Cited by

Indeed, 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); ¶ 40 (App. 2014) (quoting Sourant; stating that “[b]ecause each side recovered less than the amounts sought, we conclude the net judgment rule is applicable”) (citation om

§ 12- 341.01(A), ¶ 39 (App. 2014).

¶ 19 (App. 2014) (quoting Revised Unif.

¶ 39 (App. 2014) (“[T]he trial court has broad discretion to award and determine the amount of attorneys’ fees under A.R.S.

¶ 39 (App. 2014); see also Associated Indem.

§ 12-341.01, and its determination “will not be disturbed on appeal if any reasonable basis exists for it.” ¶ 39 (App. 2014) (internal quotations omitted).

¶ 17 (App. 2014) (-56, ¶¶ 7-8 (2012)).

Given this, the superior court did not abuse its discretion, ¶ 39, (appellate court reviews award of attorneys’ fees for an abuse of discretion), in finding Jokobov the successful party.

¶ 40 (App. 2014) (citing Ocean West Contractors, Inc. v. Halec Constr.

¶ 39 (App. 2014) (citations omitted).

P. 10(c); ¶ 17 (App. 2014) (stating a court may refer to a complaint’s exhibits or public records without necessarily converting the Rule 12(b)(6) motion into one for summary judgment).

¶ 17 (App. 2014) (-56, ¶¶ 7-8 (2012)).

Determining the “successful” party for the purposes of attorneys’ fees is within the trial court’s discretion and “will not be disturbed on appeal if any reasonable basis exists for it.” ¶ 39, (internal citation and quotation marks omitted); see also Assyia, 229 Ariz. at 223, 273 P.3d at 675 (“[T]he trial court has substantial discretion to determine who is a ‘successful party.’”) (internal citation omitted).

¶ 16, (declining to address an issue abandoned on appeal).