N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT JOSEPH PADGETT,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
and DARLA PADGETT,

Pla i ntiff,
v. C ITY OF M ONTE SERENO; B R IAN LOVENTHAL; A. C UR TIS W R IGHT; ER IN GAR

NER ; M A RK B R ODSKY; B ARB AR

A NESB ET; DAVID B AXTER , De fe nda n ts-Appe lle e s, and THE LAW

FIR M OF KALLIS & ASSOC IATES, P.C ; B U STAM ANTE & GAGLIASSO, P.C .,

C re d itors-Appe lle e s. No. 15-15867 D.C . No. 5:04-c v-03946-EJD
M EM O R ANDUM * 

# FIL ED

JAN 08 2018 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.Appe a l from the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia Edwa rd J. Da vila , Distric t Judge , Pre s iding Argue d a nd Subm itte d April 18, 2017 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : SC HR OEDER

and R AW LINSON, C irc uit Judge s, a nd DR A IN, * * Distric t Judge
. Jose ph Pa dge tt (Pa dge tt) a ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s de c i sion to a llow his form e r a ttorne y s to pursuea ttorne y s’ fe e s a fte r be ing te rm inate d by Pa dge tt. In
a ddition, Pa dge tt a sse rts tha t the distric t c ourt e rre d in dismissing his c la im for fe e s a s a sa nc tion for fa iling to file

a ne wm otion on re m and. 1. W e a gre e tha

t the distric t c ourt pote ntia lly e rre d by a llowing The

La w Firm of Ka llis & Assoc iate s P.C . (Ka l lis) a nd B usta m an te & Ga glia sso P.C
. (B usta m ante ) to se e k attorne y s’ fe e s a fte r the y no longe r re pre se nte d Pa dge tt. The distric t c o urt im

prope rly re lie d on our de c ision in U nite d State

s e x re l . Virani v
. J e rry M. Le w is Truc k

Parts & Equip., Inc
. , 89 F.3d 574 (9th C ir. 1996) , abrogation re c ognize d by Unite d State s v . K im , 806 F.3d 1161, 1174 (9th C ir. 2015), to pe rm it Ka llis’ and B usta m ante ’ s c ontinue d re que st for fe e s. V irani , howe v e r, involve d a q ui tam a c tion, whic h is func tiona lly diffe re n t tha n a c ivil

* * The Honora

ble Ge rshwin A. Dra in, Unite d Stat e s Distric t Judge for the E a s te rn Distric t of M ic higa n , sitting by

de signa t ion. 2rights c a s e . Se e Virani , 89 F.3d a t 575. In a qui tam a c tion, “ a substa ntia l portion of the d am a ge s c olle c t e d goe s to the fe d e ra l gove rnm e nt, not to the qui tam pla intiff . . . .” Gilbrook

v . C ity of W e stminste r , 177 F.3d 839, 874 (9th C ir. 1999). In a c ivil rights c a s e , by c o n tra st, a ttorne y fe e s be long to the

pla intiff a

bse nt c ontra c t

ua l provisions to the

c ontra ry or a n attorne y lie n. Se e Unite d State

s v . $186,416.00 in U.S. C urre nc y , 642 F.3d 753, 756 (9th C ir. 2011). B e c a use the distric t c ourt did not c onside r whe the r c o n tra c tua l provisions or a n attorne y lie n justifie d the award of fe e s to c ounse l rathe r tha n to the pla intiff, we va c a te an d re m an d for the distric t
c ourt to m ake tha

t de te rm inat ion in thefirst insta nc e . 2. The distric t c ourt did not viola te the rule of m andate by orde ring the pa rtie s to file m otions a

nd supple m e nta l doc um e nts to support a re que st for
a ttorne y s’ fe e s on re m and. The rule of m an dat e a llows a lowe r c ourt to “ de c ide
anything not fore c lose d

