Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-349 (2026)

Unjustified actions; attorney fees, expenses and double damages; exceptions; definition

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A. Except as otherwise provided by and not inconsistent with another statute, in any civil action commenced or appealed in a court of record in this state, the court shall assess reasonable attorney fees, expenses and, at the court's discretion, double damages of not to exceed five thousand dollars against an attorney or party, including this state and political subdivisions of this state, if the attorney or party does any of the following:

1. Brings or defends a claim without substantial justification.

2. Brings or defends a claim solely or primarily for delay or harassment.

3. Unreasonably expands or delays the proceeding.

4. Engages in abuse of discovery.

B. The court may allocate the payment of attorney fees among the offending attorneys and parties, jointly or severally, and may assess separate amounts against an offending attorney or party.

C. Attorney fees shall not be assessed if after filing an action a voluntary dismissal is filed for any claim or defense within a reasonable time after the attorney or party filing the dismissal knew or reasonably should have known that the claim or defense was without substantial justification.

D. This section does not apply to the adjudication of civil traffic violations or to any proceedings brought by this state pursuant to title 13.

E. Notwithstanding any other law, this state and political subdivisions of this state may be awarded attorney fees pursuant to this section.

F. For the purposes of this section, "without substantial justification" means that the claim or defense is groundless and is not made in good faith.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 464 cases (189 in the last 5 years), 1986–2026 · leading case: Solimeno v. Yonan, 227 P.3d 481 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Solimeno v. Yonan, 227 P.3d 481 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 48× “DISCUSSION ¶ 8 Defendants assert three errors on appeal: (1) the determination they violated pretrial disclosure requirements; (2) the imposition of sanctions under A.”

White Mountain Health Ctr., Inc. v. Maricopa Cnty., 386 P.3d 416 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 19× “In the third appeal (1 CA-CV 14-0372, the “Attorneys’ Fees Appeal”), the County seeks to reverse the court’s $5000 sanction against the County pursuant to AR.S. § 12-349 (2016). ¶ 2 For the reasons that follow, we affirm the superior court’s rulings except the sanctions imposed…”

Takieh M.D. v. O'Meara M.D., 497 P.3d 1000 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 16× “” ¶10 Having prevailed on summary judgment, Dinner requested an award of attorneys’ fees under A.R.S. § 12-349, asserting that Sharifi brought the defamation claim against her without substantial justification and primarily for harassment.”

Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Dep't of Corr., 934 P.2d 801 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 16× “A.R.S. § 12-349. We view the evidence in a manner most favorable to sustaining the award and affirm unless the trial court’s finding that the action can be so characterized is clearly erroneous.”

Wyatt v. Wehmueller, 806 P.2d 870 (Ariz. 1991). · cites it 12× “§ 33-420(A) and attorney's fees against counsel pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-349. We review only the assessment of damages against plaintiffs.”

Harris v. Reserve Life Ins., 762 P.2d 1334 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 25× “PROPRIETY OF THE A.R.S. § 12-349 ATTORNEY’S FEES AWARD The version of A.”

Trantor v. Fredrikson, 878 P.2d 657 (Ariz. 1994). · cites it 11× “AR.S. § 12-349 allows for an award of fees in any civil action in which a lawyer or party (1) brings or defends a claim without substantial justification (defined by § 12-349(F) to mean one that “constitutes harassment, is groundless and is not made in good faith”), (2) brings…”

Rogone v. Correia, 335 P.3d 1122 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 10× “As a result, this Court finds that each of the three elements identified in A.R.S. § 12-349[F] is present and was proven by a preponderance of the evidence.”

Cypress on Sunland Homeowners Ass'n v. Orlandini, 257 P.3d 1168 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 12× “found that their actions were “not well grounded in fact or warranted by existing law or a good faith argument for extension, modification or reversal of existing law,” were “interposed for improper purposes and without substantial justification, resulting in harm” to the HOA…”

Plattner v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., 812 P.2d 1129 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 24× “The court also granted $5,000 in attorneys' fees to State Farm under A.R.S. § 12-349. Plattner appeals from these rulings and from a discovery ruling which will be discussed in more detail below.”

Bennett v. Baxter Grp., Inc., 224 P.3d 230 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 7× “§ 12-350 requires the trial court, when making an award under § 12-349, to set forth the specific reasons for an award.”

Matter of Levine, 847 P.2d 1093 (Ariz. 1993). · cites it 11× “01(0), A.R.S. § 12-349, and Rule 11, Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure, after finding the suits groundless, without substantial justification, and prosecuted in bad faith.”

