Martin Ogden v. Cdi Corporation , 599 F. App'x 320 ( 2015 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 20 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARTIN OGDEN, No. 13-15777
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:08-cv-02180-DGC
v.
MEMORANDUM*
CDI CORPORATION,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
David G. Campbell, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 10, 2015**
Before: FARRIS, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Martin Ogden appeals pro se from the district court’s order awarding
attorney’s fees in his employment action alleging violations of federal and state
law. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of
discretion the district court’s grant of attorney’s fees, and review de novo the legal
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
analysis underlying its fee decision. Childress v. Darby Lumber, Inc., 357 F.3d
1000, 1011 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by awarding attorney’s fees to
defendant because the court considered the relevant factors, and its conclusions
were supported by evidence. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-341.01 (permitting an
award of reasonable attorney’s fees to the successful party in a contested action
arising out of an express or implied contract); Associated Indem. Corp. v. Warner,
694 P.2d 1181, 1184-85 (Ariz. 1985) (explaining that a fee award under Ariz. Rev.
Stat. § 12-341.01 is discretionary and listing the factors for determining whether to
award fees).
The district court also did not abuse its discretion by denying Ogden’s
motion for reconsideration because Ogden failed to establish a basis for such relief.
See D. Ariz. Loc. R. 7.2(g)(1) (grounds for reconsideration); Bias v. Moynihan,
508 F.3d 1212, 1223 (9th Cir. 2007) (setting forth the standard of review for
compliance with local rules, and noting that “[b]road deference is given to a
district court’s interpretation of its local rules”); Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah
Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993) (identifying the
standard of review for a denial of a motion for reconsideration and grounds
2 13-15777
warranting reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e)).
We reject Ogden’s contentions concerning alleged judicial bias and
misconduct.
Defendant’s request for attorney’s fees in connection with this appeal, set
forth in its answering brief, is denied without prejudice to filing a timely motion
for fees and a timely bill of costs.
AFFIRMED.
3 13-15777