Free Response in Opposition to Motion - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

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

Angela M. Wilson-Goodman State Bar No. 017558 WILSON-GOODMAN & FONG, P.C. 538 S. Gilbert Road, Suite 101 Gilbert, Arizona 85296 (480) 503-9217 Fax: (480) 503-9219 Attorneys for Plaintiff IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

MARY CSANYI, Plaintiff, vs. REGIS CORPORATION; SUPER CUTS, Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case No.: CV-03-1987-PHX-JAT PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES

Plaintiff, MARY CSANYI, by and through counsel undersigned, hereby objects to Defendants' Motion for Attorneys' Fees pursuant to 42 USCS § 12205. Although the Court determined ultimately that judgment shall be entered for Defendants (see Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law dated June 27, 2006), the reasonableness of the position of Plaintiff throughout this entire matter was clear. Plaintiff did have a right to litigate this matter and took reasonable positions on all issues. Plaintiff presented substantial evidence to the Court which was not duplicative and was not unreasonable as to why she believed that she was discriminated against by her employer. Although the Court did not accept those arguments, the arguments set forth were legitimate and were not frivolous.

Case 2:03-cv-01987-JAT

-1Document 109

Filed 08/14/2006

Page 1 of 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
1

Moreover, the attorney's fees that Plaintiff has accrued in this matter are in excess of $29,000. To date, Plaintiff still owes her attorney over $14,000 in unpaid legal fees. Plaintiff, a hair dresser making less than $25,000 per year, does not have the means, nor will she likely ever have the means, to pay both her own attorney's fees and the $83,073.30 in attorney's fees that Defendant is claiming. Although Defendants, as a large corporation, can afford such expensive legal aid, Plaintiff would have never hired such expensive representatives. Defendants can more easily swallow the cost of litigation than Plaintiff. Forcing Plaintiff to pay Defendants' attorney's fees would be unduly punitive and harsh. Requiring plaintiff employees to pay defendant employer's attorneys fees in the event that they lose their suit will dissuade future plaintiff employees from seeking legal action against their employers. Abundant case law establishes that an unsuccessful plaintiff in a discrimination action should not be assessed with defendant's attorney's fees unless the court finds that plaintiff's claims were frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation. Summers v. A. Teichert & Son, 127 F.3d 1150 (9th Cir. 1997).1 This Court can not conclude that plaintiff acted in bad faith or that her suit was frivolous simply because she lacked sufficient evidence to persuade the Court. Plaintiff felt discriminated against due to her age, race and national origin. Plaintiff did not understand the reasoning behind her transfer to the Bell Road location and truly believed it to be both discriminatory and retaliatory. WHEREFORE, based upon the foregoing, Plaintiff requests that this Court deny Defendants' Motion for Attorneys' Fees.

See also Brown v. Lucky Stores, Inc., 246 F.3d 1182 (9th Cir. 2001); No Barriers, Inc. v. Brinkler's Chili's Tex.,

Inc., 262 F.3d 496 (5th Cir. 2001);

Case 2:03-cv-01987-JAT

-2Document 109

Filed 08/14/2006

Page 2 of 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

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 14th day of August, 2006. WILSON-GOODMAN & FONG, P.C. /s/ Angela M. Wilson-Goodman Angela M. Wilson-Goodman Attorney for Plaintiff CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on the 14th day of August, 2006, I electronically transmitted the attached Response to Motion for Attorneys' Fees to the U.S. District Court Clerk's office using the CM/ECF System for filing and transmittal of a Notice of Electronic Filing to the following CM/ECF registrants: [email protected] [email protected] I hereby certify that on the 14th day of August, 2006, I served the attached by mail on the following Response to Motion for Attorneys' Fees, who is a registered participant in the CM/ECF System, but requested a paper copy: The Honorable James A. Teilborg United States District Judge Sandra Day O'Connor U.S. Courthouse, Suite 523 401 West Washington Street, SPC 51 Phoenix, AZ 85003-2154 /s/ Kim Johnson

Case 2:03-cv-01987-JAT

-3Document 109

Filed 08/14/2006

Page 3 of 3