Point.360 v. Medley Capital Corp. ( 2021 )


Menu:
  •                                                                               FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION
    MAR 16 2021
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                         MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    In re: POINT.360,                                No.   20-55582
    Debtor,                                D.C. No. 2:19-cv-09935-PA
    ______________________________
    POINT.360, a California corporation,             MEMORANDUM*
    Appellant,
    v.
    MEDLEY CAPITAL CORPORATION;
    MEDLEY OPPORTUNITY FUND II, LP,
    Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Central District of California
    Percy Anderson, District Judge, Presiding
    Argued and Submitted March 3, 2021
    Pasadena, California
    Before: KLEINFELD, TALLMAN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
    The loan agreement between Point.360 and Medley provided for attorney’s
    fees and costs to Medley, and this provision was in appropriate circumstances
    reciprocal:
    In any action on a contract, where the contract specifically provides that
    attorney’s fees and costs, which are incurred to enforce that contract,
    shall be awarded either to one of the parties or to the prevailing party,
    then the party who is determined to be the party prevailing on the
    contract, whether he or she is the party specified in the contract or not,
    shall be entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees in addition to other costs.
    
    Cal. Civ. Code § 1717
    (a); see also Santisas v. Goodin, 
    951 P.2d 399
    , 406–07 (Cal.
    1998). An action is “on a contract” for the purposes of Section 1717 if it
    “‘involves’ an agreement, in the sense that the action (or cause of action) arises out
    of, is based upon, or relates to an agreement by seeking to define or interpret its
    terms or to determine or enforce a party’s rights or duties under the
    agreement . . . .” Orozco v. WPV San Jose, LLC, 
    248 Cal. Rptr. 3d 623
    , 650 (Ct.
    App. 2019) (quoting Douglas E. Barnhart, Inc. v. CMC Fabricators, Inc., 
    149 Cal. Rptr. 3d 440
    , 449 (Ct. App. 2012)). To determine whether an action is “on a
    contract,” a court must “look to the gravamen of the overall action” and the “main
    thrust of the litigation.” 
    Id. at 651
     (quoting Pearl, Cal. Attorney Fee Awards § 4.50
    (Cont. Ed. Bar, 3d ed. 2018)).
    2
    The fees and costs provision was deemed reciprocal in In re Penrod because
    enforceability of the contract in bankruptcy was the sole issue in the bankruptcy
    proceeding. 
    802 F.3d 1084
    , 1087–88 (9th Cir. 2015). But Bos v. Board of
    Trustees distinguishes Penrod and controls in this case, because in Bos and in this
    case a host of issues that “arose entirely under the federal Bankruptcy Code” rather
    than the contracts were implicated. 
    818 F.3d 486
    , 490 (9th Cir. 2016).
    In bankruptcy court, Point.360 sought all the fees and costs it incurred in the
    confirmation proceedings, and argued that “there is no ‘apportionment’ that is
    required or that would be practicable.” On appeal to the district court, though,
    Point.360 argued that if it could not obtain the roughly $500,000 in attorney’s fees
    and costs for the entire confirmation proceeding, it should at least be awarded the
    roughly $16,000 in attorney’s fees and costs for the declaratory relief adversary
    proceeding regarding the applicability of its contracts with Medley. The district
    court did not address this issue and we also do not address the issue, because the
    bankruptcy court, when it made the decision on fees and costs, was not presented
    with a claim for only the roughly $16,000 associated with the summary judgment
    proceeding. We therefore decline to address the argument for apportionment in
    this appeal. See Cruz v. Int’l Collection Corp., 
    673 F.3d 991
    , 998–99 (9th Cir.
    3
    2012); In re Jan Weilert RV, Inc., 
    315 F.3d 1192
    , 1199 (9th Cir.), amended by 
    326 F.3d 1028
     (9th Cir. 2003). As an all or nothing claim for attorney’s fees and costs
    for the entire confirmation proceeding, which is how it was presented, we cannot
    conclude that the “gravamen of the overall action” and the “main thrust of the
    [confirmation] litigation” was the dispute about Point.360’s contracts with Medley.
    Orozco, 248 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 651.
    AFFIRMED.
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 20-55582

Filed Date: 3/16/2021

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 3/16/2021