Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(2) establishes the procedures for presenting claims for "attorneys' fees and related non-taxable expenses" as supplemented by local district court rule. Under Rule 54(d)(2)(B), the fee claimant must file and serve a motion no later than 14 days after entry of judgment. The motion must specify the judgment and the statute, rule, or other grounds entitling the moving party to the award and must state the amount or provide a fair estimate of the amount sought. The motion must also disclose the terms of the agreement with respect to fees to be paid, if directed by the court.
The federal rule allows the court to determine issues of liability for fees before evaluating the reasonableness of the fees requested. Filing of a motion for fees under the rule does not affect the finality or appealability of the judgment, although Rule 58(e) provides a mechanism by which, before the appeal becomes effective, the district court may suspend finality of the underlying judgment to resolve a fee motion.
A fee award must be set forth in a separate judgment as provided in Rule 58. To facilitate appellate review, Rule 54 (d)(2)(C) requires the district court to set forth its findings and conclusions as provided in Rule 52(a).
The United States District Court for the District of Arizona has, by Local Rule 54.2, established detailed procedures for the recovery of attorneys' fees and non-taxable expenses. The local rule imposes a number of requirements on the fee claimant not contained in Rule 54 and has been structured to require the parties to first attempt to resolve the fee issue without court involvement.
Under the local rule, the fee claimant must file a motion for an award of attorneys' fees and non-taxable expenses along with a supporting memorandum of points and authorities within 14 days of the entry of judgment. The memorandum of points and authorities must discuss, among other matters, the statutory or contractual authority that supports the request for fees and related non-taxable expenses, the claims or defenses on which the party did or did not prevail, the applicable factors relevant to determining whether fees and related non-taxable expenses should be allowed with citation to relevant legal authority. The memorandum must also discuss the various factors bearing on the reasonableness of the requested fees including, for example, the time and labor required of counsel, the novelty and difficulty of the questions presented, the customary fee charged in matters of the type involved, and whether the fee contracted between the attorney and the client is fixed or contingent. Further, if the fee claimant requests fees for preparing the motion and memorandum, the claimant must also cite the applicable legal authority supporting that request.
Moving counsel must also submit with the memorandum a statement certifying that, after personal consultation and good faith efforts, the parties have been unable to satisfactorily resolve all disputed issues relating to the request for attorneys' fees. Counsel must provide detailed information regarding the consultation. Thus, the rule remains structured to require the parties to first attempt to resolve the fee requests without court involvement.
Local Rule 54.2 requires the filing of extensive supporting documentation in support of the fee request. The moving party must submit a task-based itemized statement of time expended and expenses incurred along with an affidavit of moving counsel setting forth counsel's background and experience, and the "case-related contributions" of each attorney for whom fees are claimed. The affidavit must justify the reasonableness of the rates charged as well as the time spent and expenses incurred. The rule requires the fee applicant to "demonstrate" that he or she "exercised 'billing judgment.'" The rule does not allow time entries to be aggregated. Thus, the itemized statement for legal services must reflect, in chronological order, the date on which the service was performed, the time devoted to each "individual unrelated task" performed on such date, a description of the service provided, and the identity of the attorney, paralegal or other person performing the service. The rule provides explanatory examples regarding how services should be described.
The rule also imposes certain requirements on a party opposing a fee request. The opposing party must, in a responsive memorandum, identify with specificity all disputed issues of material fact as well as "each and every disputed time entry or expense item."
The local rule bars discovery unless ordered by the court upon motion and good cause shown. Although the court, in its discretion or upon motion, may set an evidentiary hearing to resolve serious disputes involving material issues of fact, generally, the court will determine the appropriate award, if any, of fees and related non-taxable expenses without an evidentiary hearing.
Finally, the local rule establishes procedures to be followed when fees are requested under the equitable or common-fund doctrine or, in an action certified as a class action, under Rule 23.
ABC Supply, Inc. v. Edwards, 191 Ariz. 48, 952 P.2d 286 (App. 1996)........................................... 1-7, 12
Aries v. Palmer Johnson, Inc., 153 Ariz. 250, 735 P.2d 1373 (App. 1987)............................................. 1-18
Associated Indem. Corp. v. Warner, 143 Ariz. 567, 694 P.2d 1181 (1985)............................................. 1-19
Assyia v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 229 Ariz. 216, 273 P.3d 668 (App. 2012)......... 1-7, 8, 15, 18
Aztar v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 223 Ariz. 463, 224 P.3d 960 (App. 2010..................................................... 1-3
Balestrieri v. Balestrieri, 232 Ariz. 25, 300 P.3d 560 (App. 2013........................................................... 1-2, 3
Barth v. Cochise County, Arizona, 213 Ariz. 59, 138 P.3d 1186 (App. 2006.................................. 1-14, 15
Benitez v. Collazo, 571 F. Supp. 246 (D.C. 1983)...................................................................................... 1-10
Berry v. 352 E. Virginia LLC., 228 Ariz. 9, 261 P.3d 784 (App. 2011).............................................. 1-18
Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886 (1984)............................................................................................................ 1-17
Bogard v. Cannon & Wendt Electric Co., 221 Ariz. 325, 212 P.3d 17 (App.2009)................................. 1-8
Boltz & Odegaard v. Hohn, 148 Ariz. 361, 714 P.2d 854 (App. 1985)................................................. 1-21
Britt v. Steffen, 220 Ariz. 265, 205 P.3d 357 (App. 2008).......................................................................... 1-3
Budinich v. Becton Dickinson & Co., 486 U.S. 196 (1988)........................................................................... 1-4
Charles I. Friedman, P.C. v. Microsoft Corp. 213 Ariz. 344, 141 P.3d 824 (App. 2006)...... 1-6, 7, 13, 17
Chavarria v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Company, 165 Ariz. 334, 798 P.2d 1343 (App. 1990).......... 1-7
Church of Scientology v. United States Postal Serv., 700 F.2d 486 (9th Cir. 1983)................................... 1-21
City of Burlington v. Dague, 505 U.S. 557 (1992)........................................................................................... 1-6
City of Cottonwood v. Fann Contracting,...
