John Donnelly, Jr. v. American Express Bank, Fsb
This text of John Donnelly, Jr. v. American Express Bank, Fsb (John Donnelly, Jr. v. American Express Bank, Fsb) 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.
Opinion
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 22 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: JOHN ROLAND DONNELLY, Jr., No. 18-56302
Debtor. D.C. No. 3:18-cv-01024-GPC- ______________________________ WVG
JOHN ROLAND DONNELLY, Jr., MEMORANDUM* Appellant,
v.
AMERICAN EXPRESS BANK, FSB,
Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Gonzalo P. Curiel, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 15, 2019**
Before: SCHROEDER, SILVERMAN, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Chapter 13 debtor John Roland Donnelly, Jr., appeals from the district
court’s judgment affirming the bankruptcy court’s order denying his motion for
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). attorney’s fees and his discovery-related motions. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 158(d). We review de novo a district court’s decision on appeal from a
bankruptcy court, and apply the same standard of review the district court applied
to the bankruptcy court’s decision. Christensen v. Tucson Estates, Inc. (In re
Tucson Estates, Inc.), 912 F.2d 1162, 1166 (9th Cir. 1990). We affirm.
The bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion by denying Donnelly’s
motion for attorney’s fees under California Civil Code § 1717 given that American
Express Bank, FSB’s (“AmEx”) did not oppose Donnelly’s objection to the claim.
See Cal. Civ. Code § 1717; D & J, Inc. v. Ferro Corp., 222 Cal. Rptr. 656, 658 (Ct.
App. 1986) (explaining that for purposes of § 1717, a dismissal is voluntary where
it is predicated upon “a clear, unequivocal and express intent to abandon an action”
(citation omitted)).
The bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in disallowing Donnelly’s
discovery because discovery was rendered moot by AmEx’s nonopposition to
Donnelly’s objection to the claim and the bankruptcy court’s finding that Donnelly
was not the prevailing party on the contract claim. See Hallett v. Morgan, 296
F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002) (setting forth standard of review and noting the
district court’s broad discretion in deciding motions to compel discovery).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to consider
Donnelly’s contentions, raised for the first time in his reply brief in support of his
2 18-56302 motion to compel discovery, that AmEx failed to comply with the Federal Rule of
Bankruptcy Proceedings 3001(c)(3)(B). See Zamani v. Carnes, 491 F.3d 990, 997
(9th Cir. 2007) (“The district court need not consider arguments raised for the first
time in a reply brief.”).
AFFIRMED.
3 18-56302
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
John Donnelly, Jr. v. American Express Bank, Fsb, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/john-donnelly-jr-v-american-express-bank-fsb-ca9-2019.