§ 5.7 CONSTITUTIONAL AND OTHER LIMITATIONS ON PUNITIVE FEES

• Jurisdiction: Arizona

§ 5.7 Constitutional and Other Limitations on Punitive Fees

The extent to which separation-of-powers concerns may constrain the use of court rules as a basis for compensatory fee-shifting is discussed in § 5.5.5, supra.

A party or attorney against whom bad faith fees are requested is entitled to a hearing before fees are awarded. Roadway Express, Inc. v. Piper, 447 U.S. 752, 767 (1980). Due process requires that a litigant be given notice, a hearing, and a reasonable time to prepare a defense before bad faith fees may be awarded. Pennwalt Corp. v. Durand-Wayland, Inc., 708 F.2d 492, 495 (9th Cir. 1983). See also 1 Derfner & Wolf, Court Awarded Attorney Fees § 4.06[2] n.9 (1986). These due process requirements should be applicable in any proceeding whereby a litigant or attorney may be required to pay an opponent's fees. See, e.g., Advisory Committee Notes to the 1983 amendments to Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a) and 26(g). The due-process protections that are due will vary with the severity of the potential sanction. Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc. v. Superior Court, 176 Ariz. 619, 622, 863 P.2d 911, 914 (App. 1993) (reversing order striking defendant's answer pursuant to Rule 26.1 where trial court had not made findings and conclusions).

Alyeska Pipeline Serv. Co. v. Wilderness Soc'y, 421 U.S. 240 (1975)............................................................... 5-2

Auman v. Auman, 134 Ariz. 40, 653 P.2d 688 (1982)............................................................................... 5-6

Bennett v. Baxter Group, Inc., 223 Ariz. 414, 224 P.3d 230 (App. 2010)................................................ 5-9

Boone v. Superior Court, 145 Ariz. 235, 700 P.2d 1335 (1985)................................................................... 5-15

Britt v. Steffen, 220 Ariz. 265, 205 P.3d 357 (App. 2008)................................................................. 5-14, 17

Bryant v. Bloch Companies, 166 Ariz. 46, 800 P.2d 33 (App. 1990).......................................................... 5-4

Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32 (1991).............................................................................................. 5-2

Chavarria v. State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co, 165 Ariz. 334, 798 P2 1343 (App. 1990)................. 5-7

City of Casa Grande v. Arizona Water Company, 199 Ariz. 547, 20 P.3d 590 (App. 2001)...... 5-5–8, 10

City of Prescott v. Town of Chino Valley, 163 Ariz. 608, 790 P.2d 263 (App. 1989), aff'd in part, vacated in part, 166 Ariz. 480, 803 P.2d 891 (1990).......................................................................................................................... 5-10

Copeland v. Martinez, 603 F.2d 981 (D.C. Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1044 (1980)....................... 5-1

Democratic Party of Pima County v. Ford, 228 Ariz. 545, 269 P.3d 721 (App. 2012)................................ 5-4

Department of Revenue v. Arthur, 153 Ariz. 1, 734 P.2d 98 (App. 1986)................................................. 5-7

Donlann v. Macgurn, 203 Ariz. 380, 55 P.3d 74 (App. 2002).................................................................... 5-9

F.D. Rich Co. v. United States for Use of Industrial Lumber Co., 417 U.S. 116 (1974)................................ 5-1

Field v. Gates, 184 F.R.D. 342 (C.D. Cal. 1999)......................................................................................... 5-16

Fisher v. Nat'l Gen. Ins. Co. 192 Ariz. 366, 965 P.2d 100 (App. 1998)................................................... 5-10

Hall v. Cole, 412 U.S. 1 (1973).......................................................................................................................... 5-1

Hamm v. Y & M Enterprises, Inc., 157 Ariz. 336, 757 P.2d 612 (App. 1988).......................................... 5-5

Harris v. Reserve Life Ins. Co., 158 Ariz. 380, 762 P.2d 1334 (App. 1988)........................................... 5-6–8

...