Free Motion for Hearing or Conference - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

I I FILED _ LODGED
_ . = ;_ aacstvau ____ COPY
CELIA TREVINO ` . ’
ALFRED TREVINO AUG 2 3 2005
5249 N- 86th Dfivc CLERK u s ossmlcr count
Glendale, Arizona 85305 onsraacr os aanzoma
BY B DEPUTY
Defendants Pro Se p l
I IN THB UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
IN ANU FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
. DIRECTV, Inc., a California eiporation, J No. CV-03-2182-PI-I.X—HRI-I
-
Plaintiff} I ) MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL (in part);
‘ » I J · MOTION FOR R.ECONSIDER.A’I`ION
vs. - _ J (in part); MOTION FOR G
) (i¤ pmt) ,
CBLIA TREVINO and ALFRED J · -
TREVINO, husband and wife, J ‘ ‘
J l .
Defendants. J

I Come now defendants and move this court for a new trial, reconsideration and rehearing
in part, under Rule 59 on the of attorneys fees only. The court’s order and judgment was _
. entered on August. 3. These defetidants, pro se, received notice thereof by mail on August S. .
This is an action to enioiiizthese defendants fiom infringernent and other misuse of
plaintiff s television technology. matter was settled for $1,000 (as settlement denied by
plaintiff but eventually enteretlbif the court as a judgment), but plaintiff then sought in excess of
$15,000 in attomeys fees. The is exorbitant and unreasonable.
The court will recall that this action uva one of dozens of like claims which where Bled
in one suit against dozens of persons, all of which actions read the same. The court ruled early
· on that this was an improper joinder of claims and obliged plaintiff to tile them all as individual · ‘
actions. Since each case is alike, maine attomeys tees are claimed in each one as awarded in _
Case 2:03-cv—02182—Ii|FlH Document 48 Filed 08/23/2005 Page 1 of 2
to seed wwwevsammldecwuatled eselesesz t zz :;:2 geez./zz/so

. _, . "" . L >- ‘
I this one, plaintiff will collect over a million in fees!
Plaintiffis a large corporation (in fact, many corporations combined). Defendants are
working homeowners. The court should apply the principles of
143 Ariz. 567, 594 P.2d 1181 (1985), in considering foes. That: ease holds that where a litigant
I (in thm. ease an insurance onmpany) is mitch more lilrely to spread the costs of legal effort over
its business sales and income, are equitably not awarded. The fees award here is far more
likely to impact defendants thm plaintiftl Indeed, defendants will likely haveto tile bankruptcy
to avoid payingnthe fees.
i The court should reconsideration the fee award and deny same, or reduce it to no more
than is equitable in light ofthe amount ofthe judgment
Dated this Qédday of . , 2005.
. _ _ ` CELIA TREVIN
rnevmo
A copy ofthe rarggeing i
mailed this ’Z§' day L `
of @,),6+ , 2005 to: A _
_ Assigned Judge A ‘
Barbara J.- Dawson I
Matthew P. Fisher .
Jason S. Vanacour
‘ SNELL & WILMER, LLP
` One Arizona Center . _
400 E. Van Buren
Plgoenig Arizona 85004-2202
Case 2:03—cv—02182-HRH Document 48 Filed 08/23/2005 Page 2 of 2
ze neva: wwwevaamiderwdntien oeetesvszt zz rza saraz/zz/ea

Case 2:03-cv-02182-HRH

Document 48

Filed 08/23/2005

Page 1 of 2

Case 2:03-cv-02182-HRH

Document 48

Filed 08/23/2005

Page 2 of 2