Petrovich v. Branciforte
1 CA-CV 16-0036
| Ariz. Ct. App. | Jan 12, 2017Background
- Petrovich was rear-ended by Branciforte; the case went to compulsory arbitration which awarded Petrovich $12,303.50 (damages, costs, fees).
- Branciforte appealed the arbitration award under Ariz. R. Civ. P. 77; after trial a jury awarded Petrovich $6,845.72 in damages and $3,854.58 in costs (total $10,700.30).
- Because the post-appeal judgment was not at least 23% more favorable than the arbitration award, Rule 77 entitled Petrovich to reasonable attorney and expert fees for the appeal.
- Petrovich sought $35,315 for 100.9 hours at $350/hr (Wolf affidavit + two supporting PI lawyer affidavits asserting $350 as minimum).
- The superior court found hours reasonable but reduced the hourly rate to $200 (reasoning: $350 reasonable for Wolf’s experience but not what a reasonable client would pay for a small PI case), awarding fees based on $200/hr (total $20,180) instead of the requested amount.
- Petrovich appealed the fee reduction; the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the trial court did not abuse its discretion in reducing the fee given the amount in controversy, case nature, and the court’s firsthand trial experience.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the superior court erred by reducing Wolf’s hourly rate from $350 to $200 when plaintiff submitted affidavits supporting $350 | Petrovich: $350/hr is reasonable and supported by affidavits; no contrary evidence was submitted | Branciforte: $350 is excessive for this small case; court may consider case size and complexity | Court: Affirmed reduction — trial court may consider case nature, amount in controversy, and its own trial experience in setting a reasonable rate; no abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Corbin v. Tocco, 173 Ariz. 587 (App. 1992) (fee-reasonableness review is for abuse of discretion)
- Orfaly v. Tucson Symphony Soc'y, 209 Ariz. 260 (App. 2004) (appellate deference to trial court on fee determinations)
- Moedt v. General Motors Corp., 204 Ariz. 100 (App. 2002) (court may consider case complexity and novelty in awarding fees)
- Assoc. Indem. Corp. v. Warner, 143 Ariz. 567 (1985) (standard for appellate review of discretionary rulings)
- Davis v. Davis, 78 Ariz. 174 (1954) (quoted standard on review of judicial discretion)
- Granville v. Howard, 236 Ariz. 29 (App. 2014) (non-exclusive factors for Rule 77 fee awards, including amount in controversy and fees owed to counsel)