Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00379/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00379-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 490
Nature of Suit: Cable/ Satellite TV
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

DIRECTV Incorporated, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Eagle West Communications Incorporated, 

et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-09-00379-PHX-JAT

ORDER 

Pending before the Court is the motion of Farley, Robinson, and Larson to 

withdraw as counsel for Defendants Paul LaBarre and Terri LaBarre (Doc. 218). Also 

pending is Paul LaBarre and Terri LaBarre’s (collectively, the “LaBarres”) motion for 

reconsideration (Doc. 224). The Court now rules on the motions. 

I. Motion to Withdraw as Counsel

 Paul LaBarre filed a motion to “proceed pro se” on December 2, 2014, which the 

Court denied as an improper motion. (Doc. 215). The Court pointed out that withdrawal 

of counsel must be done by counsel’s motion pursuant to the Local Rules of Civil 

Procedure. Thereafter, the LaBarres filed a notice of their election to proceed pro se, and 

the Clerk of the Court terminated the LaBarres’ counsel from the Court’s CM/ECF 

system. Counsel has since filed a motion to withdraw, which the Court will grant. 

II. Motion for Reconsideration

 The LaBarres have filed a motion for reconsideration asking the Court to 

reconsider its October 30, 2014 order in which the Court awarded Plaintiff attorneys’ fees 

Case 2:09-cv-00379-JAT Document 226 Filed 04/07/15 Page 1 of 3
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

and non-taxable costs pursuant to a contract between the parties. (Doc. 224 at 1; Doc. 

207). This motion for reconsideration is a duplicate of the motion for reconsideration that 

the LaBarres previously filed on December 2, 2014 (Doc. 209). The Court issued an 

order on January 22, 2015 denying that motion for reconsideration and explaining why 

the LaBarres’ arguments were unpersuasive. (Doc. 215). Because the LaBarres now 

repeat these arguments and have not presented any additional evidence or argument, the 

Court finds that the LaBarres have failed to show entitlement to relief under Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 60. See (Doc. 215). 

 The Court also notes that the LaBarres have filed a notice of appeal from the 

Court’s order awarding Plaintiff its attorneys’ fees and costs. (Doc. 217). This action 

divested the Court of jurisdiction “over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal.” 

Stein v. Wood, 127 F.3d 1187, 1189 (9th Cir. 1997). However, Rule 62.1 permits the 

Court to treat the LaBarres’ motion as a request for an indicative ruling: “If a timely 

motion is made for relief that the court lacks authority to grant because of an appeal that 

has been docketed and is pending, the court may: (1) defer considering the motion; (2) 

deny the motion; or (3) state either that it would grant the motion if the court of appeals 

remands for that purpose or that the motion raises a substantial issue.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 

62.1(a); see also Braun-Salinas v. Am. Family Ins. Grp., 2015 WL 128040, at *2 (D. Or. 

Jan. 8, 2015) (applying Rule 62.1 to a motion for reconsideration filed after a notice of 

appeal). 

 Because the Court concludes that the LaBarres’ motion for reconsideration is 

without merit, the Court will deny the motion pursuant to Rule 62.1(a)(2). 

III. Conclusion

 For the foregoing reasons, 

/ 

/ 

/ 

/ 

Case 2:09-cv-00379-JAT Document 226 Filed 04/07/15 Page 2 of 3
- 3 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

IT IS ORDERED granting Farley, Robinson, and Larson’s motion to withdraw as 

counsel for the LaBarres (Doc. 218) and allowing Gregory A. Robinson and his firm to 

withdraw as attorneys of record for Defendants Paul LaBarre and Terri LaBarre. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying the LaBarres’ motion for reconsideration 

(Doc. 224). 

 Dated this 6th day of April, 2015. 

Case 2:09-cv-00379-JAT Document 226 Filed 04/07/15 Page 3 of 3