United States Ninth Circuit

The district court's denial of defendant's motion for costs and his two motions for attorney's fees, arising from a settlement in a medical malpractice coverage action is: 1) affirmed in part, where the district court properly denied defendant's motion for costs under District of Arizona Local Rule 54.1(d); but 2) vacated in part and remanded, where the court abused its discretion by failing to apply the correct standard under Arizona law when it held that Pang was not entitled to attorney’s fees as the "successful party."

Appellate Information

• Decided 10/25/2013
• Published 10/25/2013

Judges

• WOOD

Court

• United States Ninth Circuit

Counsel