sanction if a “claim or defense constitutes harassment, is groundless and is not made in good faith.” When imposing sanctions pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-349, “the court shall set forth the specific reasons for the award.” A.R.S. § 12-350 (2003). Although federal courts have imposed FR 11 sanctions after a voluntary dismissal pursuant FR 41(a)(1), see, e.g., Cooter, 496 U.S. at 409, 110 S.Ct. 2447 (upholding sanctions pursuant to FR 11); Szabo Food Serv., Inc. v. Canteen Corp., 823 F.2d 1073, 1077, 1084-85 (7th Cir.1987) (to same effect), we need not decide whether the superior court exercised similar authority here as the court did not make the requisite findings to support an award under AR.S. § 12-349. See A.R.S. § 12-350; State v. Richey, 160 Ariz. 564, 565, 774 P.2d 1354, 1355 (1989) (<HOLDING>). Therefore, in order to uphold the award of
holding trial courts finding that claim was frivolous insufficient to meet statutory requirement that claim constitutes harassment is groundless and not made in good faith holding that the district courts good faith finding is reviewed for clear error holding error to award statutory sanctions where no evidence of bad faith and attorney did not assert frivolous claim or unfounded position for purposes of delay or harassment holding that attorney fees must be awarded where plaintiffs section 1983 claim was unreasonable and groundless holding the trial courts simple finding of frivolous to be insufficient to justify an award