Hinchliffe Sports Partners v. Football Is For The Fans Ltd.

Background

Scott Michaels, a defendant representing himself, moved for “reconsideration and clarification” of the court’s October 3, 2025 order denying his application for appointment of pro bono counsel. The court construed the motion as arising under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) and Local Civil Rule 6.3.

The earlier order had stated that, based on the record, Michaels had not shown that his defense to the plaintiff’s claims had substance or that he was likely to succeed. The opinion also noted that Judge Garnett had previously found that the plaintiff was likely to prevail on its claims under the federal trademark statute and related state-law claims.

Court’s Analysis

The court explained that reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy generally reserved for situations in which the court overlooked controlling decisions or important information that could reasonably change its conclusion. A party’s disagreement with the court’s legal analysis is not enough. Local Civil Rule 6.3 also requires the moving party to identify concisely the matters or controlling decisions the court overlooked; the opinion states that Michaels filed no such memorandum.

The court found that Michaels had not identified anything the court overlooked, much less anything that would alter the earlier conclusion. It also found that the earlier order required no clarification and adhered to the statement that Michaels had not shown a substantive or likely-successful defense.

Disposition

Judge Stewart D. Aaron denied Michaels’s motion for reconsideration and clarification. The opinion does not decide the underlying claims in this order; it addresses only Michaels’s request to revisit the earlier denial of appointed pro bono counsel.