Section 12-341.01 applies to “any contested action arising out of a contract.” A.R.S. § 12-341.01(A). This includes oral contracts.

Defendants requested this Court to sanction plaintiff for failing to abide by the Court's order to proceed to arbitration, but the Court denied their request, stating that if plaintiff "wished to abandon its direct claims against defendants, there is nothing to stop plaintiff from doing so (and abandonment of the direct claims via inaction is certainly consistent with the court of appeal's mandate)." Defendants filed a Notice of Appeal Appeals held that a defendant against whom a contract action is dismissed without prejudice for lack of prosecution is the successful party and qualifies for an award of attorney's fees pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-341.01(A). Case 2:16-cv-02229-ROS Document 11-1 Filed 08/05/16 Page 114 of 120 t 2 3 4 5 6 7 8, to it 12 13 t4 t5 16 17 t8 1t 20 21 22 .

It is inexplicable, then, that Defendants would file s motion for attorneys fees based A.R.S. 12-341.01(C) and 28 U.S.C. § 1927. Defendants Know – or Should Know – That A.R.S. § 12-341.01(C) Does Not Apply to Federal Proceedings In In re Larry's Apartment, L.L.C., 249 F.3d 832 (9th Cir. 2001), the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the Arizona Bankruptcy Court’s award of attorney’s fees pursuant to § 12- 341.01(C).

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.

23 See, e.g., Cal. Civ. Code § 1794; Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-341.01; N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75.

18 Avnet also requests attorneys’ fees under A.R.S. § 12-341.01. Case 2:09-cv-00603-MHM Document 83 Filed 07/23/09 Page 24 of 25 - 18 - 2219594.1/12444.041 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 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ý I hereby certify that on July 23, 2009, I electronically transmitted the attached document 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: Susan Martin Daniel Bonnett Jennifer Kroll Martin & Bonnett, PLLC 1850 N. Central Avenue, Suite 2010 Phoenix, AZ 85004

It explains that Strojnik’s area of practice includes -3- 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 prevention of spammers who violate A.R.S. § 44-1372, junk fax broadcasters who violate the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 and the Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005, 47 U.S.C. § 227 et seq. and particularly those junk faxers who promote publicly traded stock in violation of Rule 10b-5. Defendants’ Motion is Completely Baseless: Defendants Know – or Should Know – That A.R.S. § 12-341.01(C) Does Not Apply to Federal Proceedings In In re Larry's Apartment, L.L.C., 249 F.3d 832 (9th Cir. 2001), the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the Arizona Bankruptcy Court’s award of attorney’s fees pursuant to § 12- 341.01(C).

CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the SOCAA Defendants respectfully request that the Court grant the Motion to Dismiss and enter an order dismissing the action against the SOCAA Defendants. The SOCAA Defendants also request that they be granted their costs and their attorneys’ fees pursuant to the Sherman Act, if allowed by this Court, and pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 12-341.01 and 12-349. Dated this 24 th day of September, 2018.

The bases for this Motion are more completely discussed in the following Memorandum of Facts and Authorities, which is incorporated by this reference. This Motion is supported by the Declaration of Richard Kump , which is attached as Exhibit A and incorporated by this reference Accordingly, the Complaint should be dismissed as to UMassFive, and UMassFive should be awarded its costs and attorneys’ fees pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 12-341.01 and/or 12-349..

Without factual allegations setting forth an actionable representation, promise, contract or conspiracy allowing for a reasonable inference of liability, Plaintiff’s claims fail as matter of law and should be dismissed. For the foregoing reasons, the Court should dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint with prejudice and award Capella reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-341.01. DATED March 10, 2017.