Cited by

nding federal preemption because “[d]eciding whether the Arizona hospital lien statutes are preempted is 4 FHMC, et al. BLUE CROSS Decision of the Court unnecessary in determining whether the trial court properly considered and granted Petitioners’ motion to dismiss”); ¶ 9 (2020) (recognizing that federal preemption and the existence of a cause of action “overlap but are analytically distinct”); see also R.L.

¶19 “To receive an award of attorneys’ fees under the private attorney general doctrine, the prevailing party must ‘vindicate[ ] a right that (1) benefits a large number of people, (2) requires private enforcement, and (3) is of societal importance.’” ¶ 30 (App. 2024) ( ¶ 39 (2020)).

§ 12-1842, the plaintiff must have an underlying cause of action, ¶ 31 (2020).

¶¶ 39, 44 (2020) (court may award attorney fees in its discretion).

To receive an award of attorneys’ fees under the private attorney general doctrine, the prevailing party must “vindicate[] a right that (1) benefits a large number of people, (2) requires private enforcement, and (3) is of societal importance.” ¶ 40 (2020).

¶ 39 (2020) (“Fees are permissible under the private attorney general doctrine for 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.”).

§§ 12-341, 12-348, 12-1840, 12-2030, ¶¶ 38-39 (2020) (describing “the private attorney general doctrine”), but provides no further explanation supporting its entitlement to attorney fees.

The private attorney general doctrine is an equitable rule that allows a court to award 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.” ¶ 39 (2020).

e. That doctrine is an equitable rule that allows a 15 ARIZONA SCHOOL BOARDS ASSOCIATION, INC. ET AL. V. STATE Opinion of the Court court to award 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.” ¶ 39 (2020).

¶ 45 (2020) (holding that the lien statutes cannot allow hospitals to recover the costs of medical care beyond the amounts provided by Medicaid).

¶ 34 (2020) (holding federal statute “prohibiting direct balance billing .

021) (holding that statute requiring “political subdivisions” to consolidate local, state, and national elections after low voter turnout in a local election was unconstitutional as applied to charter cities whose charters require separate local elections but otherwise constitutionally applies to non-charter cities and charter cities without conflicting charters); ¶ 36 (2020) (holding that hospital lien statutes are unconstitutional as applied to secure payment from third-party tortfeasors for b

We consider questions of law de novo, ¶ 8 (2020), and have jurisdiction pursuant to article 6, section 5, clause 3 of the Arizona Constitution.