just claim in Arizona

2019Rudinsky v. Harris , 231 Ariz. 95 , ¶ 27, 290 P.3d 1218 (App. 2012). 9 Section 12-341.01 allows attorney fees for the successful party "[i]n any contested action arising out of a contract" in order to "mitigate the burden of the expense of litigation to establish a just claim or a just defense." The phrase "arising out of a contract" in § 12-341.01 must be read broadly, and "an action is considered to have arisen out of contract when the plaintiff asserted a contract and the defendant successfully proved that no contract existed." *528 ML Servicing Co. v. Coles , 235 Ariz. 562 , ¶ 30, 334 P.3d

2019Rudinsky v. Harris , 231 Ariz. 95 , ¶ 27, 290 P.3d 1218 (App. 2012). 9 Section 12-341.01 allows attorney fees for the successful party "[i]n any contested action arising out of a contract" in order to "mitigate the burden of the expense of litigation to establish a just claim or a just defense." The phrase "arising out of a contract" in § 12-341.01 must be read broadly, and "an action is considered to have arisen out of contract when the plaintiff asserted a contract and the defendant successfully proved that no contract existed." *528 ML Servicing Co. v. Coles , 235 Ariz. 562 , ¶ 30, 334 P.3d

2025Indeed, only “when a case ‘involve[s] multiple claims and varied success’ and the ‘net judgment rule’ is inapplicable” should the superior court look to “a ‘percentage of success’ factor or a ‘totality of the litigation’ rubric to determine which party prevailed.” Sourant, 229 Ariz. at 134 ¶ 36 (emphasis added; citing cases); accord Vortex Corp. v. Denkewicz, 235 Ariz. 551 , 562 ¶ 40 (App. 2012) (quoting Sourant; stating that “[b]ecause each side recovered less than the amounts sought, we conclude the net judgment rule is applicable”). ¶31 Recognizing the primacy of the “net judgment rule” in

2025Indeed, only “when a case ‘involve[s] multiple claims and varied success’ and the ‘net judgment rule’ is inapplicable” should the superior court look to “a ‘percentage of success’ factor or a ‘totality of the litigation’ rubric to determine which party prevailed.” Sourant, 229 Ariz. at 134 ¶ 36 (emphasis added; citing cases); accord Vortex Corp. v. Denkewicz, 235 Ariz. 551 , 562 ¶ 40 (App. 2012) (quoting Sourant; stating that “[b]ecause each side recovered less than the amounts sought, we conclude the net judgment rule is applicable”). ¶31 Recognizing the primacy of the “net judgment rule” in

2017Corp. v. Warner, 143 Ariz. 567, 570-71 , 694 P.2d 1181, 1184-85 (1985) (listing non- exclusive factors bearing on attorney fee awards under § 12-341.01); A.R.S. § 12- 341.01(B) (providing that an award of reasonable fees under the statute “should be made to mitigate the burden of the expense of litigation to establish a just claim or a just defense”). ¶25 Regarding American’s attorney fees incurred before CSK’s offer of judgment, this opinion does not alter the trial court’s determination that American was the prevailing party up to that point.

2017Corp. v. Warner, 143 Ariz. 567, 570-71 , 694 P.2d 1181, 1184-85 (1985) (listing non- exclusive factors bearing on attorney fee awards under § 12-341.01); A.R.S. § 12- 341.01(B) (providing that an award of reasonable fees under the statute “should be made to mitigate the burden of the expense of litigation to establish a just claim or a just defense”). ¶25 Regarding American’s attorney fees incurred before CSK’s offer of judgment, this opinion does not alter the trial court’s determination that American was the prevailing party up to that point.

2016Ass’n, Inc. v. Bach, 193 Ariz. 401 , 402 ¶ 5, 973 P.2d 106, 107 (1999). ¶35 Section 12–341.01(A) provides that a court may award reasonable attorneys’ fees to the successful party in “any contested action arising out of a contract, express or implied.” When questions of contract are combined with other questions, judicial analysis whether the action is sufficiently contractual to invoke A.R.S. § 12–341.01(A) “has aptly focused on the substance of the action and the statutory policy to mitigate the burden of the expense of litigation to establish a just claim or defense.” A.H.

