Saucerman

*43 MEMORANDUM *

After this Court affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Saucerman’s and fellow cabin permittees’ (“Former Permittees”) Administrative Procedures Act claims, takings claims, and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 claims in 2002 for lack of subject matter jurisdiction (Saucerman v. Norton, No. 01-17009, 51 Fed. Appx. 241 (9th Cir. Nov.5, 2002)), the tribal defendants filed a motion for attorneys’ fees in district court. Former Permittees failed to respond to the motion for attorneys’ fees. The district court granted the motion for attorneys’ fees based on District of Arizona Local Rule 1.10(i) (2003), which allows the district court to grant a motion summarily when the opposing party fails to respond. The district court then denied Former Permittees’ motion for rehearing.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in granting the motion for attorneys’ fees based on Local Rule 1.10(i). A district court is granted broad discretion to interpret and apply its own local rules. Delange v. Dutra Constr. Co., 183 F.3d 916 , 919 n. 2 (9th Cir.1999). The district court also did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for rehearing based on either Federal Rule of…