Martin Ogden v. Cdi Corporation

MEMORANDUM

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 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, 143 Ariz. 567 , 694 P.2d 1181, 1184-85 (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.…