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)

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-