§ 1.8 RESPONDING TO A FEE REQUEST

• Jurisdiction: Arizona

The fee opponent should initially determine whether a statutory, contractual, or other basis for a fee award exists. This issue may also involve a consideration of choice of law issues. See generallyAries v. Palmer Johnson, Inc., 153 Ariz. 250, 735 P.2d 1373 (App. 1987) (A.R.S. § 12-341.01 applies when Arizona is the state with the most significant contacts).

After determining whether fees can be awarded, the fee opponent should assess the work performed and time spent by the fee claimant. The fee opponent should also evaluate apportionment and procedural and evidentiary requirements. See generallyMoore v. Jas. H. Matthews & Co., 682 F.2d 830, 838 (9th Cir. 1982); Taylor v. Security Nat'l Bank, 20 Ariz. App. 504, 514 P.2d 257 (1973); see also Hart v. Seven Resorts, Inc., 190 Ariz. 272, 947 P.2d 846 (App. 1997) (denial of request for fees subject to reversal if trial court based ruling on unsupported factual claims).

Just as the fee applicant should exercise "billing judgment," a fee opponent should exercise judgment in assessing which fees are unreasonable, and should object only to those fees that are unreasonable or unjustified. Indeed, after the fee claimant establishes entitlement to fees and meets the minimum requirements in applying for a fee award, the burden shifts to the party opposing a fee award to demonstrate the impropriety or unreasonableness of the requested fees. Assyia v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 229 Ariz. 216, 223, ¶ 29, 273 P.3d 668, 675 (App. 2012). Objections must be specific and demonstrate why the time spent or work performed was unnecessary or unreasonable. General allegations of "too much time" or "the work was not necessary" are insufficient as a matter of law. Id. at 223, ¶ 30, 273 P.3d at 675; Rudinsky v. Harris, 231 Ariz. 95, 102, ¶ 33, 290 P.3d 1218, 1225 (App. 2012) (same); Nolan v. Starlight Pines Homeowners Ass'n,216 Ariz. 482, 490-91, ¶ 38, 167 P.3d 1277, 1285-86 (App. 2007); Ponderosa Plaza v. Siplast, 181 Ariz. 128, 133, 888 P.2d 1315, 1320 (App. 1993); State ex relCorbin v.Tocco, 173 Ariz. 587, 594, 845 P.2d 513, 520 (App. 1992) ("not enough for an opposing party simply to state . . . that the hours claimed are excessive and the rates submitted too high'"). The fee opponent should recognize, as has one Arizona court, that

time billed for a service . . . involves not simply writing words on a piece of paper. It involves, as well, thinking about the case and how what is sought relates to an appropriate theory...