Cited by

City of Cottonwood v. James L. Fann Contracting, Inc.

v. Ball, ¶ 9 (App. 2022) (discussing limits on judicial review under the revised act), with City of Cottonwood v. James L. Fann Contracting, Inc., (discussing limits on judicial review under the original act).

Sec., ¶ 33 (2024) (denying a fee request under § 12-1840 “[b]ecause no party has yet prevailed in this case”); cf. City of Cottonwood v. James L. Fann Contracting, Inc., (“With arbitration proceedings yet to commence, a ‘successful party’ on the merits under A.R.S.

See City of Cottonwood v. James L. Fann Contracting, Inc., (holding the trial court is in a better position to determine when a claim is intertwined with one for which fees are not awardable and the appellate court will affirm if there is a reasonable basis for the award) (citations omitted).

See Candrian, 240 Ariz. at 135, ¶ 7 (citing City of Cottonwood v. James L. Fann Contracting, Inc., ).

§ 33–420(B) should not include fees for “a decision on the merits of the underlying action,” Evergreen, 167 Ariz. at 621, the court does not abuse its discretion by including those fees that were necessarily intertwined with the continuing lis pendens action, see City of Cottonwood v. James L. Fann Contracting, Inc., (the trial court has discretion to award fees for a claim that is intertwined with one for which fees are not awardable.).

City of Cottonwood v. James L. Fann Contracting, Inc.

See City of Cottonwood v. James L. Fann Contracting, Inc., (“The [superior] court has discretion to determine .

The court “has significant discretion to award fees in a matter intertwined with another matter for which it may not grant attorney’s fees.” City of Cottonwood v. James L. Fann Contracting, Inc.

Murphy Farrell, 229 Ariz. at 133, ¶ 31; see also City of Cottonwood v. James L. Fann Contracting, Inc., ("Because of the trial court's proximity to the matter and its better familiarity with the parties, the suit, and the issues, an appellate court is usually reluctant to overturn its ruling on attorney's fees.").

LLC v. El Destino, LP, -13, ¶¶ 23-31 (App. 2011) (superior court may award fees under § 12-341.01 to a defendant who successfully challenged 5 OGDEN v. DISYS Decision of the Court applicability of an arbitration agreement); City of Cottonwood v. James L. Fann Contracting, Inc., (affirming award under § 12-341.01 of fees "associated with the judicial proceedings to defeat the motion for stay [of arbitration]").

City of Cottonwood v. James L. Fann Contracting, Inc.

“The rules of contract interpretation apply equally in the context of arbitration clauses.” Estate of DeCamacho, , 316 P.3d at 611 ; see also City of Cottonwood v. James L. Fann Contracting, Inc., , (“Because of the public policy favoring arbitration, arbitration clauses are construed liberally and any doubts about whether a matter is subject to arbitration are resolved in favor of arbitration.”).

§ 12-1502(A); -54 (App. 1996) (citing City of Cottonwood v. James L. Fann Contracting, Inc., -90 (App. 1994)).

(citations omitted); ¶ 7 (App. 2009) (citations omitted) (“[W]hen two claims are so intertwined as to be indistinguishable, a court has discretion to award attorney fees under § 12-341.01 even though the fees attributable to one of the causes of action would not be recoverable under this statute.”); City of Cottonwood v. James L. Fann Contracting, Inc., (citation omitted) (finding trial courts have “significant discretion to award fees in a matter intertwined with another matter for which it may

See City of Cottonwood v. James L. Fann Contracting, Inc., (court will uphold an award of attorney's fees "if the record contains a reasonable basis to do so").

City of Cottonwood v. James L. Fann Contracting, Inc.

Cf. City of Cottonwood v. James L. Fann Contracting, Inc., -93 , -92 (App.1994) (timeliness of demand to arbitrate is to be considered by court to extent it is a factor in a repudiation defense, but is to be considered by arbitrator to extent it is a procedural precondition).

The court states only that "arbitration proceedings are quasi-judicial in nature,” and reaches no holding whatsoever in regards to whether arbitrations are "actions.” The final case, City of Cottonwood v. James L. Fann Contracting, Inc., , deals with fees awarded, not for the arbitration itself, but for the defense for an initial stay proceeding in court.

See City of Cottonwood v. James L. Fann Contracting, Inc., , (arbitration clauses are “construed liberally and any doubts about whether a matter is subject to arbitration are resolved in favor of arbitration”).

See City of Cottonwood v. James L. Fann Contracting, Inc., , 189 n. 2, , 288 n. 2 (App.1994); Rancho Pescado, Inc. v. Nw.

See Modular, 212 P.3d at 860 (upholding fee award where contract and tort actions intertwined); City of Cottonwood v. James L. Fann Contracting, Inc., -95, -94 (App. 1994) (trial court in best position to determine whether litigation on successful and unsuccessful claims so intertwined as to render fees for both compensable).

183, 189, (in cases where “one claim for relief may involve related legal theories,” “‘[m]uch of counsel’s time [may] be devoted generally to the litigation as a whole, making it difficult to divide the hours expended on a claim-by-claim basis’”), quoting Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 435 (1983); cf. City of Cottonwood v. James L. Fann Contracting, Inc., (trial court “has significant discretion to award fees in a matter intertwined with another matter for which it may not grant attorney’s

See City of Cottonwood v. James L. Fann Contracting, Inc.