Yousif Halloum v. McCormick, Barstow, Sheppard

Ninth Circuit

Yousif Halloum v. McCormick, Barstow, Sheppard

689 F. App'x 544

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedApril 21, 2017

Docket16-60059

StatusUnpublished

This text of 689 F. App'x 544 (Yousif Halloum v. McCormick, Barstow, Sheppard) 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

Yousif Halloum v. McCormick, Barstow, Sheppard, 689 F. App'x 544 (9th Cir. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Yousif Halloum appeals pro se from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s (“BAP”) judgment affirming the bankruptcy court’s order allowing fees and expenses to Hall-oum’s former counsel, and the BAP’s order denying rehearing. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158. We independently review the bankruptcy court’s decision, see Law Offices of David A. Boone v. Derham-Burk (In re Eliapo), 468 F.3d 592, 596 (9th Cir. 2006), and we affirm.

The bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in awarding fees to Halloum’s *545 former counsel on the basis of the parties’ retainer agreement, because counsel testified that Halloum had signed the agreement and that the parties did not enter into a flat fee arrangement. See Stahl v. Simon (In re Adamson Apparel, Inc.), 785 F.3d 1285, 1291 (9th Cir. 2015) (“Clear error exists when, although there is evidence to support the lower court’s conclusion,-the reviewing court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

We reject as without merit Halloum’s arguments that the BAP and the bankruptcy court violated his due process rights'.

Halloum’s motion to file an oversize reply brief (Docket No. 18) is granted.

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3,

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

MEMORANDUM **

Yousif Halloum appeals pro se from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s (“BAP”) judgment affirming the bankruptcy court’s order allowing fees and expenses to Hall-oum’s former counsel, and the BAP’s order denying rehearing. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158. We independently review the bankruptcy court’s decision, see Law Offices of David A. Boone v. Derham-Burk (In re Eliapo), 468 F.3d 592, 596 (9th Cir. 2006), and we affirm.

The bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in awarding fees to Halloum’s *545 former counsel on the basis of the parties’ retainer agreement, because counsel testified that Halloum had signed the agreement and that the parties did not enter into a flat fee arrangement. See Stahl v. Simon (In re Adamson Apparel, Inc.), 785 F.3d 1285, 1291 (9th Cir. 2015) (“Clear error exists when, although there is evidence to support the lower court’s conclusion,-the reviewing court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

We reject as without merit Halloum’s arguments that the BAP and the bankruptcy court violated his due process rights'.

Halloum’s motion to file an oversize reply brief (Docket No. 18) is granted.

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3,

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

689 F. App'x 544, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/yousif-halloum-v-mccormick-barstow-sheppard-ca9-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack