Fisher v. Edgerton
236 Ariz. 71
| Ariz. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- After compulsory arbitration, Fisher was 100% at fault and the plaintiff was awarded damages and costs.
- Fisher appealed to trial de novo; Edgerton remained a co-defendant and was adjudicated liable at trial.
- The trial de novo jury found Fisher entirely at fault; plaintiff’s damages were $20,000; Edgerton sought fees and costs under Rule 77(f).
- Superior court awarded Edgerton approximately $16,000 (attorneys’ fees, expert fees, costs).
- Fisher argued Rule 77(f) does not apply against her because she improved less than 23% on the appeal and raised constitutional challenges.
- The court affirmed the award, holding Rule 77(f) allows fee shifting against an appealing defendant who unsuccessfully shifts fault to a co-defendant, and upheld the constitutional justifications.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 77(f) permits fees against the appealing defendant when co-defendants are involved | Fisher says 23% rule bars fees; cannot shift to Edgerton. | Edgerton should recover fees since Fisher sought to shift fault to Edgerton and did not improve by 23%. | Rule 77(f) allows fees and costs against the appealing defendant when fault shifting to a co-defendant is unsuccessfully pursued. |
| Constitutional challenges to Rule 77(f) due process and equal protection | Rule 77(f) violates due process by depriving fair notice and chills the right to trial. | Rule 77(f) is rationally related to reducing frivolous appeals and does not violate equal protection. | Rule 77(f) satisfies due process and equal protection under rational-basis review. |
| Whether the right to jury trial is unduly burdened by potential Rule 77(f) fees on appeal | Fee shifting chills the right to a jury trial for low-dollar claims. | Regulation is permissible and not a substantial burden on the jury-trial right. | Fees under Rule 77(f) do not significantly burden the right to a jury trial; safeguards exist; rational basis supports the rule. |
| Whether Edgerton may recover fees on appeal | Edgerton should not recover appellate fees because Granville/Jarostchuk limit such awards. | Edgerton is prevailing party on appeal and may recover costs; Granville/Jarostchuk do not authorize appellate-fee recovery here. | Edgerton may not recover fees on appeal, but is entitled to costs as prevailing party on appeal. |
| Whether 'other relief' in Rule 77(f) includes allocation of fault among multiple defendants | Only monetary relief in arbitration can trigger the Rule 77(f) calculation. | Other relief includes comparative fault allocations among co-defendants. | ‘Other relief’ includes fault-allocation determinations; rule triggers fees when the appellant does not achieve at least 23% more favorable result overall. |
Key Cases Cited
- Poulson v. Ofack, 220 Ariz. 294, 205 P.3d 1141 (App. 2009) (limits and purposes of Rule 77(f) fee awards; deter marginal appeals)
- Richardson v. Sport Shinko (Waikiki Corp.), 880 P.2d 169 (Haw. 1994) (equal protection and arbitration-like fee provisions upheld; rational basis)
- Kimbrough v. Holiday Inn, 478 F. Supp. 566 (E.D. Pa. 1979) (addressed arbitration and jury-trial considerations; rational basis framework)
- Firelock Inc. v. Dist. Ct., 776 P.2d 1090 (Colo. 1989) (arbitration and trial de novo fee considerations under state law)
- Granville v. Howard, 236 Ariz. 29, 335 P.3d 551 (Ariz. App. 2014) (factors for reasonable fee determinations under Rule 77(f))
- Jarostchuk v. Aricol Communications, Inc., 189 Ariz. 346, 942 P.2d 1178 (App. 1997) (appellate fee provisions and joinder considerations)
- Valler v. Lee, 190 Ariz. 391, 949 P.2d 51 (App. 1997) (co-defendant liability and trial-de novo framework)
- Richardson v. Sport Shinko, 880 P.2d 169 (Haw. 1994) (see above (reiterated as key authority on equal protection and arbitration))
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408 (2003) (punitive damages comparison; relevance to due process standards discussed)