Offen Petroleum LLC v. L&J Express LLC, et al.

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: January 9, 2026
• Docket: 4:25-cv-00061
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Offen Petroleum LLC, No. CV-25-00061-TUC-JCH (EJM)

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 L&J Express LLC, et al.,

13 Defendants. 14 15 Before the Court is Defendant AJMR Distributors, LLC’s (“AJMR”) Motion for 16 Fees and Costs (the “Motion”) (Doc. 121). Plaintiff Offen Petroleum LLC (“Offen”) 17 opposes the Motion. (See Doc. 122.) For the following reasons, the Court will deny 18 AJMR’s Motion (Doc. 121). 19 I. Procedural History 20 On July 17, 2025, Offen filed an Application for Writ of Attachment with Notice 21 related to fuel owned by AJMR (the “Application”). (Doc. 99.) AJMR filed its Response 22 (Doc. 102), Offen filed its Reply (Doc. 103), and Magistrate Judge Eric Markovich held a 23 hearing on the Application (see Doc. 106). On October 24, 2025, Judge Markovich issued 24 his Report and Recommendation (“R&R), recommending this Court deny Offen’s 25 Application. (Doc. 116.) Neither party objected to the R&R, and this Court adopted the 26 R&R in full on November 13, 2025. (Doc. 120.) 27 On November 25, 2025, AJMR filed the Motion requesting the Court award “its 28 reasonable attorney fees and costs” for opposing Offen’s Application “in the amount of 1 $28,078.40, plus statutory interest as permitted by law.” (Doc. 121.) AJMR argues, as the 2 successful party to the Application, it is entitled to fees and costs under A.R.S. 3 § 12-1523(E), which states, “[i]f judgment [in an application for writ of attachment] is for 4 the defendant, the court shall fix and include in the judgment a reasonable attorney’s fees.” 5 Alternatively, AJMR argues it is entitled to fees under A.R.S. § 12-2411, which provides, 6 “[i]f a hearing is held . . . and . . . no provisional remedy is ordered issued the court may 7 award reasonable attorney’s fees to the party against whom the provisional remedy . . . was 8 sought to be issued.” 9 In Response, Offen argues AJMR has no statutory entitlement to fees under either 10 A.R.S. §§ 12-2411 or -1523. (Doc. 122 at 3–4.) Offen also argues that the R&R impliedly 11 denied AJMR’s request for fees already and that AJMR’s request for fees is premature and 12 procedurally improper. (Id. at 4–5.) 13 II. Applicable Law 14 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 54(d)(2) permits a party to claim 15 attorney’s fees and costs by motion. The motion must be filed within 14 days of entry of 16 judgment, specify the judgment and grounds entitling the movant to the award, state the 17 amount sought, and disclose the terms of any agreement about fees or services. Id. Rule 18 54(a) defines “judgment” as including “a decree and any order from which an appeal lies.” 19 Generally, “[a] district court must have discretion to award fees and costs incident 20 to the final disposition of interim matters.” See Bradley v. Sch. Bd. of City of Richmond, 21 416 U.S. 696, 723 (1974). Nonetheless, the Court only found federal caselaw permitting 22 the award of interim attorney fees authorized by statute. See, e.g., Mantolete v. Bolger, 791 23 F.2d 784, 786–88 (9th Cir. 1986) (citing Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433 (1983)) 24 (permitting interim fee award in civil rights cases); Powell v. U.S. Dep't of Just., 569 F. 25 Supp. 1192, 1194 (N.D. Cal. 1983) (same in Freedom of Information Act cases). These 26 cases permitted interim awards where a court’s order constituted a determination of 27 “substantial rights of the parties” and “an important matter in the course of litigation.” 28 Hanrahan v. Hampton, 446 U.S. 754, 757 (1980). Put differently, the party requesting 1 || interim fees needed to “succeed on [a] significant issue in litigation which achieves some 2|| of the benefit the parties sought in bringing suit.” Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433 || (1983). These courts also require the party requesting interim fees demonstrate that, || without an interim fee award, they would experience a hardship by proceeding in litigation. 5 || See Mantolete v. Bolger, 791 F.2d 784, 786-88 (9th Cir. 1986); Powell v. U.S. Dep’t of Just., 569 F. Supp. 1192, 1199 (N.D. Cal. 1983). 7\| I. Analysis 8 AJMR requests interim fees under A.R.S. § 12-1523(E) or § 12-2411. However, || AJMR has not cited to any case where a court awarded interim attorney fees under either || statute. Nor has AJMR demonstrated that this Court’s Order (Doc. 120) determined “a significant issue in litigation” or that AJMR would experience a hardship by proceeding in litigation without the fee award. Hensley, 461 U.S. at 433; Mantolete, 791 F.2d at 786-88. 13 || Accordingly, the Court, in its discretion, will deny AJMR’s Motion without prejudice to AJMR refiling a renewed motion following a final judgment, if appropriate. See Yauck v. W. Town Bank & Tr., 568 P.3d 386 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2025) (court denied writ of attachment and prevailing party’s interim request for fees under § 12-2411, without prejudice to || party’s ability to refile request at the “conclusion of the proceedings on the merits”). 18] IV. Order 19 IT IS ORDERED denying without prejudice Defendant AJMR Distributors, 20 || LLC’s (““AJMR”) Motion for Fees and Costs (Doc. 121). 21 Dated this 9th day of January, 2026. 22 23 / Al 4 . | HK Aa— 5 / / John C. Hinderaker _/United States District Judge 26 27 28

-3-