Ziglar v. Scheaffer ( 2020 )

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Christerphor Ziglar, No. CV-18-04896-PHX-DLR 10 Plaintiff, ORDER 11 v. 12 PARC Dispensary, 13 Defendant. 14 15 16 At the termination of a case brought pursuant to Title VII, an award of attorneys’ 17 fees to the defendant “should be permitted not routinely, not simply because [the 18 defendant] succeeds, but only where the action brought is found to be unreasonable, 19 frivolous, meritless1 or vexatious.” Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC, 434 U.S. 412, 20 421 (1978) (citation and internal quotations omitted). Defendant moves for an award of 21 attorneys’ fees, arguing that a fee award is appropriate because the Court dismissed 22 Plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice after Plaintiff’s repeated failure to abide by the Federal 23 Rules of Civil Procedure, cure his complaint’s deficiencies, and state a claim upon which 24 relief could be granted. (Doc. 60 at 5-6.) The Court has considered the briefs (Docs. 60, 25 61, 65) and concludes no exceptional circumstance justifying an award of attorneys’ fees 26 to Defendant is present here. 27 The Court cannot conclude that Plaintiff’s claim was unreasonable, frivolous, 28 1 Meritless, in this context, is defined as “groundless or without foundation, rather than simply that the plaintiff has ultimately lost his case.” Christiansburg, 434 U.S. at 421. || meritless, or vexatious. Plaintiff's failure, proceeding pro se, to comply with the Federal 2|| Rules of Civil Procedure is not in-and-of-itself evidence that his claims were frivolous. Further, contrary to Defendant’s contention, Plaintiff's decision to file an amended 4|| complaint rather than “allow[] this case to terminate,” after the Court dismissed □□□□□□□□□□ || complaint without prejudice and permitted Plaintiff to amend, does not render Plaintiffs || subsequent filings vexatious. Finally, Plaintiff’s later filings, primarily his single motion 7\|| for sanctions and motion for default judgment following ineffective service, are not so 8 || harassing or inappropriate as to justify an award of fees to Defendant. Accordingly, 9 IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s motion for attorneys’ fees (Doc. 60) is DENIED. 11 Dated this Ist day of May, 2020. 12 13 14 {Z, 15 _- Ch 16 United States Dicrict Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -2-