21x Capital Ltd. v. Robert Werra

Ninth Circuit

21x Capital Ltd. v. Robert Werra

418 F. App'x 605

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMarch 4, 2011

Docket09-17336

StatusUnpublished

This text of 418 F. App'x 605 (21x Capital Ltd. v. Robert Werra) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

21x Capital Ltd. v. Robert Werra, 418 F. App'x 605 (9th Cir. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

21X Capital, Ltd. and David A. Brewer appeal the district court’s order awarding $1.5 million in attorneys’ fees in favor of Robert and John Werra. We review for clear error the factual findings underlying an award of attorneys’ fees, and review de novo the legal premises applied to determine an award. Ferland v. Conrad Credit Corp., 244 F.3d 1145, 1147-48 (9th Cir.2001) (per curiam).

California Civil Code section 1717(a) allows for recovery of contractual attorneys’ fees only where the action was “on a contract.” Because this was an action to enforce a judgment, it was not “on a contract,” and the district court erred in awarding attorneys’ fees. See Chelios v. Kaye, 219 Cal.App.3d 75, 80, 268 Cal.Rptr. 38 (1990) (‘When, as here, a lawsuit on a contractual claim has been reduced to a final, nonappealable judgment, all of the prior contractual rights are merged into and extinguished by the monetary judgment, and thereafter the prevailing party has only those rights as are set forth in the judgment itself.”).

The Werras did not seek attorneys’ fees in the district court pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(k). Whether 21X and Brewer willfully violated the bankruptcy stay is a factual issue that we may not decide for the first time on appeal, and the issue is therefore waived. See Wildwest Inst. v. Bull, 547 F.3d 1162, 1172 (9th Cir.2008).

The award of attorneys’ fees is REVERSED.

*

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM *

21X Capital, Ltd. and David A. Brewer appeal the district court’s order awarding $1.5 million in attorneys’ fees in favor of Robert and John Werra. We review for clear error the factual findings underlying an award of attorneys’ fees, and review de novo the legal premises applied to determine an award. Ferland v. Conrad Credit Corp., 244 F.3d 1145, 1147-48 (9th Cir.2001) (per curiam).

California Civil Code section 1717(a) allows for recovery of contractual attorneys’ fees only where the action was “on a contract.” Because this was an action to enforce a judgment, it was not “on a contract,” and the district court erred in awarding attorneys’ fees. See Chelios v. Kaye, 219 Cal.App.3d 75, 80, 268 Cal.Rptr. 38 (1990) (‘When, as here, a lawsuit on a contractual claim has been reduced to a final, nonappealable judgment, all of the prior contractual rights are merged into and extinguished by the monetary judgment, and thereafter the prevailing party has only those rights as are set forth in the judgment itself.”).

The Werras did not seek attorneys’ fees in the district court pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(k). Whether 21X and Brewer willfully violated the bankruptcy stay is a factual issue that we may not decide for the first time on appeal, and the issue is therefore waived. See Wildwest Inst. v. Bull, 547 F.3d 1162, 1172 (9th Cir.2008).

The award of attorneys’ fees is REVERSED.

*

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

418 F. App'x 605, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/21x-capital-ltd-v-robert-werra-ca9-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack