§ 6.4.6 CONFUSION WITH THE SUBSTANTIAL BENEFIT DOCTRINE

• Jurisdiction: Arizona

§ 6.4.6 Confusion with the Substantial Benefit Doctrine

Several Arizona decisions incorrectly equate the private attorney general doctrine with the substantial benefit doctrine, treating them as one and the same. See Arnold, 160 Ariz. at 609, 775 P.2d at 537; Kadish, 155 Ariz. at 497-98, 747 P.2d at 1196-97; Corley, 160 Ariz. at 612, 775 P.2d at 540. The common benefit and private attorney general doctrines are separate and distinct. First, they differ in purpose. The former seeks to prevent unjust enrichment, while the latter seeks to promote vindication of important public rights. Second, the private attorney general doctrine involves fee shifting, while the common fund doctrine involves fee-spreading. Third, under the private attorney general doctrine, the benefit resulting from plaintiff's litigation is conferred not on an ascertainable class, but on the general public.

Alyeska Pipeline Serv. Co. v. Wilderness Society, 421 U.S. 240 (1975)............................................ 6-2, 16, 17

Arizona Ctr. for Law in the Pub. Interest v. Hassell, 172 Ariz. 356, 837 P.2d 158 (App. 1991).. 6-16, 17

Arizona Dep't of Admin. v. Cox, 222 Ariz. 270, 213 P.3d 707 (App. 2009)........................................ 6-13

Arizona Dep't of Revenue v. Doughtery, 200 Ariz. 515, 29 P.3d 862 (2001).............................................. 6-9

Arnold v. Arizona Dep't of Health Services, 160 Ariz. 593, 775 P.2d 521 (1989).................... 6-15–20, 22

Boeing Co. v. Van Gemert, 444 U.S. 472 (1980)........................................................................................ 6-3, 9

Brytus v. Spang & Co., 203 F.3d 238 (3d Cir. 2000)................................................................................... 6-5

Burke v. Arizona State Retirement Sys., 2 CA-CV 2005-0062 (Ariz. Ct. of App., Div. 2, Feb. 14, 2006) (mem.) 6-7

Burke v. Arizona State Retirement Sys., 206 Ariz. 269, 77 P.3d 444 (App. 2003)....... 6-1–4, 6, 7, 10, 15

Carlson v. Arizona State Personnel Board, 214 Ariz. 426, 153 P.3d 1055 (App. 2007)........................ 6-21

Cave Creek Unified School District v. Ducey, 231 Ariz. 342, 295 P.3d 440 (App. 2013)...................... 6-18

Cave Creek Unified School District v. Ducey, 233 Ariz. 1, 308 P.3d 1152 (2013)................................... 6-18

Charles I. Friedman, P.C. v. Microsoft Corp., 213 Ariz. 344, 141 P.3d 824 (App. 2006) 6-2, 4, 7, 9, 11, 12, 15

Chavarria v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co., 165 Ariz. 334, 798 P.2d 1343 (App. 1990)............. 6-20

City of Burlington v. Dague, 505 U.S. 557 (1992).................................................................................. 6-11, 21

Corley v. Arizona Bd. of Pardons & Paroles, 160 Ariz. 611, 775 P.2d 539 (App. 1989)...