2016Ass’n, Inc. v. Bach, 193 Ariz. 401 , 402 ¶ 5, 973 P.2d 106, 107 (1999). ¶35 Section 12–341.01(A) provides that a court may award reasonable attorneys’ fees to the successful party in “any contested action arising out of a contract, express or implied.” When questions of contract are combined with other questions, judicial analysis whether the action is sufficiently contractual to invoke A.R.S. § 12–341.01(A) “has aptly focused on the substance of the action and the statutory policy to mitigate the burden of the expense of litigation to establish a just claim or defense.” A.H.

2010See New Pueblo Constructors, Inc. v: State, 144 Ariz. 95, 111 , 696 P.2d 185, 201 (1985) (legislative intent of § 12-341.01 to “mitigat[e] the burden of the expense of litigation to establish a just claim or just defense, and discourag[e] frivolous lawsuits”); see also Zeagler v. Buckley, 223 Ariz. 37, ¶ 9 , 219 P.3d 247, 249 (App.2009) (“[W]hen ... claims are so interrelated that identical or substantially overlapping discovery would occur, there is no sound reason to deny recovery of such legal fees.”). ¶ 24 Baxter brought claims on several tort theories in addition to its claim for breach o

2010See New Pueblo Constructors, Inc. v: State, 144 Ariz. 95, 111 , 696 P.2d 185, 201 (1985) (legislative intent of § 12-341.01 to “mitigat[e] the burden of the expense of litigation to establish a just claim or just defense, and discourag[e] frivolous lawsuits”); see also Zeagler v. Buckley, 223 Ariz. 37, ¶ 9 , 219 P.3d 247, 249 (App.2009) (“[W]hen ... claims are so interrelated that identical or substantially overlapping discovery would occur, there is no sound reason to deny recovery of such legal fees.”). ¶ 24 Baxter brought claims on several tort theories in addition to its claim for breach o

2010See New Pueblo Constructors, Inc. v: State, 144 Ariz. 95, 111 , 696 P.2d 185, 201 (1985) (legislative intent of § 12-341.01 to “mitigat[e] the burden of the expense of litigation to establish a just claim or just defense, and discourag[e] frivolous lawsuits”); see also Zeagler v. Buckley, 223 Ariz. 37, ¶ 9 , 219 P.3d 247, 249 (App.2009) (“[W]hen ... claims are so interrelated that identical or substantially overlapping discovery would occur, there is no sound reason to deny recovery of such legal fees.”). ¶ 24 Baxter brought claims on several tort theories in addition to its claim for breach o

2010See New Pueblo Constructors, Inc. v: State, 144 Ariz. 95, 111 , 696 P.2d 185, 201 (1985) (legislative intent of § 12-341.01 to “mitigat[e] the burden of the expense of litigation to establish a just claim or just defense, and discourag[e] frivolous lawsuits”); see also Zeagler v. Buckley, 223 Ariz. 37, ¶ 9 , 219 P.3d 247, 249 (App.2009) (“[W]hen ... claims are so interrelated that identical or substantially overlapping discovery would occur, there is no sound reason to deny recovery of such legal fees.”). ¶ 24 Baxter brought claims on several tort theories in addition to its claim for breach o

2015The statute is intended to “mitigate the burden of the expense of litigation to establish a just claim or defense.” Id.

1990Co. v. Stoddard, 147 Ariz. 561, 565 , 711 P.2d 1234, 1238 (App.1985), the trial court may consider the same factors that are considered in determining whether to award attorney’s fees pursuant to A.R.S. section 12-341.01.

1995More importantly, the indemnitor should not be given the incentive to avoid paying a just claim in hopes that the claimant will obtain payment from the co-indemnitor. [Citations omitted.] California Food Service Corp. v. Great American Insurance Co., 130 Cal.App.3d 892, 901 , 182 Cal.Rptr. 67, 72-73 (1982).

1995More importantly, the indemnitor should not be given the incentive to avoid paying a just claim in hopes that the claimant will obtain payment from the co-indemnitor. [Citations omitted.] California Food Service Corp. v. Great American Insurance Co., 130 Cal.App.3d 892, 901 , 182 Cal.Rptr. 67, 72-73 (1982).

