Cited by

See Parsons v. Ryan, 754 F.3d 657 (9th Cir. 2014) (class action challenging the constitutionality of the state’s provision of health care in prisons); Arnold v. Arizona Dep’t of Health Servs., (class action to compel government defendants to comply with statutory mandates to provide services to mental health patients).

See Arnold v. Ariz. Dep’t of Health Servs.

v. Ducey, ¶ 26 (2013) (quoting Arnold v. Ariz. Dep’t of Health Servs., ).

v. Ducey, ¶ 26 (2013) (quoting Arnold v. Ariz. Dep’t of Health Servs., (internal quotation marks omitted)).

§ 12-348 and “the private attorney general doctrine” as laid out in Arnold v. Ariz. Dep’t of Health Servs.

.” Arnold v. Ariz. Dep’t of Health Servs.

See Arnold v. Ariz. Dep’t of Health Servs.

Cf. Arnold v. Ariz. Dep’t of Health Servs., (“Attorney’s fees should not be limited by the fact that the plaintiffs are indigent and that their attorneys accepted the case on a pro bono basis.”).

v. Ducey, ¶ 34 (App. 2013) (explaining the private attorney general doctrine permits a discretionary award of fees to a party that has vindicated an important public right) (citing Arnold v. Ariz. Dep’t of Health Servs., ).

§§ 12-348 (authorizing an award of fees to the successful party in a civil action against a municipality), 35-213 (authorizing an award of fees to a taxpayer who initiates an action to recover illegally paid public monies), and the private attorney general doctrine, see Arnold v. Ariz. Dep’t of Health Servs., (recognizing “the existence of a ‘private attorney general doctrine’ that allows an award [of attorneys’ fees] to a prevailing plaintiff for vindicating an important public policy”).

Arnold v. Ariz. Dep’t of 9 MEYER

To receive an award of attorney fees under the private attorney general doctrine, a party must “vindicate[] a right that: (1) benefits a large number of people; (2) requires private enforcement; and (3) is of societal importance.” Arnold v. Ariz. Dep’t of Health Servs.

(private attorney general doctrine allows fees award to party that has vindicated an important public right).

¶45 The purpose of the private attorney general doctrine is “to promote vindication of important public rights.” Arnold v. Ariz. Dep’t of Health Servs., (internal quotation and citation omitted).

Co., 657 F.2d 855, 861- 62 (7th Cir. 1981)); see Kadish v. Ariz. State Land Dep’t, -32, (App. 1993) (citing Arnold v. Ariz. Dep’t of Health Servs., ).

ys’ fees under the private attorney general doctrine, which is an equitable rule permitting courts to award attorneys’ fees to parties who have vindicated a right that “(1) benefits a large number of people; (2) requires private enforcement; and (3) is of societal importance.” ¶18 , *7 (2013) (quoting Arnold v. Ariz. Dep’t of Health Servs., , ).

laws.5 C. ¶26 Cave Creek requests an award of attorneys’ fees under the private attorney general doctrine, which permits a court “to award [attorneys’] fees to a party who has vindicated a right that: (1) benefits a large number of people; (2) requires private enforcement; and (3) is of societal importance.” Arnold v. Ariz. Dep’t of Health Servs.

See Arnold v. Ariz. Dep’t of Health Servs.

¶ 34 The purpose of the private attorney general doctrine is “to promote vindication of important public rights.” Arnold v. Ariz. Dep’t of Health Servs., , (internal quotations and citation omitted).

See Arnold v. Ariz. Dep’t of Health Servs., , (permitting fees to class represented pro bono which prevailed in challenge to adequacy of mental health services provided by state and county); , (awarding fees to CLS in an action for unpaid wages).

See Arnold v. Ariz. Dep’t of Health Servs.

§§ 12-2030 (2003) and 35-213(0 (2011)

For a comprehensive discussion of the Mental Health Services Act and the duties imposed by the Act on the State, its counties, and independent contractors, see Arnold v. Ariz. Dep’t of Health Servs., -600 , -28 (1989) and In re Pinal County Mental Health No. MH-201000029, -04, ¶¶ 12-14 , -66 (App. 2010).

See Arnold v. Ariz. Dep’t of Health Servs.