In Re: Cedic Development Co.
| Decision Date | 05 July 2000 |
| Docket Number | No. 99-15841,99-15841 |
| Parties | (9th Cir. 2000) In re: CEDIC DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, Debtor. CEDIC DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, Appellee, v. RONALD E. WARNICKE; THOMAS LITTLER, Appellants. Office of the Circuit Executive |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Thomas E. Littler, Mark J. Giunta, Warnicke & Littler, Phoenix, Arizona, for appellant Warnicke & Littler.
Chester J. Peterson, Lerch, McDaniel & Deprima, Phoenix, Arizona, for debtor-appellee Cedic Development Co.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, Earl H. Carroll, District Judge, Presiding; D.C. No. CV-98-00636-EHC(PHX)
Before: John T. Noonan, Sidney R. Thomas, and Marsha S. Berzon, Circuit Judges.
Warnicke & Littler (the Firm) appeals the district court's denial of $10,000 additional attorneys fees in its representation of the bankrupt debtor, Cedic Development Co. (Cedic). We hold that the basic rates charged by the firm did not take into account all relevant factors and that as adequate compensation the Firm was entitled to the $10,000. We reverse the judgment of the district court.
The following facts were found after trial before the bankruptcy court for the District of Arizona: On May 31, 1991, Cedic filed a voluntary petition in bankruptcy. On September 6, 1991, Dillingham, Kelip & Cross was appointed as its counsel. Five months later this law firm moved to withdraw for failure by Cedic to pay its approved fees; the motion was granted. On March 24, 1992, Ted A. Smith was approved as counsel, but he, too, moved to withdraw; on August 12, 1992, the motion was granted.
For nearly a month Cedic looked for a new lawyer. The bankruptcy court informed Cedic that any new counsel would not be permitted to withdraw. Cedic persuaded the Firm, which was experienced in complex bankruptcy cases, to take its case with a contract that provided Cedic would pay its rates ranging from $125 per hour for an associate to $210 per hour for the senior partner. The rates were below the market rates for bankruptcy counsel with experience comparable to that of the Firm. The contract further specified that the total fee would be adjusted, upward or downward, at the discretion of the Firm, depending on ten enumerated factors such as the magnitude of the matter and the results achieved as well as on other considerations that might arise in the course of the case. The Firm was paid a retainer of $5,000, an amount substantially less than other lawyers in the Phoenix area would have asked for under the circumstances. On September 24, 1992, the bankruptcy court approved the agreement.
Thereafter, the Firm successfully represented the bankruptcy in complex litigation to recover property which had been sold at a Trustee's Sale and further arranged financing to save Cedic's interest, ultimately leading to a benefit of $293,541.21. The Firm also successfully represented Cedic in preventing foreclosure on property in which Cedic had an equity of $100,000. The Firm also provided a variety of other legal services to the debtor's benefit.
The Firm made two interim applications for fees, which were approved by the bankruptcy court and paid by Cedic. On February 3, 1994, it filed a third application, asking for what it described as an amount based on a lodestar of $33,203 and an enhancement of $29,354.12. The bankruptcy court awarded the sum designated as the lodestar amount plus an enhancement of $10,000.
Cedic appealed the award of the enhancement to the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (the BAP). The BAP remanded for a hearing on whether the enhancement was justified.
On remand, the bankruptcy court conducted a trial and made the findings of fact set out above. The bankruptcy court concluded that the hourly rates charged by the Firm did not take into account all the factors set out to determine the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Buckridge, RS 04-17991 PC.
...with compensation for comparable non-bankruptcy services." Manoa Fin. Co., 853 F,2d at 692; see Cedic Dev. Co. v. Warnicke (In re Cedic Dev. Co.), 219 F.3d 1115, 1117 (9th Cir.2000) (holding that a bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in finding that a $10,000 enhancement was neces......
-
In re El Paso Refinery, LP
...in similar cases") (emphasis added); Matter of Lawler, 807 F.2d 1207, 1211 (stating the same as Fender); see also In re Cedic Development Co., 219 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir.2000) (lower court's premise that attorneys' standard hourly rate should be used to calculate lodestar award was in 41 The co......
-
In re Dawson
...the charged rate was the appropriate lodestar rate only because it was the rate actually charged. Cf. Cedic Dev. Co. v. Warnicke (In re Cedic Dev. Co.), 219 F.3d 1115, 1117 (9th Cir.2000) (reversing a fee determination when the rates actually charged "were bargain rates"). Rather, the bankr......
-
In re Dawson
...the charged rate was the appropriate lodestar rate only because it was the rate actually charged. Cf. Cedic Dev. Co. v. Warnicke (In re Cedic Dev. Co.), 219 F.3d 1115, 1117 (9th Cir.2000) (reversing a fee determination when the rates actually charged "were bargain rates"). Rather, the court......