Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-02365/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-02365-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 410
Nature of Suit: Antitrust
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Anti-trust

---

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

John R. Quain, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Capstar d/b/a Clear Channel

Communications, Inc.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-09-2365-PHX-DGC

ORDER

Plaintiff owns Silk Purse Records and is the leader of the musical group Citizen

Quain. He has been unable to get his music played on a local radio station. He filed

suit against Defendants on November 12, 2009. Doc. 1. The second amended complaint

asserts breach of contract, misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment claims. Doc. 33. On

November 18, 2010, the Court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. 35) and the

Clerk entered judgment accordingly. Docs. 40, 41.

In an order dated December 29, 2010, the Court awarded Defendants attorneys’ fees

in the amount of $15,317.50. Doc. 55. Plaintiff has filed a motion for reconsideration of that

order. Doc. 56.

Motions for reconsideration “are ‘disfavored’ and will be granted only upon a

showing of ‘manifest error’ or ‘new facts or legal authority that could not have been raised

earlier with reasonable diligence.’” In re Rosson, 545 F.3d 764, 769 (9th Cir. 2008) (citation

and brackets omitted); see S.E.C. v. Kuipers, No. 09-36016, 2010 WL 3735788, at *3 (9th

Cir. Sept. 21, 2010); LRCiv 7.2(g)(1). Plaintiff does not meet (or even address) this high

Case 2:09-cv-02365-DGC Document 58 Filed 02/02/11 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

standard. He cites no new law or fact that occurred after the Court’s decision. Instead, he

re-urges arguments made in opposition to the motion for attorneys’ fees and asks the Court

to rethink its analysis. In short, Plaintiff simply disagrees with the order awarding fees. But

“[m]ere disagreement with a previous order is an insufficient basis for reconsideration.”

Guillen v. Thompson, No. CV 08-1279-PHX-MHM, 2010 WL 3239419, at *2 (D. Ariz.

Aug. 16, 2010); see Galvan v. Arpaio, No. CV 10-0125-PHX-GMS (MHB), 2010 WL

4511019, at *1 (D. Ariz. Nov. 2, 2010).

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Doc. 56) is denied.

DATED this 2nd day of February, 2011.

Case 2:09-cv-02365-DGC Document 58 Filed 02/02/11 Page 2 of 2