Arizona Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Horne failed in his lawsuit to challenge the 50-50 Dual Language Immersion model approved by the State Board of Education, and now he is responsible for $117,540.50 in the opposing parties' legal fees.
Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Katherine Cooper issued that decision today, after dismissing the case in March for being wholly without merit. "For all of these reasons – the lack of express statutory authority, implied authority, standing, and legal precedent – Superintendent Horne cannot bring this lawsuit against these Defendant Parties."
Horne brought the suit against the Creighton School District, several other districts, Governor Katie Hobbs and Attorney General Kris Mayes. When one governmental official (etc) sues another and loses, he is automatically responsible for the other sides' legal fees.
Judge Cooper awarded the fees as requested by the Governor and AG, $37,877.50 and $38,360, respectively. However, she cut the request by the 10 school districts in half (approximately), because she was unable to reconcile how the law firm (Gust Rosenfeld) had tried to divvy up the fees and it ended up being substantially more than the Governor and AG (for the same tasks).
Horne was represented by John and Dennis Wilenchik.
*The judge awarded the amounts pursuant to A.R.S. §12-348.01. It requires the judge to "award reasonable attorney fees to the successful party". The common definition of "sanction" applies. Plus, in this case, the judge found the lawsuit to be so improperly brought that it makes the term more appropriate than in cases where it is a close decision.
This article was reported by AZ Law founder Paul Weich.
"AZ Law" includes articles, commentaries and updates about opinions from the Arizona Supreme Court, U.S. Supreme Court, as well as trial and appellate courts, etc. AZ Law is founded by Phoenix attorney Paul Weich, and joins Arizona's Politics on the internet.
The characterization of the fees award as a "sanction" is objectively incorrect. The judge found that the complaint failed to state a claim, but I don't see any finding that it was frivolous or brought in bad faith, which are generally preconditions to the imposition of a sanction. Seems like you are re-defining any statutory fee-shifting in favor of a prevailing party (including, e.g., 42 U.S.C. 1988 or A.R.S. 12-341.01) as a "sanction," which is, at best, a highly misleading use of the term. More to the point, I'm curious to see whether you apply this new concept of "sanction" consistently when, say, a leftist politician is on the receiving end. Not holding my breath.
ReplyDelete