Democratic Party of Pima County v. Beth Ford Pima County Board of Supervisors
269 P.3d 721
Ariz. Ct. App.2012Background
- Democratic Party of Pima County requested poll tapes and yellow sheets from a May 2006 bond election in Oct 2008.
- Treasurer indicated poll tapes location unknown; opening ballot boxes required a court order under A.R.S. § 16-624; yellow sheets were in ballot boxes.
- In Dec 2008, Democratic Party filed a special action under § 39-121.02 to obtain records and remove items from ballot boxes.
- Feb 2009, Treasurer and Board agreed to release poll tapes; dispute centered on procedures to open ballot boxes.
- May 2010, records were finally provided; Democratic Party sought attorney fees and costs, which the trial court denied in Aug 2010.
- Final judgment entered Feb 16, 2011; Democratic Party appealed the denial of fees and costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Party substantially prevailed | Democratic Party substantially prevailed by obtaining records. | Neither party substantially prevailed due to mixed outcomes. | The court held no substantial prevailing party; discretion governs awards. |
| Whether § 39-121.02(B) awards are mandatory or discretionary | If substantially prevailed, fees must be awarded. | Fees are discretionary; not mandatory even if prevailed. | Statute grants broad discretion; not mandatory to award fees even after substantial prevail. |
| Whether costs are recoverable under § 12-341 or § 39-121.02(B) | Costs should be recoverable as attorney fees and costs from the special action. | Costs should align with specific statute; § 39-121.02(B) controls, not § 12-341. | Costs denied under § 12-341; § 39-121.02(B) controls; no mandatory costs award. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brooke v. Moore, 60 Ariz. 551 (1943) (may construed as mandatory depending on statutory context)
- City of Chandler v. Ariz. Dep’t of Transp., 216 Ariz. 435 (App. 2007) (distinguishes permissive vs. mandatory in fee awards)
- Frye v. S. Phx. Volunteer Fire Co., 71 Ariz. 163 (1950) (plain meaning governs permissive/mandatory in statute)
- Winterbottom v. Ronan, 227 Ariz. 364 (App. 2011) (statutory interpretation with context and purpose when ambiguous)
- Pima Cnty. v. Maya Constr. Co., 158 Ariz. 151 (1988) (interpret related statutes together for proper effect)
- Associated Indem. Corp. v. Warner, 143 Ariz. 567 (1985) (factors for court to consider in awarding attorney fees)
- Primary Consultants, L.L.C. v. Maricopa Cnty. Recorder, 210 Ariz. 393 (App. 2005) (specific vs general statute governs fee recovery)
- Sanborn v. Brooker & Wake Prop. Mgmt., Inc., 178 Ariz. 425 (App. 1994) (reasonableness of prevailing party determination in fees)
- Roller Vill., Inc. v. Superior Court, 154 Ariz. 195 (App. 1987) (statutory expression indicates scope of specific vs general costs)