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

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Offen Petroleum LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
L&J Express LLC, et al.,
Defendants.
No. CV-25-00061-TUC-JCH (EJM)
ORDER
Before the Court is Defendant AJMR Distributors, LLC’s (“AJMR”) Motion for
Fees and Costs (the “Motion”) (Doc. 121). Plaintiff Offen Petroleum LLC (“Offen”)
opposes the Motion. (See Doc. 122.) For the following reasons, the Court will deny
AJMR’s Motion (Doc. 121).
I. 	Procedural History
On July 17, 2025, Offen filed an Application for Writ of Attachment with Notice
related to fuel owned by AJMR (the “Application”). (Doc. 99.) AJMR filed its Response
(Doc. 102), Offen filed its Reply (Doc. 103), and Magistrate Judge Eric Markovich held a
hearing on the Application (see Doc. 106). On October 24, 2025, Judge Markovich issued
his 	Report 	and 	Recommendation 	(“R&R), 	recommending 	this 	Court 	deny 	Offen’s
Application. (Doc. 116.) Neither party objected to the R&R, and this Court adopted the
R&R in full on November 13, 2025. (Doc. 120.)
On November 25, 2025, AJMR filed the Motion requesting the Court award “its
reasonable attorney fees and costs” for opposing Offen’s Application “in the amount of
Case 4:25-cv-00061-JCH Document 125 Filed 01/09/26 Page 1 of 3

- 2 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
$28,078.40, plus statutory interest as permitted by law.” (Doc. 121.) AJMR argues, as the
successful 	party 	to 	the 	Application, 	it 	is 	entitled 	to 	fees 	and 	costs 	under 	A.R.S.
§ 12-1523(E), which states, “[i]f judgment [in an application for writ of attachment] is for
the defendant, the court shall fix and include in the judgment a reasonable attorney’s fees.”
Alternatively, AJMR argues it is entitled to fees under A.R.S. § 12-2411, which provides,
“[i]f a hearing is held . . . and . . . no provisional remedy is ordered issued the court may
award reasonable attorney’s fees to the party against whom the provisional remedy . . . was
sought to be issued.”
In Response, Offen argues AJMR has no statutory entitlement to fees under either
A.R.S. §§ 12-2411 or -1523. (Doc. 122 at 3–4.) Offen also argues that the R&R impliedly
denied AJMR’s request for fees already and that AJMR’s request for fees is premature and
procedurally improper. (Id. at 4–5.)
II. 	Applicable Law
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 54(d)(2) permits a party to claim
attorney’s fees and costs by motion. The motion must be filed within 14 days of entry of
judgment, specify the judgment and grounds entitling the movant to the award, state the
amount sought, and disclose the terms of any agreement about fees or services. Id. Rule
54(a) defines “judgment” as including “a decree and any order from which an appeal lies.”
Generally, “[a] district court must have discretion to award fees and costs incident
to the final disposition of interim matters.” See Bradley v. Sch. Bd. of City of Richmond,
416 U.S. 696, 723 (1974). Nonetheless, the Court only found federal caselaw permitting
the award of interim attorney fees authorized by statute. See, e.g., Mantolete v. Bolger, 791
F.2d 784, 786–88 (9th Cir. 1986) (citing Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433 (1983))
(permitting interim fee award in civil rights cases); Powell v. U.S. Dep't of Just., 569 F.
Supp. 1192, 1194 (N.D. Cal. 1983) (same in Freedom of Information Act cases). These
cases permitted interim awards where a court’s order constituted a determination of
“substantial rights of the parties” and “an important matter in the course of litigation.”
Hanrahan v. Hampton, 446 U.S. 754, 757 (1980). Put differently, the party requesting
Case 4:25-cv-00061-JCH Document 125 Filed 01/09/26 Page 2 of 3

- 3 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
interim fees needed to “succeed on [a] significant issue in litigation which achieves some
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.
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).
III. 	Analysis
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.
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”).
IV. Order
IT IS ORDERED denying without prejudice Defendant AJMR Distributors,
LLC’s (“AJMR”) Motion for Fees and Costs (Doc. 121).
Dated this 9th day of January, 2026.
Case 4:25-cv-00061-JCH Document 125 Filed 01/09/26 Page 3 of 3