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

I RYLEY CARLOCK & APPLEWHITE
One North Central Avenue, Suite 1200
2 Phoenix, Arizona 850044417
Telephone: 602/258—7701
3 Telecopier: 602/257—9582
4 Jeffrey R. Sininions - 011096
5 Attorney for Piaintiffs/Counterdefendants
6
7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
ORTHODONTIC CENTERS OF
9 AMERICA, INC. and ORTHODONTIC No. CV03—2l37 PHX SRE
10 CENTERS OF ARIZONA, INC.,
Plaintiffs/Counterdefeiidants, pLA{NT]F;rg¤ RESPONSE [N
ll VS OPPOSITION TO
12 ` DEFENDAN’I`S/
RONNIE L. COOK AND RONNIE L. COUNTERCLAIB/IANTS’
13 COOK D.D.S., M.S.D. PC, NOTICE OF MOTION FOR
i4 Defendants/Counterclaimants ATT0RNEg$gF§§,;SAND BILL
l5
16 Plaintiffs, by and through undersigned counsel, hereby respond to
17 Defendants’/ Counterclainiants’ Notice of Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Bill of Costs.
18 For the reasons discussed below, Defendants/Cotiziterclaimants are not entitled to any
19 such fees or costs because, among other things, they are not the "prevailing party." In
20 fact, the Court’s Order, dated January 25, 2006, dismissed Det`endants’ counterclaim, in
21 addition to Plaintiffs’ Complaint. I)efendants’ Counterclairn sought an undisclosed
22 amount of compensatory and punitive damages based on six separate counts: breach of
23 fiduciary duty, unfair business practices, action for accounting, fraud, constructive fraud
24 and negligent misrepresentation. In light of the Court’s dismissal of If)efendants’
25 substantial counterclaim, Defendants’ selfproclainied status as "prevaiiing party" is
26 disingenuous at best.
tiniest
zlzmaus
4 ase 2:03-cv—O2137—SFlB Document 84 Filed O2/24/2006 Paget of 3

1 "Respect for ordinary language requires that a plaintiff [or defendant)
2 receive at least some relief on the merits of his claim before he can be said to p1·evail."
3 Hewitt v. Helms, 482 U.S. 755, 760, 107 S.Ct. 2672, 2675 (1987) [emphasis added]; Me.
4 Sch. Admin. Dist. No. 35 v. Mr. & Mics. R., 321 F.3d 9, 15 (151 Cir. 2003) (the
5 "prevailing party" must "succeed on the merits of a claim or defense?) Here,
6 Defendants’/Counterclaimants’ own counterclaim was dismissed by this Court. "That is
7 not the stuff of which legal victories are made." Id.
8 Courts have determined that when a judgment is “technicaI" or de
9 minimas it does not constitute a determination of a ‘jprevailiug party. " In
I0 Baclchannou Bd. & Care Home, Inc. v. W Va. Dep 't of Health & Hwnaiz Res., 532 U.S.
11 598, 121 S.Ct. 1835 (2001), the Supreme Court held that that the term "prevailing
12 party," as it is used in various attorney’s fees provisions, requires a "material alteration
13 of the legal relationship of the parties." The Ninth Circuit has applied the rationale of
14 Buclclzaimon in a host of cases determining the merits of a "prevailing party" related to
15 attorney fees. See Kasza v. Whitman, 325 F..3d 1178, 1180 (9"` Cir. 2003); Perez-
16 Arellarzo v. Smith, 279 F.3d 791, 793-94 (9m Cir. 2002); Bennett v. Yoslziiza, 259 F.3d
17 1097, 1100 (9m Cir. 2001); Parents of Student W v. Ptryalllup Sch. Dist., No. 3, 31 1*.3d
18 1489 (9m Cir. 1994). Here, Defendants are not the "prevailing party" because success
19 (if any) was purely technical or de minimus.
20 For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs respectfully request that
21 Defendants’/Counterclairnants’ Motion for Attorr1eys’ Fees and Bill of Costs be denied.
22 DATED this 24m day of February, 2006.
23 RYLEY caarocir at Arrrawuira
24
By s/Jeffrey R. Simmons
25 Jeffrey R. Simmons
One North Central Avenue, Suite 1200
26 Phoenix, Arizona 85004-4417
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
asa 2:03-cv—O2137—SFlB Document 84 “2—FiIod O2/24/2006 Page 2 of 3

1 COPIES of the foregoing sent via
Electronic mail this 24m day of
2 February, 2006 to:
3 Gibson E. Pratt
4 ORTHODONTIC CENTERS OF AMERICA
3850 North Causeway Blvd, Suite 800
5 Metarie, Louisiana 70002
( Attorney for Plaintiffs
w
Michael Blair
7 BAIRD WILLIAMS & GREER
6225 North 24** Street, Suite 125
8 Phoenix, Arizona 850044552
9 Attorneys for Defendants
Matthew C. Bradford
10 LAW OFFICES OP MARC B. ROBINSON
3255 West March Lane, Suite 230
H Stockton, California 95219
12 Attorneys for Defendants
13 By Callie Dahlgren
14
15
I6
17
18
19
20
2}
22
23
24
25
26
-3..
ase 2:03-cv—O2137—SRB Document 84 Filed O2/24/2006 Page 3 of 3

Case 2:03-cv-02137-SRB

Document 84

Filed 02/24/2006

Page 1 of 3

Case 2:03-cv-02137-SRB

Document 84

Filed 02/24/2006

Page 2 of 3

Case 2:03-cv-02137-SRB

Document 84

Filed 02/24/2006

Page 3 of 3