Free Order on Motion for Attorney Fees - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

SHIMKO & PISCITELLI, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. PAUL WOODCOCK, et al.,

11 12 Defendants. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Case 2:04-cv-00078-FJM

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. CV-04-78-PHX-FJM ORDER

The court has before it plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees (doc. 131) and memorandum in support. No response has been received. Plaintiffs seek their fees under A.R.S. § 12-341.01 but acknowledge that Shimko and his firm represented themselves and there was no fee agreement. A prerequisite to an award of fees under A.R.S § 12-341.01 is that fees be actually incurred. There must be "a genuine financial obligation on the part of the litigants to pay such fees." Lisa v. Strom, 183 Ariz. 415, 419, 904 P.2d 1239, 1243 ( App. 1995). There can be no award of attorneys' fees unless an attorney-litigant is obligated to pay such fees. Id. at 420, 904 P.2d at 1244. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED DENYING plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees (doc. 131). DATED this 25th day of August, 2005.

Document 136

Filed 08/25/2005

Page 1 of 2

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 -2Case 2:04-cv-00078-FJM Document 136 Filed 08/25/2005 Page 2 of 2