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

In re : B ATAA/KIER

LAND, LLC , De

btor,

JPM C C 2007-C IB C 19 EAST GR EENW AY, LLC , Pla intiff - Appe lle e ,
v. M AUR EEN GAUGHAN, C HAPTER 11 TR USTEE OF B ATAA/KIER LAND LLC , De

btor - Appe lla

nt, B ATAA/KIER

LAND II, LLC ; B ANKER S TR

UST C OM PANY, De fe nda

nts - Appe lla

nts. No. 14-16419

D.C . No. 2:13-c v-00179-JW S

M EM OR ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Sta t e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz ona John W . Se dwic k, Distric t Judge , Pre siding 

# FIL ED
JUL 08 2016 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 9th C ir. R . 36-3.Argue d a nd Subm itte d M a rc h

18, 2016 Sa n Fra n c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : B YB EE a nd N .R

. SM ITH, C irc u it J udge s, a n d KOR M AN, * * D istric t Judge

. JPM C C 2007-C IB C 19 Ea st Gre e nwa y , LLC (“ JPM C C ” ) brought a n a dve rsa ry proc e e ding in the U nite d Sta te s B a nkruptc y C ou r t ag ai nst the ba nkruptc y de btor, B a ta a /Kie rla nd, LLC (“ Kie rla nd I” ), a s we ll a s Kie rla n d I ’s r el a t e d e ntity , B a ta a /Kie rla nd II, L LC (“ Kie rla nd II” ), a nd B a n ke rs Trust C o m

pa ny , a se c ure d

c re d it o r o f Kie rla nd II (c olle c tive ly , the “ Appe l la nts” ). The a dve rsa ry proc e e ding involve d a dispute ove r a pa rk in g e a se m e nt a ffe c ting the prope rty of Kie rla nd I a n d Kie rla nd II, whic h owns the lot a dja c e nt t o Kie rla nd I ’s

. K ie rla nd I a nd Kie rla nd II

a re b oth o w ed b y t he sa m e c orpora te e ntity , B a t a a Oil, a c lose d c orpora tion whose sole sha re holde rs a t the re l e va

nt tim e we re Da vid a

nd Anne C a lvin. JPM C C , a s e c ure d c re ditor of K ie rla nd I p osse ssing a l ie n a ga inst Kie rla nd I’ s p r o pe rty , sought a de c l a

ra tory judgm e nt tha t the e a se m e nt be twe e n Kie rla nd I an d Kie rla nd II ex t e nde d to a pa rking ga ra ge on Kie rla nd II’ s prope rty , thus giving Kie rla nd I a c c e ss to the ga ra ge a nd c onse que ntly p rote c t ing t he v al u e of JPM C C ’ s
se c u rity inte re st in K ie rl an d I ’s p r ope rty
. R a the r tha n re solve the i ssue in the

a dve rsa ry proc e e d ing, the ba nkruptc y c ourt a ddre sse d it in its c onside ra tion of

** The Honora

ble Edwa rd R . Korm a n, Distric t Judge for the U.S. Distric t C ourt for the Ea s te rn Distric t of Ne w York, sitting by de signa tion. 2Kie rla nd I’ s propose d re orga niz a tion pla

n in the re la te d C h a

pte r 11 c a se . In tha t c a se , the ba nkruptc y c o urt c onfirm e d Kie rla n d I’ s propose d pla n a nd h e l d t

ha t the e a se m e nt did not e xte nd t o the ga

ra ge on Kie rla nd II’ s prope rty without pa

y m e n t of a d ditiona l

c om pen sat i o n to K ie rla

nd II. B a se d on this holding, t he ba nkruptc y c ourt subse q ue ntly gra nte d sum

m a ry judgm e nt for Appe lla nts in t he a dve rsa ry proc e e ding. Alle ging tha t the y we re the suc c e s sful pa rtie s i n the a dve rsa ry proc e e ding i n whic h JPM C C sought a d ecl ar atory judgm e nt, Appe lla n t s t he n suc c e ssfully a

pplie d for

a ttorne y s’ fe e s unde r the Ariz ona fe e -shifting sta tute , A r i z . R e v . Sta t. Ann. § 12-341.01, whic h a

wa rds fe e s to the “ s uc ces sf u l pa rty ” in a n a c tion a rising out of

a c ontra c t
. In the first of two a

ppe a ls from the ba

nkruptc y c ourt’ s c onfirm a tion o f Kie rla n d I’ s re orga niz a tion pla

n, the distric t c ourt va c a te d t he c onfirm a tion o rde r a nd re m a nde d for furthe r proc e e dings. U ltim a te l y , in th e s eco n d a ppe a l following t

ha t initia l

re m a nd, the distric t c o urt rule d in JPM C C ’ s fa v or a nd he ld tha t, “ a s a m a tte r of la w, the pa rking e a se m e nt
. . . gra nte d [Kie rla nd I] a n e a se m e n t in the c ontinue d u se of the pa rking spa c e s phy sic a lly loc a te d on the Kie rla n d II prope rty w ithout re im burse m e nt for the c ost of c o nstruc ting the pa rking ga ra ge .” Afte r the first a

ppe a l of the pla

n c onfirm a t ion a

n d b e fore the se c ond, the distric t

c ourt— a c ting on the a

ppe a l o f JPM C C

—

re ve rse d the ba

nkruptc y co u r t ’s gra nt of
3a ttorne y s’ fe e s to Appe lla nts. The pre se nt a

ppe a l is from tha t orde r. Appe lla nts a rgue tha t , be c a use the ba n kruptc y c ourt gra n te d the m sum m a ry judgm e n t in the a dve rsa ry p r o c e e di n g

— a d eci s io n f r o m w h ich J P M CC vo l u n t ar i l y d i s m i s s e d i t s

a ppe a l— Appe lla nts re m a in t

he “ suc c e ssful” pa

rtie s a s to t

ha t pr ocee ding notwithsta

nding t he fa c t tha t the gra n t of sum m a ry judgm e nt wa s m e a ningle ss be c a use the subse que n t re ve rsa l of t he pla n c onfirm a tion re nde re d Appe lla nts the losing pa

rtie s in the c ontra c tua l d i s p u t e ove r the e a se m e nt on whic h the y h a d pre va ile d in the

a dve rsa ry proc e e ding. W e ha ve jurisdic tion unde r 28 U. S

. C. § 158(d)(1), a nd we

a ffirm

. Appe lla n t s ’ position ove rlooks the fa c t tha t JPM C C ha d a ppe a le d the ba nkruptc y c ourt’ s gra nt of sum m ar y j u d g m e nt, a nd tha t tha t a ppe a l w a s dism isse d pursua nt to a n a gre e m en t i n whic h the pa rtie s stipula

te d, a s re le va

nt he re , tha t the dism issa l would “ n o t pre

judic e [JPM C C ’ s] rights in a ny m a nne r” in JPM C C ’ s a ppe a l of t he a t torne y s’ fe e s t

he ba nkruptc y c o urt a wa rde d i n t h e a dve rsa ry proc e e ding. Thus, t he pa rtie s a gre e d t h a t Appe lla

nts’ c la im to a t torne y s ’ fe e s would rise or fa l l wit h the pla

n c onfirm a tion a

ppe a l. This is a na logous to a situa t ion whe re a losing pa rty pre va ils on a

ppe a l, whic h would re sult i n a fe e s a wa rd be ing va c a te d

. Se e , e .g., Tritsc h le r v. Allsta

te Ins. C o ., 213 Ariz

. 505, 521 (C t. App. 2006); Fry ’ s Food Store s
o f Ariz ., Inc

. v. M a the r & Assoc s., Inc ., 183 Ariz

. 89, 92 (C t. App. 1995). B e c a use
4the re la te d pla n c onfirm a tion a

p pe a ls to our c o urt ha ve be e n dism i sse d pursua nt to a joint stipula

tion, the la st w o rd on the dispute d e a se m e nt issue r em a ins the distric t

c ourt’ s ruling in fa vor of JPM C C , a nd thus, A ppe lla nts a re not the suc c e ssful pa

rtie s

a nd a re not e ntitle d to a

ttorne y s’ fe e s. AFFIRM E D.

5