§ 1.3.2 PROCEDURE UNDER RULES 54 AND 58 - BEFORE JANUARY 1, 2017

• Jurisdiction: Arizona

Rule 54(g)(1) specified that a claim for attorneys' fees had to be made in the pleadings. See also King v. Titsworth, 221 Ariz. 597, 598, ¶ 9, 212 P.3d 935, 936 (App. 2009) (claim for attorneys' fees in motion filed after decision was not made in a "pleading" as required under Rule 54(g)(1)). Thus, the attorneys' fee claim had to be made in a complaint, an answer, a reply to a counterclaim, an answer to a cross-claim, a third-party complaint, a third-party answer, and a reply. See Rule 7(a). Rule 54(g)(1) did not require a party to specify the statute, rule or other grounds for the attorneys' fees claim.

In Balestrieri v. Balestrieri, 232 Ariz. 25, 300 P.3d 560 (App. 2013), the court refused to strictly construe the requirements of Rule 54(g)(1) when the prevailing party had requested fees in a successful Rule 12(b)(2) motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The court explained that when such a motion is filed in lieu of an answer, it would make little sense to construe Rule 54(g)(1) as barring an otherwise valid fee request simply because the defendant prevailed sooner by responding to the complaint with a Rule 12(b) motion rather than later by filing an answer and then moving to dismiss or otherwise litigating the case to conclusion. Balestrieri, 232 Ariz. at 27, ¶ 6, 300 P.3d at 562. Accordingly, the court construed Rule 54(g)(1) as allowing the superior court to grant a fee request made in a Rule 12(b) motion filed in lieu of a responsive pleading. Id. at 27, ¶ 8, 300 P.3d at 562.

Rule 54(g)(2) required the court to determine the attorneys' fees claim...