for attorneys’ fees, which prompted the City to file a response to Vicari’s attorneys’ fees request. On May 1, 2008, the court awarded the City its reasonable attorneys’ fees, which the City avowed as representing approximately nine hours of preparations relating to the case. ¶ 27 Given this record, we cannot say the superior court erred by awarding the City its requested attorneys’ fees pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-341.01(A). See Morrison v. Shanwick Int’l Corp., 167 Ariz. 39, 46-47, 804 P.2d 768, 775-76 (App.1990) (stating “a contested action is one in which the defendant has appeared and generally defends against the claims and demands made by the plaintiff’ even if defendant admitted to factual allegations); Britt v. Steffen, 220 Ariz. 265, 267, ¶ 9, 205 P.3d 357, 359 (App.2008) (<HOLDING>); see also Corcoran v. Columbia Broad. Sys.,
holding that even though the complaint was dismissed without prejudice as a sanction for misconduct and even though the order of dismissal was therefore not an adjudication on the merits the defendants were nevertheless properly considered the prevailing party for purposes of attorneys fees holding that when an action is dismissed without prejudice because of a failure to prosecute the interruption in the running of the statute is considered as never having occurred holding defendant still considered successful party under ars  1234101a where there was no adjudication on the merits as action was dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute holding that an adjudication on summary judgment is an adjudication on the merits holding that a defendant homeowners association was the prevailing party for purposes of attorneys fees when a plaintiff homeowners action was dismissed for failure to prosecute