Cited by

Supply Co. (“Mark Lighting II”), superseded on other grounds by Club W. Conservancy v. Shea Homes Ltd. P’ship, in support.

In Britt v. Steffen, decided in 2008, we concluded that “Rule 54(b) now treats a claim for attorneys’ fees as a separate claim from the decision on the merits of the cause[.]” ¶ 22 (App. 2008).

¶ 11 (App. 2008) (the successful party in a dismissal for lack of prosecution “qualifies for a possible award of attorneys’ fees pursuant to A.R.S.

¶10 Isho argues that the superior court abused its discretion in denying its fee request, for the proposition that, when a contract action “has been dismissed without prejudice, the defendant is still considered a ‘successful party’ for purposes of A.R.S.

¶24 As Buonincontri and AXT correctly assert, Rule 11, by its terms, “does not place time limits on when a motion for sanctions must be filed during the course of proceedings.” Arizona courts have long recognized, however, that “[t]he lack of a specific time limit does not mean that there is no limit on when a Rule 11 motion should be filed.” ¶ 25 (App. 2008).

¶ 22 (App. 2008) (“[A] trial court has jurisdiction to rule on any timely motion for attorneys’ fees that falls within the scope of Rule 54(g).”).

¶ 9 (App. 2008) (defendant against whom a contract action is dismissed without prejudice is "successful party"); -25, ¶¶ 25-27 (App. 2009) (affirming fee award to defendant following voluntary dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(a)).

Kim, 214 Ariz. at 460-61, ¶¶ 9-10; -70, ¶¶ 19-20 (App. 2008).

See, ¶ 9, (noting when “an action has been dismissed without prejudice, the defendant is still considered a ‘successful party’ for purposes of A.R.S.

But the reference in Rule 54(g)(2) to “after a decision on the merits of a cause” does not literally mean “that the substantive merits of the underlying claim must first be finally adjudicated before any fees may be award *28 ed.” ¶ 10

See Morrison v. Shanwick Int’l Corp., -47 , -76 (App.1990) (stating “a contested action is one in which the defendant has appeared and generally defends against the claims and demands made by the plaintiff’ even if defendant admitted to factual allegations); ¶ 9 , (holding defendant still considered “successful party” under A.R.S.