Show all 464 citing cases →

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-349(A) — 96 cases

Bennett v. Baxter Grp., Inc., 224 P.3d 230 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010). “§ 12-350 requires the trial court, when making an award under § 12-349, to set forth the specific reasons for an award.”

City of Casa Grande v. Arizona Water Co., 20 P.3d 590 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001).

Airfreight Express Ltd. v. Evergreen Air Ctr., Inc., 158 P.3d 232 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).

Corbett v. Manorcare of Am., Inc., 146 P.3d 1027 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006).

Takieh M.D. v. O'Meara M.D., 497 P.3d 1000 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2021). “” ¶10 Having prevailed on summary judgment, Dinner requested an award of attorneys’ fees under A.R.S. § 12-349, asserting that Sharifi brought the defamation claim against her without substantial justification and primarily for harassment.”

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-349(A)(1) — 92 cases

Reynolds v. Reynolds, 294 P.3d 151 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2013).

In Re the Marriage of Williams, 200 P.3d 1043 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008).

Ace Auto. Prods., Inc. v. Van Duyne, 750 P.2d 898 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987).

Tucson Estates Prop. Owners Ass'n, Inc. v. McGovern, Sines, 366 P.3d 111 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016).

White Mountain Health Ctr., Inc. v. Maricopa Cnty., 386 P.3d 416 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016). “In the third appeal (1 CA-CV 14-0372, the “Attorneys’ Fees Appeal”), the County seeks to reverse the court’s $5000 sanction against the County pursuant to AR.S. § 12-349 (2016). ¶ 2 For the reasons that follow, we affirm the superior court’s rulings except the sanctions imposed…”

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-349(A)(2) — 5 cases

Don Shooter v. Toby Farmer, 330 P.3d 956 (Ariz. 2014).

Samuel Paz v. City of Tucson, 539 P.3d 906 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023).

Arizona Repub. Party v. Richer (Ariz. 2024).

Washington v. Pellerito (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014).

Don Shooter v. Toby Farmer (Ariz. 2014).

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-349(A)(3) — 41 cases

Solimeno v. Yonan, 227 P.3d 481 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010). “DISCUSSION ¶ 8 Defendants assert three errors on appeal: (1) the determination they violated pretrial disclosure requirements; (2) the imposition of sanctions under A.”

Larkin v. State Ex Rel. Rottas, 857 P.2d 1271 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1993).

Mark Lighting Fixture Co. v. Gen. Elec. Supply Co., 745 P.2d 123 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986).

Hoskinson v. State of Cal., 812 P.2d 1068 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1990).

Jepson v. New, 772 P.2d 16 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1989).

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-349(A)(3)(2003) — 1 case

Scottsdale Ins. v. Cendejas, 205 P.3d 1128 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009).

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-349(A)(4) — 1 case

Powers Steel v. Vinton Steel (Ariz. Ct. App. 2021).

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-349(A)(l) — 2 cases

Rogone v. Correia, 335 P.3d 1122 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014). “As a result, this Court finds that each of the three elements identified in A.R.S. § 12-349[F] is present and was proven by a preponderance of the evidence.”

Kaufmann v. Cruikshank, 217 P.3d 438 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009).

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-349(B) — 4 cases

Chandler v. Chandler Improvement (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018).

Santa Cruz Cnty., Alma Schultz v. Audit USA, John Brakey (Ariz. Ct. App. 2025).

Schaub v. Nfra (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015).

Rhoads v. JPMorgan Chase, N.A., 487 B.R. 214 (D. Ariz. 2013).

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-349(C) — 2 cases

Roberts v. Kino Cmty. Hosp., 767 P.2d 56 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1988).

Harris v. Reserve Life Ins., 762 P.2d 1334 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1988). “PROPRIETY OF THE A.R.S. § 12-349 ATTORNEY’S FEES AWARD The version of A.”

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-349(D) — 2 cases

Kaufmann v. Cruikshank, 217 P.3d 438 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009).

John D. Kaufmann v. State of Arizona (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009).

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-349(E) — 1 case

Valles v. Pima Cnty., 642 F. Supp. 2d 936 (D. Ariz. 2009).

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-349(F) — 56 cases

Bennett v. Baxter Grp., Inc., 224 P.3d 230 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010). “§ 12-350 requires the trial court, when making an award under § 12-349, to set forth the specific reasons for an award.”

Cypress on Sunland Homeowners Ass'n v. Orlandini, 257 P.3d 1168 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011). “found that their actions were “not well grounded in fact or warranted by existing law or a good faith argument for extension, modification or reversal of existing law,” were “interposed for improper purposes and without substantial justification, resulting in harm” to the HOA…”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.