From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Donahoe v. Arpaio

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Aug 7, 2012
CV 10-02758-PHX-NVW (D. Ariz. Aug. 7, 2012)

Opinion

No. CV 10-02756-PHX-NVW CV 10-02758-PHX-NVW CV 11-00116-PHX-NVW CV 11-00473-PHX-NVW CV 11-00902-PHX-NVW

08-07-2012

Gary Donahoe and Cherie Donahoe, husband and wife, Plaintiffs, v. Sheriff Joseph Arpaio and Ava Arpaio, husband and wife; Andrew Thomas and Anne Thomas, husband and wife; Lisa Aubuchon and Peter R. Pestalozzi, wife and husband; Deputy Chief David Hendershott and Anna Hendershott, husband and wife; Peter Spaw and Jane Doe Spaw, husband and wife; Maricopa County, a municipal entity; Jon Does I-X; Jane Does I-X; Black Corporations I-V; and White Partnerships I-V, Defendants. Sandra Wilson and Paul Wilson, husband and wife, Plaintiffs, v. Sheriff Joseph Arpaio and Ava Arpaio, husband and wife; et al., Defendants. Conley D. Wolfswinkel, a single man; Brandon D. Wolswinkel, a single man; Ashton A. Wolfswinkel, a single man; Vanderbilt Farms, LLC, an Arizona limited liability company; ABCDW, LLC, an Arizona limited liability company; Stone Canyon, LLC, an Arizona limited liability company; Vistoso Partners, LLC, an Arizona limited liability company; and W Harquahala, LLC, an Arizona limited liability company; Plaintiffs, v. Sheriff Joseph Arpaio and Ava Arpaio, husband and wife; et al., Defendants. Mary Rose Wilcox and Earl Wilcox, wife and husband, Plaintiffs, v. Sheriff Joseph Arpaio and Ava Arpaio, husband and wife; et al., Defendants. Donald T. Stapley, Jr. and Kathleen Stapley, husband and wife, Plaintiffs, v. Sheriff Joseph Arpaio and Ava Arpaio, husband and wife; et al., Defendants.


ORDER


Applicable to CV 11-00473-PHX-NVW

Before the Court is Plaintiff's Wilcox's Motion for Award of Attorneys' Fees and Expenses (Doc. 535). The time to file a response has expired, and no response has been filed. LRCiv. 7.2(c). Failure to file a timely response "may be deemed a consent to the . . . . granting of the motion and the Court may dispose of the motion summarily." LRCiv 7.2(i). The Court has considered the Motion and grants it on its merits. The motion of County Treasurer Hoskins was in further breach of Maricopa County's settlement agreement with Plaintiff Wilcox. The additional attorney fees and expenses incurred in successfully defeating the motion will be awarded against Maricopa County and in favor of Plaintiff Wilcox for the same reasons as the previous award. (Doc. 461 at 18.)

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff's Wilcox's Motion for Award of Attorneys' Fees and Expenses (Doc. 535) is granted in the amount of $9,935.83.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk enter a further judgment in favor of Plaintiffs Mary Rose Wilcox and Earl Wilcox against Maricopa County in the amount of $9,935.83, with interest thereon at the federal rate of .21% per annum from the date of judgment until paid.

__________________

Neil V. Wake

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Donahoe v. Arpaio

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Aug 7, 2012
CV 10-02758-PHX-NVW (D. Ariz. Aug. 7, 2012)
Case details for

Donahoe v. Arpaio

Case Details

Full title:Gary Donahoe and Cherie Donahoe, husband and wife, Plaintiffs, v. Sheriff…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Date published: Aug 7, 2012

Citations

CV 10-02758-PHX-NVW (D. Ariz. Aug. 7, 2012)