Jim Theros v. First American Title Insurance

Ninth Circuit

Jim Theros v. First American Title Insurance

519 F. App'x 482

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMay 21, 2013

Docket11-35612

StatusUnpublished

This text of 519 F. App'x 482 (Jim Theros v. First American Title Insurance) 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

Jim Theros v. First American Title Insurance, 519 F. App'x 482 (9th Cir. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Wells Fargo Bank, NA appeals from the district court’s order denying its motion for attorney’s fees after it prevailed on summary judgment in Theros’s wrongful foreclosure action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the legal analysis underlying a fee decision, and for an abuse of discretion the district court’s denial of fees. Webb v. Ada County, 195 F.3d 524, 526 (9th Cir.1999). We affirm.

The district court properly concluded that, under federal law, which governs the attorney’s fee determination as provided in the Note and Deed of Trust, it had discretion to deny the contractually-authorized attorney’s fees if an award of fees would be “inequitable and unreasonable.” Anderson v. Melwani, 179 F.3d 763, 766 (9th Cir.1999); DeBlasio Constr., Inc. v. Mountain States Constr. Co., 588 F.2d 259, 263 (9th Cir.1978); see also GECCMC *483 2005-C1 Plummer St. Office L.P. v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 671 F.3d 1027, 1033 (9th Cir.2012)(applying federal common law where contract provided that federal law governs the agreement).

Moreover, the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to award the contractually-authorized attorney’s fees to Wells Fargo because such an award of fees would be inequitable and unreasonable. See Anderson, 179 F.3d at 766-67 (district court must determine whether attorney’s fee award would be appropriate, and it abuses its discretion if it awards contractually-authorized fees that are inequitable and unreasonable).

AFFIRMED.

**

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 **

Wells Fargo Bank, NA appeals from the district court’s order denying its motion for attorney’s fees after it prevailed on summary judgment in Theros’s wrongful foreclosure action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the legal analysis underlying a fee decision, and for an abuse of discretion the district court’s denial of fees. Webb v. Ada County, 195 F.3d 524, 526 (9th Cir.1999). We affirm.

The district court properly concluded that, under federal law, which governs the attorney’s fee determination as provided in the Note and Deed of Trust, it had discretion to deny the contractually-authorized attorney’s fees if an award of fees would be “inequitable and unreasonable.” Anderson v. Melwani, 179 F.3d 763, 766 (9th Cir.1999); DeBlasio Constr., Inc. v. Mountain States Constr. Co., 588 F.2d 259, 263 (9th Cir.1978); see also GECCMC *483 2005-C1 Plummer St. Office L.P. v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 671 F.3d 1027, 1033 (9th Cir.2012)(applying federal common law where contract provided that federal law governs the agreement).

Moreover, the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to award the contractually-authorized attorney’s fees to Wells Fargo because such an award of fees would be inequitable and unreasonable. See Anderson, 179 F.3d at 766-67 (district court must determine whether attorney’s fee award would be appropriate, and it abuses its discretion if it awards contractually-authorized fees that are inequitable and unreasonable).

AFFIRMED.

**

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

25 cont.cas.fed. (Cch) 83,002, 3 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 1342 United States of America, for the Use and Benefit of A. v. Deblasio Construction, Inc. v. Mountain States Construction Co., and Mountain States Construction Co., Third Party v. United Pacific Insurance Co., Third Party v. A. v. Deblasio and Jean Deblasio, His Wife, and the Martial Community Composedof Them, Third Party United States of America, Etc. v. Mountain States Construction Company, and Mountain States Construction Co., Third Party v. United Pacific Insurance Co., Third Party v. A. v. Deblasio and Jean Deblasio, Etc., Third Party

588 F.2d 259 (Third Circuit, 1978)

GECCMC 2005-C1 Plummer Street Office Ltd. Partnership v. JPMorgan Chase Bank

671 F.3d 1027 (Ninth Circuit, 2012)

Anderson v. Melwani

179 F.3d 763 (Ninth Circuit, 1999)

Webb v. Ada County

195 F.3d 524 (Ninth Circuit, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

519 F. App'x 482, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jim-theros-v-first-american-title-insurance-ca9-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack