Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-canb-3_04-ap-03161/USCOURTS-canb-3_04-ap-03161-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Pal S. Banga
Plaintiff
Shalini Poonam Bhutani
Defendant

Document Text:

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

MEMORANDUM RE PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO AMEND JUDGMENT -1-

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

In re 

SHALINI POONAM BHUTANI,

Debtor.

 

PAL S. BANGA,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

SHALINI POONAM BHUTANI, 

Defendant.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No: 04-30875 TEC

Chapter 7

Adv. Proc. No. 04-03161 TC

MEMORANDUM RE PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO AMEND JUDGMENT

The court held a trial in this action, in which it determined

that Defendant converted Plaintiff’s funds, and that Defendant has

a debt to Plaintiff in the amount of $25,579.24 that is nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6). Plaintiff now moves to

amend that judgment to increase the damages awarded and to recover

attorneys fees. For the reasons set forth below, I determine that

the motion should be denied.

Signed and Filed: March 29, 2006

________________________________________

THOMAS E. CARLSON

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge

________________________________________

Entered on Docket 

March 30, 2006

GLORIA L. FRANKLIN, CLERK 

U.S BANKRUPTCY COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case: 04-03161 Doc# 38 Filed: 03/29/06 Entered: 03/30/06 08:28:48 Page 1 of 4 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

MEMORANDUM RE PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO AMEND JUDGMENT -2-

At the outset, I note that the motion is not timely as a 

motion to amend judgment under Rule 9023. The judgment was entered

on February 14, 2006, and the 10-day period for filing a motion

under Rule 9023 expired on Friday, February 24, 2006. The motion

was not filed until February 27, 2006. The motion must therefore

be evaluated under the standards governing a motion for relief from

judgment under Rule 9024.

Plaintiff first asserts that the court made a clerical error

in computing damages. Specifically, in determining the amount that

Defendant converted, the court should not have deducted both the

$14,980 design fee and the amounts Defendant forwarded to

suppliers. Plaintiff asserts that this was error because the

design contract required Defendant to pay suppliers from her

$14,980 fee. The court did not make a calculation error. Rather,

the count found that the relevant language in the design contract

required Defendant to select, but not pay for, materials. Thus,

Defendant was entitled to retain the design fee after paying the

suppliers from other funds Plaintiff advanced.

Plaintiff next asserts that the court should have included in

the damages awarded $2,750 in attorneys fees incurred prepetition

in removing a mechanics lien. If the court made any error, it was

not of the nature that is the basis for relief under Rule 60. 

While Plaintiff introduced evidence regarding the expense in

question, neither his trial brief nor his closing statement

contained any calculation of damages identifying this expense as

within the damages proximately caused by Defendant’s conversion of

funds.

 Plaintiff asserts finally that the court erred in determining 

Case: 04-03161 Doc# 38 Filed: 03/29/06 Entered: 03/30/06 08:28:48 Page 2 of 4 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

MEMORANDUM RE PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO AMEND JUDGMENT -3-

that Plaintiff is not entitled to recover attorneys fees incurred

in the present action. Plaintiff argues that he had no opportunity

to address the issue. He did not address the question at trial,

because fees are generally sought by post-trial motion. With

respect to the merits of the question, he argues that he is

entitled to recover fees for the present action under the fee

clause in the design contract. This argument is unpersuasive. The

controlling dispute in this action is not whether Defendant

breached the design contract, but whether Defendant converted

Plaintiff’s funds. Defendant would not have contested any 

breach-of-contract claim Plaintiff filed in the chapter 7 case. 

Plaintiff contested only the dischargeability of her debt to

Plaintiff. The contractual fee clause, which only covers an action

“to enforce this contract,” does not apply to the present action,

which is in substance a federal-law tort action, even though the

present action grows out of a contractual relationship between

Plaintiff and Defendant. Grove v. Fulwiler (In re Fulwiler), 624

F.2d 908, 910 (9th Cir.1980); Fobian v. Western Farm Credit Bank

(in re Fobian), 951 F.2d 1149, 1153 (9th Cir.1991); see also Stout

v. Turney, 22 Cal.3d 718, 730)(1978)(tort action for damages

arising out of a contract is not an action on a contract).

**END OF MEMORANDUM**

Case: 04-03161 Doc# 38 Filed: 03/29/06 Entered: 03/30/06 08:28:48 Page 3 of 4 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Court Service List

John M. Daley, Esq.

Law Offices of John M. Daley

28 East 3rd Avenue, Suite 200

San Mateo, CA 94401 

Alexander J. Berline, Esq.

Hanson, Bridgett, Marcus,

 Vlahos & Rudy

333 Market Street, Suite 2100

San Francisco, CA 94105-2173 

Office of the U.S. Trustee

235 Pine Street

Suite 700

San Francisco, CA 94104 

E. Lynn Schoenmann

800 Powell Street

San Francisco, CA 94108 

Case: 04-03161 Doc# 38 Filed: 03/29/06 Entered: 03/30/06 08:28:48 Page 4 of 4