Scottsdale Insurance Company v. the Soni Law Firm , 518 F. App'x 576 ( 2013 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 17 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SCOTTSDALE INSURANCE No. 11-56406
COMPANY, an Ohio corporation,
D.C. No. 2:10-cv-01090-DSF-JEM
Plaintiff-counter-defendant -
Appellee,
and MEMORANDUM *
VNU BUSINESS MEDIA, INC., a
Delaware corporation, Erroneously Sued
As BPI Communications Inc.,
Defendant-cross-defendant -
Appellee,
v.
THE SONI LAW FIRM, an unknown
business entity,
Defendant-counter-claimant-
cross-claimant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Dale S. Fischer, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted May 8, 2013
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Pasadena, California
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, PAEZ, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Scottsdale Insurance Company (“Scottsdale”) filed this statutory interpleader
action against the Soni Law Firm (“Soni”), the Milton H. Greene Archives, Inc.
(“the Archives”), and VNU Business Media, Inc. (“VNU”). Soni moved to stay or
to dismiss the interpleader in light of then-pending parallel state proceedings. The
district court denied the motion. The court later entered its findings and concluded
that VNU’s lien and Scottsdale’s equitable right of offset both had priority over
Soni’s attorney’s lien. Soni timely appealed. We affirm.
I
The district court’s refusal to abstain under Colorado River Water
Conservation District v. United States, 424 U.S. 800 (1976), was not an abuse of
discretion.1 Exceptional circumstances did not exist to relieve the district court of
1
We may review the district court’s order denying the motion to abstain
despite the notice of appeal’s defects. Generally, “an appeal from the final
judgment draws in question all earlier non-final orders and all rulings which
produced the judgment.” Munoz v. Small Bus. Admin., 644 F.2d 1361, 1364 (9th
Cir. 1981). And “[w]here the appellee has argued the merits fully in its brief, it has
not been prejudiced by the appellant’s failure to designate specifically an order
which is subject to appeal.” Lockman Found. v. Evangelical Alliance Mission, 930
F.2d 764, 772 (9th Cir. 1991). Here, both VNU and Scottsdale have fully briefed
the abstention issue, so neither is prejudiced.
2
its “virtually unflagging obligation” to adjudicate Scottsdale’s claims. Id. at 813,
817.
II
The district court’s conclusion that VNU’s lien has priority over Soni’s was
not error. The first-in-time rule apples only when “[o]ther things [are] equal.” Cal.
Civ. Code § 2897. The district court properly analyzed “whether the equities of the
lienholders [were] equal.” Bluxome St. Assocs. v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co., 206
Cal. App. 3d 1149, 1159 (1988). For the reasons stated by the district court, we
agree that the equities favored VNU.
III
The district court’s conclusion that Scottsdale’s right of offset has priority
over Soni’s was not error. “[T]he general rule is that . . . an attorney’s lien is
subordinate to the rights of the adverse party to offset judgments in the same action
or in actions based upon the same transaction,” Brienza v. Tepper, 35 Cal. App. 4th
1839, 1849 (1995), though “competing equities” may favor prioritizing the
attorney’s lien. Id. at 1848. For the reasons stated by the district court, we agree
that the equities do not favor Soni.
AFFIRMED.
3
4