Pure Wafer Incorporated v. Prescott, City of
3:13-cv-08236
D. Ariz.Jul 31, 2017Background
- Pure Wafer sued the City of Prescott; after a bench trial the district court found a Contract Clause violation and entered a permanent injunction and judgment for Pure Wafer.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, and held that judgment for Pure Wafer could be sustained on the alternative ground that the City breached the Development Agreement; it remanded for remedy.
- Pure Wafer sought attorneys’ fees and related costs pursuant to the Development Agreement; it initially filed the fees motion in the Ninth Circuit, which remanded the motion to the district court.
- The Development Agreement entitles the prevailing party to “reasonable attorneys’ fees and all reasonable costs, expenses, and disbursements in connection with such action.”
- The Ninth Circuit directed that "each party shall bear its own costs on appeal," which the district court treated as binding on the award of appeal-related costs.
- The district court reduced Pure Wafer’s requested $96,102.37 by disallowing costs and trimming fees for certain appeal-related time entries, awarding $69,535.62 in attorneys’ fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Pure Wafer is the prevailing party | Pure Wafer argued it prevailed because the Ninth Circuit sustained judgment for it on breach of contract | City argued Pure Wafer is not prevailing because the Contract Clause claim was rejected and matter remanded | Court: Pure Wafer is prevailing because Ninth Circuit sustained judgment on breach of contract for Pure Wafer |
| Whether Pure Wafer may recover costs/expenses on appeal | Pure Wafer sought "all reasonable costs, expenses, and disbursements" under the Development Agreement | City relied on Ninth Circuit’s statement that each party shall bear its own costs on appeal | Court: Bound by Ninth Circuit; disallowed $8,554.25 in costs/expenses |
| Whether fees for work before the district court are recoverable on appeal | Pure Wafer contended the Development Agreement entitles recovery for fees related to the action generally | City argued only fees related to the Ninth Circuit appeal are recoverable in this proceeding | Court: Fees for district-court work ($9,997.50) are not recoverable for this appeal-related motion |
| Whether fees for a voluntarily dismissed separate appeal are recoverable | Pure Wafer sought fees for a separate appeal arising from the same action | City argued voluntarily dismissed appeal produced no prevailing party so fees are not recoverable | Court: Disallowed fees tied to the voluntarily dismissed appeal (duplicative of district-court work) |
| Whether time spent updating case law, mediation prep, or Contract Clause work is reasonable | Pure Wafer justified case‑law updates, mediation prep, and Contract Clause work as necessary appellate work | City argued excessive hours updating law, mediation prep was unnecessary due to withdrawal, and Contract Clause work was for unsuccessful claims | Court: Allowed mediation prep fees; reduced $8,015 for excessive updating after brief; refused to reduce fees for Contract Clause work because Pure Wafer prevailed overall |
Key Cases Cited
- Pure Wafer Inc. v. City of Prescott, 845 F.3d 943 (9th Cir. 2017) (appellate disposition sustaining judgment on breach-of-contract ground and directing remand for remedy)
- Cabrales v. County of Los Angeles, 875 F.2d 740 (9th Cir. 1989) (reducing fees for duplicative research)