by the m andat e .” Se e Stac

y v . C olv i n , 825 F.3d 563, 568 (9th C ir. 2016) (c ita

tion a nd inte rna l quota

tion m arks om itte d)
. The m andat e in Pa dge tt’ s e arlie r a

ppe a l c onc e rne d a

rtic ulation of the ra tiona le supporting the distric t c o urt’ s a

w ard of fe e s a

nd c osts. Se e P adge tt v . Lov e nthal , 706 F.3d 1205, 1208 (9th C ir. 2013). The fa c tua l a nd proc e d ura l c irc um sta

nc e s of this c a se are unusua l. While the c a se wa s on a ppe a l to this C irc uit, the pre siding judge re tire d. Subse que ntly , the c a se wa s re a s signe d. Our m andate c annot re a sona b ly be
3c onstrue d a s re quiring thene wly a ssigne d judge to providethe re a soning of his pre d e c e ssor, e spe c ia lly

c onside ring the la c k

of e xpla n a t ion provide d by

his pre d e c e ssor, whic h wa s the ve ry re a son for our re m a

n d. The distric t c ourt’ s re que s t for m otions a

nd supporting doc

um e nts on re m and wa s re a sona bly in pursuit of c om

plia nc e with the m andate . Se e Unite d State s v . Pe re z , 475 F.3d 1110, 1113 (9th C ir. 2007) (“ The ultim a te ta sk is to distinguish m atte rs tha t ha v e be e n de c ide d on a

p pe a l , a nd a re the re fore be y ond the jurisdic tion of the lowe r c ourt, from m a tte rs tha

t ha ve not.” ) (c ita

tion a nd a lte rations omitte d ). 3. The C ourt’ s sua sponte dism issa l of Pa dge tt’ s c la im for fe e s a s a sa

nc tion for fa ilure to file a

ne w m o tion wa s e xc e ssive unde r the c irc um sta nc e s of this c a se . B e fore e n te ring a

dism issa l unde r F E D . R
. C I V . P. 41(b), the distric t c ourt is
re quire d to we i gh “ (1) the public ’ s inte re st in e xpe ditious re solution of litiga tion; (2) the c ourt's ne e d

to m ana g e its doc ke t; (3) the risk of pre judic e to the de fe nda n ts; (4) the public polic y

fa voring disposition of c a se s on the ir m e rits a nd (5) the ava ila

bility of le ss dra s tic sa

n c tions.” He nde r

son v . Dunc an , 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th C ir. 1986). In Hamilton v . N e ptune Orie nt Line

s, Ltd. , 811 F.2d 498 (9th C ir. 1987), this C ourt c onside re d a distric t c ourt’ s sua sponte dism issa l a

rising
a fte r a bre akdown in the

re lat ionship be twe e n the pla intiff a nd his a ttorne y s. W e re ve rse d the distric t c ourt’ s dism issa l, re a soning tha t the distric t c o urt did not give
4“ c l e ar warning” to the Pla intiff tha t dism issa l would re sult or c o nside r the
ava ila bility of le ss dra stic sa

nc tions. Id. a t 500. W e sa id tha t “ [w] h ile the re is no
re quire m e nt tha

t e v e ry c onc e iva ble sa nc tion be e xam ine d, m e a

n ingful a lte rna tive s
m ust be e xplore d.” Id. (c ita tion om itte d ); se e also In re Phe ny lpropanolamine (PPA) Prod. Liab. Litig. , 460 F.3d 1217, 1229 (9th C ir. 2006) (this C ourt

“ foc us[e s] m ore c lose ly

on the la c k of wa

rning a nd a bse nc e of c onside ration of le ss dra s tic a lte rnative s whe n the dism issa l is sua sponte ra the r tha

n in re sponse to a notic e d m otion” ). On the re c ord be fore us, the re is no indic a tion tha t c le ar warning
wa s give n to Pa dge tt tha

t dism issa l would oc c ur a s a re sult of his failure to m e e t the C ourt’ s De c e m

be r 13, 2013 de a dline . Nor doe s the distric t c o urt’ s Ja nua ry 10, 2014 orde r show tha

t it c onside re d im

posing le ss dra s tic sa

nc tions on Pa dge tt. Abse nt a ny c o nside ra tion of the se fa c tors, re ve rsa l is wa rra nte d. The re is a re m a i ning issue

