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 the M atte r of: DAR

YN SC HUM AC HER , De

btor,
DAR YN SC HUM AC H ER , Appe lla

nt,
v. DAVID L. R

A Y, C ha pte r 7 Truste e , Appe lle e . No. 10-55214 D.C . No. 2:08-c v-03027-SVW
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia Ste phe n V. W ilson, Distric t Judge , Pre s iding A rgue d a nd Subm i tte d Se pte m

be r 2, 2015 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : O’ SC A

NNLAIN, FISHER , a

nd B YB EE, C irc uit Judge s . 

# FIL ED SEP 22 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S

. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at 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.Ala

n Sc hum a c he r a

ppe a ls from the distric t

c o urt orde r a ffirm ing the ba nkruptc y c ourt orde r c om

pe lling Sc hum a c he r to c om p l y with a c ourt-a pprove d
se ttle m e nt a gre e m e nt a

nd a warding a ttorne y s’ fe e s to theba

nkruptc y truste e . I A pa rty who e s ta blishe s tha

t a ba nkruptc y truste e fa ile d to c o m

ply with the notic e re q uire m e nts re quire d

to obta in c ourt a

pprova l of a

se ttle m e nt a g re e m e nt
c annot obtain re lie f from

the se ttle m e nt a g re e m e nt unle ss he a lso e sta b lishe s tha

t he ha s be e n pre

judic e d by

suc h de fe c tive notic e . Se e Rosson v . Fitzge rald ( In re Rosson ), 545 F.3d 764, 776 (9th C ir. 2008) (re vie wing de fe c tive notic e in ba nkruptc y proc e e dings unde r the ha rm le ss e rror sta

nda rd); se e also Fe d. R
. B ankr. P. 9005 (a

pply ing to ba

nkruptc y proc e e dings Fe d . R . C i v. P. 61, whic h de sc ribe s the h arm l e s s e rror sta

nda rd of re vie w). He re , e ve n if the ba nkruptc y truste e fa ile d to provideprope r notic e to one of the ba nkruptc y e sta te ’ s c re ditors—

the probate
e sta te

— Sc hum a c he r ha s fa ile d to e sta blish how such

de fe c tive notic e pre

judic e d him in a ny wa y . Thus, a

ny de fe c tive notic e to the probate e sta t e doe s not re nde r the s e ttle m e nt a gre e m e nt une nforc e a ble a ga inst Sc hum a c he r. II In the se ttle m e nt a gre e m e nt, Sc hum a c he r m e re ly purports to bind himse lf,
ra the r tha n the probate e sta

t e . Unde r C a lifornia

la w, “ [o] ne who binds him se lf to a 2c ontra c t whic h c annot be pe rform e d without the c o nse nt or c oope ra tion of a third pe rson is not re lie v e d of lia bility be c a use of his ina

bility to se c ure the re quire d
c onse n t or c o ope ra tion.” He n sle r v . C ity of Los Ange le

s , 268 P.2d 12, 21 (C a l. Dist. C t. App. 1954); se e also J e ff D. v . Andrus , 899 F.2d 753, 759 (9th C ir. 1989) (e xpla ining tha

t the c onstruc tion a

n d e nforc e m e nt of se ttle m e nt a gre e m e nts a re gove rne d by sta t e la w)

. Thus, Sc hum a c he r’ s ina bility unila te ra l ly to bind the probat e e sta

te , a s one of thre e c o-a dm inistra tors, 1 se e C a l. Prob. C ode § 9630(a )(2), ha s no im pa c t on theunde rly ing va lidity of the se ttle m e nt a gre e m e nt, to whic h the probat e e sta

te is not a pa rty . To the e xte nt Sc hum a c h e r signe d in his c a pa c ity a s
c o-a dm inistra

tor of the probat e e sta

te , we re je c t his a rgum e nt tha

t the se ttle m e nt is inva lid be c a

use h i s proba

te attorne y

did not a sse nt; his c o unse l of re c ord in the ba nkruptc y a c tion, whe re the se ttle m e n t wa s a pprove d, did a sse nt, whic h is a ll the
a uthority he re lie s on would re quire
. S e e 7 C a l. Jur. 3d Attorney s at La w § 219 (3d
e d. 2015). M ore ove r, the re is no indic ation in the re c ord, nor doe s Sc hum a c he r argue , that the pa rtie s to the se ttle m e nt a gre e m e nt c onte m plate d tha t the a gre e m e nt’ s form ation would be

c ontinge nt upon a

pprova l by

the probate e sta

te . Thus, the

1 Sc hum a c he r’ s unoppose d m o tion to ta ke judic i a l notic e , file d on M arc h 2, 2015, is gra

nte d. 3probat e e sta

te wa s not re quire d to a

pprove the a gre e m e nt in orde r for the
a gre e m e nt to bee nforc e a

ble a ga inst Sc hum a c he r. Se e J ac obs v . Fre e man , 163 C a l. R ptr. 680, 687 (C t. App. 1980) (e xpla ining tha t only whe n “ re a sona

b le pe rsons would ha ve unde rstood tha

t the a gre e m e nt would not be e ffe c t ive whe n origina lly signe d” due to the ne e d

for third-pa

rty a pprova l will the

a bse nc e of suc h a

p prova l de fe at the form ation of thec ontra c t). Thus, thedistric t c ourt did not err in c onc luding tha t the se ttle m e n t
a gre e m e nt wa s va lid a

nd e nforc e a

ble a g a inst Sc hum a c he r. W e note tha t the ba nkruptc y c ourt’ s orde r doe s not spe c ify any pa rtic ula r m anne r in whic h Sc hum a c he r m ay

or m ust “ c a us[e ] ” the probat e e sta

te to withdra

wits proof of
c la im and to re le a se its judgme nt lie n. Ne ithe r do we spe c ify any pa rtic u la r m e ans of pe rform anc e ; nor do we de c ide what re l ie f the ba nkruptc y truste e m ay

be
e ntitle d to obta in if Sc hum a c he r prove s ultim ate ly una ble to c a rry out his obliga tions under the se ttle m e nt a gre e m e nt. III B e c a use the se ttle m e nt a gre e m e nt is e nforc e a ble and e xpre ssly

provide s tha

t the p re va iling pa

rty in a ny litiga tion re lat e d to thea gre e m e n t is e n title d to
attorne y s’ fe e s, the distric t c ourt did not err in a ffirm ing the ba nkruptc y c ourt’ s
award of attorne y s’ fe e s to theba nkruptc y truste e and in a

warding suc h fe e s for 4proc e e dings be fore the distric t c ourt. For the sa m e re a son, we re m an d to the distric t c o urt to re m a

nd to theba

nkruptc y c ourt to c a lc ulate and to a ward attorne y s’ fe e s to the ba

nkruptc y truste e in light of this a

ppe a l
. AFFIRM E D AND RE M ANDE D W IT H INST RUCT IO N S.

5