DIRECTV, Inc. v. Eagle West Communications, Inc. et al

Filing 226

ORDER granting 218 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney and denying 224 Motion for Reconsideration (see PDF for further details). Signed by Senior Judge James A Teilborg on 4/6/2015. (ACL)

Download PDF
1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 DIRECTV Incorporated, Plaintiff, 10 11 ORDER v. 12 No. CV-09-00379-PHX-JAT Eagle West Communications Incorporated, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 Pending before the Court is the motion of Farley, Robinson, and Larson to 16 withdraw as counsel for Defendants Paul LaBarre and Terri LaBarre (Doc. 218). Also 17 pending is Paul LaBarre and Terri LaBarre’s (collectively, the “LaBarres”) motion for 18 reconsideration (Doc. 224). The Court now rules on the motions. 19 I. Motion to Withdraw as Counsel 20 Paul LaBarre filed a motion to “proceed pro se” on December 2, 2014, which the 21 Court denied as an improper motion. (Doc. 215). The Court pointed out that withdrawal 22 of counsel must be done by counsel’s motion pursuant to the Local Rules of Civil 23 Procedure. Thereafter, the LaBarres filed a notice of their election to proceed pro se, and 24 the Clerk of the Court terminated the LaBarres’ counsel from the Court’s CM/ECF 25 system. Counsel has since filed a motion to withdraw, which the Court will grant. 26 II. Motion for Reconsideration 27 The LaBarres have filed a motion for reconsideration asking the Court to 28 reconsider its October 30, 2014 order in which the Court awarded Plaintiff attorneys’ fees 1 and non-taxable costs pursuant to a contract between the parties. (Doc. 224 at 1; Doc. 2 207). This motion for reconsideration is a duplicate of the motion for reconsideration that 3 the LaBarres previously filed on December 2, 2014 (Doc. 209). The Court issued an 4 order on January 22, 2015 denying that motion for reconsideration and explaining why 5 the LaBarres’ arguments were unpersuasive. (Doc. 215). Because the LaBarres now 6 repeat these arguments and have not presented any additional evidence or argument, the 7 Court finds that the LaBarres have failed to show entitlement to relief under Federal Rule 8 of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 60. See (Doc. 215). 9 The Court also notes that the LaBarres have filed a notice of appeal from the 10 Court’s order awarding Plaintiff its attorneys’ fees and costs. (Doc. 217). This action 11 divested the Court of jurisdiction “over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal.” 12 Stein v. Wood, 127 F.3d 1187, 1189 (9th Cir. 1997). However, Rule 62.1 permits the 13 Court to treat the LaBarres’ motion as a request for an indicative ruling: “If a timely 14 motion is made for relief that the court lacks authority to grant because of an appeal that 15 has been docketed and is pending, the court may: (1) defer considering the motion; (2) 16 deny the motion; or (3) state either that it would grant the motion if the court of appeals 17 remands for that purpose or that the motion raises a substantial issue.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 18 62.1(a); see also Braun-Salinas v. Am. Family Ins. Grp., 2015 WL 128040, at *2 (D. Or. 19 Jan. 8, 2015) (applying Rule 62.1 to a motion for reconsideration filed after a notice of 20 appeal). 21 Because the Court concludes that the LaBarres’ motion for reconsideration is 22 without merit, the Court will deny the motion pursuant to Rule 62.1(a)(2). 23 III. 24 Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, 25 / 26 / 27 / 28 / -2- 1 IT IS ORDERED granting Farley, Robinson, and Larson’s motion to withdraw as 2 counsel for the LaBarres (Doc. 218) and allowing Gregory A. Robinson and his firm to 3 withdraw as attorneys of record for Defendants Paul LaBarre and Terri LaBarre. 4 5 6 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying the LaBarres’ motion for reconsideration (Doc. 224). Dated this 6th day of April, 2015. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -3-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?