DGC Document 19 Filed 06/29/17 Page 18 of 19 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 -19- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on June 29, 2017, I electronically transmitted the attached documents to the Clerk’s Office using the CM/ECF System for filing and transmittal of a Notice of Electronic Filing to the following CM/ECF registrants: Mark Wesbrooks mwesbrooks@gmail.com s/ Susan Carnall Case 2:16-cv-03361-DGC Document 19 Filed 06/29/17 Page 19

  5. Zuniga v. Fiesta Pediatric Therapy Incorporated et al

    MOTION for Summary Judgment

    Filed March 8, 2017

    Instead they disclose the following as the entirety of their claimed damages: Responsive documents have been identified above. Defendants/Counterclaimants seek recovery of emotional distress damages (in an amount to be determined by the trier of fact), non-litigation fees and costs incurred in responding to and recovering from Ms. Zuniga’s false accusations and harassment, nominal damages for the wrongs committed, costs associated with this matter, and legal fees associated with this matter pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 12-341, 12-349, 12- 250, and 28 U.S.C. § 1927. (SOF ¶150 – from Defendants 5th Supplemental Disclosure Statement).

  6. Holliday Fenoglio Fowler LP v. L'Auberge Newco Llc

    MOTION for Summary Judgment

    Filed March 3, 2017

    CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, HFF, as Trustee, respectfully requests that the Court enter summary judgment in its favor on all counts alleged against LAN in HFF’s Complaint. As this matter stems from contractual issues, HFF also respectfully requests attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 12-341 and 12-341.01. DATED this 3rd day of March, 2017.

  7. Garcia v. JP Morgan Chase Bank NA et al

    MOTION for Summary Judgment

    Filed November 9, 2016

    CONCLUSION For these reasons, Defendants seek an order granting summary judgment. Defendants also seek attorneys’ fees, costs and non-taxable costs, and damages jointly and severally against Garcia and her counsel pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-341.01, A.R.S. § 12-341, A.R.S. § 12-349(A) and 28 U.S.C. § 1927, which will be the subject of a separate application if the Court grants this motion. Respectfully submitted, this 7th day of November 2016.

  8. Lifestream Complete Senior Living Incorporated et al v. Arizona Healthcare Cost Containment System et al

    MOTION to Dismiss Case or, in the Alternative, Stay Pending Arbitration

    Filed October 6, 2016

    A defendant in a contract action in which the complaint is dismissed without prejudice is considered a “successful party.” See Britt v. Steffen, 220 Ariz. 265, 267, 205 P.3d 357, 359 (App. 2008); cf. Harris v. Reserve Life Ins. Co., 158 Ariz. 380, 385, 762 P.2d 1334, 1339 (App. 1988) (holding that “when a plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed because of plaintiff’s failure to prosecute, the defendant may be considered the successful party for purposes of recovering costs pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-341”). The court considers various factors in determining whether attorneys’ fees should be awarded pursuant to A.R.S. § 12- 341.

  9. Edwards v. Pph Corporation et al

    MOTION to Dismiss Case

    Filed July 29, 2016

    V. CONCLUSION It is time that Edwards’s serial litigation against PHH be ended once and for all. PHH respectfully requests that the complaint be dismis ed with prejudice and that PHH be awarded its reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, for yet again having to defend against Edwards’s baseless claims, pursuant to any one or all f the following authorities: (i) the deed of trust for the Lemon Street Property, which expressly authorizes the recovery of attorneys’ fees; (ii) A.R.S. § 12-341 and § 12-341.01, because Edwards purported claims arise from contract; (iii) A.R.S. § 12-3201, because Edwards is a vexatious litigant; and/or (iv) the Court’s inherent authority. Hall v. Cole, 412 U.S. 1, 5 (1973) (“[I]t is unquestioned that a federal court may award counsel fees to a successful party when his opponent has acted in bad faith, vexatiously, wantonly, or for oppressive reasons” (internal quotations omitted).)

  10. Leavitt v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. et al

    MOTION to Dismiss Case

    Filed February 4, 2009

    CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, this Court should dismiss the Plaintiff’s Complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Wells Fargo further requests an award reimbursing its attorneys’ fees and costs incurred defending this claim pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 12-341 and 12-341.01. . . . .