In Moedt v. Gen. Motors Corp., 204 Ariz. 100, 60 P.3d 240, 243 (Ariz. App. 2002), the court rejected the contention that direct judicial involvement was necessary for a plaintiff to be a prevailing party under the feeshifting provisions of the Arizona lemon law. Moedt, 60 P. 3d. at 243. The Arizona court noted that its interpretation comported with the primary justification for fee-shifting provisions, "the promotion of settling disagreements without extensive litigation," as well as the goal of "strengthening a purchaser's ability to enforce the consumer-protection laws." Id.