of a ppe lla te jurisdic tion. It is undispute d tha t Pa dge tt’ s a

ppe a l from

the M arc h 31, 2015 orde r awarding fe e s to his a ttorne y s wa s tim e ly . Wright c onte nds, howe v e r, tha t the Ja n ua ry 10, 2014 orde r dism issing Pa dge tt’ s own c l a im

to a ttorne y s’ fe e s wa s a

fina l, a p pe a la ble orde r so tha

t his
a ppe a l is untim e ly

a s to tha t dism issa l. Ye t

the Ja nua ry 10, 2014 orde r wa s not a fina l orde r be c a

use it did not re solve “ a ll the c la im s or the rights a nd lia bilitie s” of
a ll the pa rtie s . Se e F E D . R
. C I V . P. 54(b). Nor did it fina l ly re solve issue s re lating
5to fe e s a

nd c osts. TheJa

nua ry 10, 2014 orde r le ft De fe nda n ts’ re que sts for c osts
unre solve d. And in the

sa m e orde r, the distric t c ourt sta y e d the proc e e dings so Pa dge tt’ s form e r a ttorne y s c ould pa rtic ipate with de fe n da

nts in a judic ia lly
supe rvise d se ttle m e nt c onfe re nc e on fe e s. Sinc e the Ja nua ry 10, 2014 orde r wa s not fina l with re spe c t to fe e s , it m e rge d into thefina l M arc h 31, 2015 orde r for purpose s of a

ppe a l. Se e Munoz v . Small Bus. Admin. , 644 F.2d 1361, 1364 (9th C ir. 1981) (“ [A] n a

p p e a l from

the fina l judgm e nt dra

ws in que stion a ll e arlie r non-fina l orde rs a

nd a ll rulings which produc e d the judgm e nt.” ). Ea c h pa rty sha ll be a r the ir own c osts. V ACAT E D AND RE M ANDE D in par t.

6Padge tt v

. C ity of M onte Se re no , Case No. 15-15867 Raw linson, Cir c uit Judge , c onc ur r ing in par t and disse nting in par t: I a gre e with the m a

jority tha t the distric t c ourt should de te rm i ne whe the r the
a ttorne y s’ fe e s be l onge d to c ounse l or to thepla intiff. I a lso a gre e that the distric t
c ourt a c te d within our mandate whe n it orde re d the pa rtie s to file m otions a

nd supple m e nta l doc um e nts to support a re q ue st for fe e s on re m and. Howe v e r, I pa

rt c om pa ny with the m a

jority on its re vie w of the distric t
c ourt’ s sa nc tions orde r. In m

y vie w, we la c k jurisdic tion ove r Appe l la nt Jose ph Pa dge tt’ s c ha lle n ge to the dism issa l of his a ttorne y ’ s fe e c l a im

for the se rvic e s provide d by

the M c M anis Fa

ulke r Law Firm . The dism issa l wa s a sa n c tion for fa ilure to subm it a

fe e m otion on re m and. Pa dge tt file d his notic e of a ppe a l ove r one y e a r a fte r e n try of the orde r de ny ing his m otion for re c onside ration of the distric t c o urt’ s dism issa l, re nde ring his a ppe a l untim e ly
. Se e Fe d. R . App. 4(a )(1), 4(a )(4)(A)(vi). The fina l a ward of fe e s to a

ttorne y s Ka llis a

nd B u sta m ante O’ Hara & Ga glia sso wa s a

se pa ra te orde r re sulting in a

se p ara te a

ppe a l. S e e Ore gon N at. De se rt Ass’n v . Loc k

e , 572 F.3d 610, 614 (9th C ir. 2009) (holding tha t apostjudgm e nt a

ttorne y fe e award re quire s a

se pa rate a ppe a l). The re fore , the re wa s no unde rly ing judgm e nt with whic h the dism issa l orde r c ould possibly m e rge . I
re spe c tfully

disse nt from

this portion of the

m a jority disposition. 

# FIL ED JAN 08 2018 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS