FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

USA SALES, INC., DBA Statewide 

Distributors, a California Corporation, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 v. 

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES 

TRUSTEE, 

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 21-55643 

D.C. No. 

5:19-cv-02133-

JWH-KK 

ORDER

On Remand from the United States Supreme Court

Filed August 6, 2024

Before: Susan P. Graber and John B. Owens, Circuit 

Judges, and John R. Tunheim,

* District Judge.

Order

* The Honorable John R. Tunheim, United States District Judge for the 

District of Minnesota, sitting by designation.
2 USA SALES, INC. V. OFFICE OF THE U.S. TRUSTEE

SUMMARY**

Bankruptcy

On remand from the Supreme Court for further 

consideration in light of Office of the United States Trustee 

v. John Q. Hammons Fall 2006, LLC, 144 S. Ct. 1588 

(2024), the panel reversed the district court’s summary 

judgment in favor of USA Sales, Inc., a Chapter 11 debtor, 

and remanded the case to the district court.

The Bankruptcy Judgeship Act of 2017 significantly 

increased the statutory fees for certain debtors in all but six 

judicial districts. USA Sales sued for a refund of the 

increased fees, arguing that the 2017 Act (1) did not apply 

because USA Sales had filed for bankruptcy before the Act 

took effect; and (2) violated the uniformity requirement of 

the Bankruptcy Clause. The district court agreed with both 

arguments and ordered a refund, and the panel originally 

affirmed.

On remand from the Supreme Court, the panel held that 

John Q. Hammons Fall 2006, LLC, did not alter its original 

holding that the 2017 Act applied to USA Sales’ bankruptcy 

proceeding even though the case was already pending when 

the Act took effect.

In Siegel v. Fitzgerald, 596 U.S. 464 (2022), the 

Supreme Court held that the 2017 Act violated the 

uniformity requirement of the Bankruptcy Clause but left 

open the question of the appropriate remedy. In John Q. 

** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has 

been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.
USA SALES, INC. V. OFFICE OF THE U.S. TRUSTEE 3

Hammons Fall 2006, LLC, the Supreme Court answered that 

question, holding that the appropriate remedy was 

prospective parity, not a refund for debtors who paid 

unconstitutional fees or retrospectively raising fees. In light 

of John Q. Hammons Fall 2006, LLC, the panel reversed the 

district court’s determination that USA Sales was entitled to 

a refund, and remanded.

COUNSEL

A. Lavar Taylor (argued) and Lisa O. Nelson, Taylor Nelson 

Amitrano LLP, Irvine, California, for Plaintiff-Appellee. 

Jeffrey E. Sandberg (argued) and Mark B. Stern, Appellate 

Staff Attorneys; E. Martin Estrada, United States Attorney; 

Brian M. Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney 

General; United States Department of Justice, Civil 

Division, Washington, D.C.; Wendy Cox and Sumi Sakata, 

Trial Attorneys; P. Matthew Sutko, Associate General 

Counsel; Ramona D. Elliott, Deputy Director/General 

Counsel; Of Counsel, Executive Office for United States 

Trustees, United States Department of Justice, Washington, 

D.C.; Jasmin Yang, Assistant United States Attorney, Office 

of the United States Attorney, Los Angeles, California; for 

Defendant-Appellant.
4 USA SALES, INC. V. OFFICE OF THE U.S. TRUSTEE

ORDER

This matter is before our court following the U.S.

Supreme Court’s order granting certiorari, vacating our 

judgment, and remanding for further consideration in light 

of Office of the United States Trustee v. John Q. Hammons 

Fall 2006, LLC, 144 S. Ct. 1588 (2024). See Off. of the U.S. 

Tr. v. USA Sales, Inc., 2024 WL 3089472, at *1 (June 24, 

2024).

This case concerns a provision of the Bankruptcy 

Judgeship Act of 2017 (“2017 Act”), which significantly 

increased the statutory fees for certain debtors in all but six 

judicial districts. USA Sales, Inc., a Chapter 11 debtor, sued 

for a refund of the increased fees, arguing that the 2017 Act 

(1) did not apply because USA Sales had filed for 

bankruptcy before the Act took effect; and (2) violated the 

uniformity requirement of the Bankruptcy Clause, U.S. 

Const. art I, § 8, cl. 4. The district court agreed with both 

arguments and ordered a refund. The Office of the United 

States Trustee (“UST”) timely appealed from the district 

court’s summary judgment. We originally affirmed. See 

USA Sales, Inc. v. Off. of the U.S. Tr., 76 F.4th 1248, 1256 

(9th Cir. 2023). On remand from the Supreme Court, we 

now reverse and remand.

1. As an initial matter, John Q. Hammons Fall 2006, 

LLC does not alter our original holding that the 2017 Act 

applied to USA Sales’ bankruptcy proceeding even though 

its case was already pending when the Act took effect. See 

USA Sales, Inc., 76 F.4th at 1252-53.

2. In Siegel v. Fitzgerald, 596 U.S. 464, 480-81 (2022), 

the Supreme Court held that the 2017 Act violated the 

uniformity requirement of the Bankruptcy Clause but left 
USA SALES, INC. V. OFFICE OF THE U.S. TRUSTEE 5

open the question of the appropriate remedy. In John Q. 

Hammons Fall 2006, LLC, the Supreme Court answered that 

question, holding that the appropriate remedy was 

prospective parity, not a refund for debtors who paid 

unconstitutional fees or retrospectively raising fees. See 144 

S. Ct. at 1592, 1596. In light of John Q. Hammons Fall 

2006, LLC, we reverse and remand the district court’s 

determination that USA Sales is entitled to a refund.