
    State of ARIZONA; Terry L. Goddard, Attorney General for the State of Arizona; Arizona Department of Law, Civil Rights Division, Plaintiffs-Appellees, Angela Aguilar, Intervenor-Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ASARCO LLC, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 11-17484.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted June 12, 2013.
    Filed Oct. 24, 2013.
    Ann Ruth Hobart, Esquire, Assistant Attorney General, Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Leslie Ross, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiffs-Appellees.
    Jenne S. Forbes, Waterfall Economidis Caldwell Hanshaw & Villamana, PC, Tucson, AZ, for Intervenor-Plaintiff-Appellee.
    David T. Barton, Brian Alexander How-ie, Eric B. Johnson, Quarles & Brady, LLP, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, Mark W. Bennett, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. 4:08-cv-00441-MWB.
    Before: O’SCANNLAIN and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges, and SINGLETON, Senior District Judge.
    
    
      
       The Honorable James K. Singleton, Senior District Judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Appellant ASARCO challenges the district court’s decision in admitting certain testimony and in awarding attorneys fees. We address ASARCO’s challenge to the constitutionality of the punitive damages award in an opinion filed concurrently with this memorandum disposition. The relevant facts are discussed in that opinion. See Arizona v. ASARCO LLC, 733 F.3d 882, 2013 WL 5746408 (9th Cir.2013).

ASARCO challenges the district court’s admission of testimony related to two other incidents of sexually explicit graffiti at the mill. The district court found that this evidence was probative with regard to AS-ARCO’s failure to remedy similar conduct affecting Aguilar and that this outweighed any prejudicial effect. The authorities cited by ASARCO do not demonstrate clear error in that finding.

ASARCO also challenges the district court’s imposition of $350,902.75 in attorneys fees. ASARCO argues that the district court clearly erred in determining that Aguilar achieved excellent results. In light of Aguilar’s success in obtaining a significant punitive damages award and the injunctive relief in Aguilar’s favor, this finding was not clear error.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
     