2023See Marcus v. Fox, 150 Ariz. 333, 335-36 (1986) (explaining that matter arises from contract when there is “causal link between [a] claim and the underlying contract”); § 12-341.01(B) (“The award of reasonable attorney fees pursuant to this section should be made to mitigate the burden of the expense of litigation to establish a just claim or a just defense.”).

2023See Marcus v. Fox, 150 Ariz. 333, 335-36 (1986) (explaining that matter arises from contract when there is “causal link between [a] claim and the underlying contract”); § 12-341.01(B) (“The award of reasonable attorney fees pursuant to this section should be made to mitigate the burden of the expense of litigation to establish a just claim or a just defense.”).

2020Cf. Blanchard v. Bergeron, 489 U.S. 87, 95 (1989) (rejecting strict limitation on fee awards in civil rights litigation). ¶17 Another consequence of the State’s argument, if accepted, would be to curtail public interest litigation where individuals band together and retain contingent fee counsel to pursue contract-related injunctive and declaratory relief, but have no money damages.

2020Cf. Blanchard v. Bergeron, 489 U.S. 87, 95 (1989) (rejecting strict limitation on fee awards in civil rights litigation). ¶17 Another consequence of the State’s argument, if accepted, would be to curtail public interest litigation where individuals band together and retain contingent fee counsel to pursue contract-related injunctive and declaratory relief, but have no money damages.

2016It need not equal or relate to the attorney fees actually paid or contracted, but the award may not exceed the amount paid or agreed to be paid. 2 Neither FICA nor FIE appear to dispute that another Farmers entity paid at least a portion of the fees. 4 CHASAN v. FARMERS Decision of the Court 341.01(B)”); see also Journal-Minter Publ’g Co. v. Curley, 31 Ariz. 280 , 282–83 (1927) (explaining that when services are rendered to a client, the obligation to pay for those services arises regardless of whether a written agreement exists). ¶13 Chasan cites Lisa v. Strom, 183 Ariz. 415 (App. 1995), to s

2016It need not equal or relate to the attorney fees actually paid or contracted, but the award may not exceed the amount paid or agreed to be paid. 2 Neither FICA nor FIE appear to dispute that another Farmers entity paid at least a portion of the fees. 4 CHASAN v. FARMERS Decision of the Court 341.01(B)”); see also Journal-Minter Publ’g Co. v. Curley, 31 Ariz. 280 , 282–83 (1927) (explaining that when services are rendered to a client, the obligation to pay for those services arises regardless of whether a written agreement exists). ¶13 Chasan cites Lisa v. Strom, 183 Ariz. 415 (App. 1995), to s

2016Motors Corp., 212 Ariz. 18, ¶ 43 , 126 P.3d 165, 176 (App.2006).

2016Motors Corp., 212 Ariz. 18, ¶ 43 , 126 P.3d 165, 176 (App.2006).

2016It need not equal or relate to the attorney fees actually paid or contracted, but the award may not exceed the amount paid or agreed to be paid. 2 Neither FICA nor FIE appear to dispute that another Farmers entity paid at least a portion of the fees. 4 CHASAN v. FARMERS Decision of the Court 341.01(B)”); see also Journal-Minter Publ’g Co. v. Curley, 31 Ariz. 280 , 282–83 (1927) (explaining that when services are rendered to a client, the obligation to pay for those services arises regardless of whether a written agreement exists). ¶13 Chasan cites Lisa v. Strom, 183 Ariz. 415 (App. 1995), to s

2016It need not equal or relate to the attorney fees actually paid or contracted, but the award may not exceed the amount paid or agreed to be paid. 2 Neither FICA nor FIE appear to dispute that another Farmers entity paid at least a portion of the fees. 4 CHASAN v. FARMERS Decision of the Court 341.01(B)”); see also Journal-Minter Publ’g Co. v. Curley, 31 Ariz. 280 , 282–83 (1927) (explaining that when services are rendered to a client, the obligation to pay for those services arises regardless of whether a written agreement exists). ¶13 Chasan cites Lisa v. Strom, 183 Ariz. 415 (App. 1995), to s