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 : W ILLIAM S, LOVE, O’ LEAR Y, & POW ER S, PC , De

btor, W ILLIAM S, LOVE, O’ LEAR Y, & POW ER S, PC , Plaintiff - Appe lle e , STER L ING B ANK, Interve nor-Pla intiff - Appe lle e , v. HEATHER A. B R

ANN, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 12-36064

D.C . No. 3:12-c v-00563-AA M EM O R ANDUM *

In re : W ILLIAM S, LOVE, O’ LEAR Y, & POW ER S, PC , De

btor, No. 13-35914 D.C . No. 3:12-c v-02049-AA



# FIL ED D EC 12 2014 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.HEATHER ANN B R ANN, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. W ILLIAM S, LOVE, O’ LEAR Y, & POW ER S, PC , De fe nda

nt - Appe lle e . Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ore gon Ann L. Aike n, C hie f Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d and Subm i tte d Nove m

be r 21, 2014 Portla nd, Ore gon B e fore : C LIFTON, M . SM ITH, a nd HUR W ITZ, C irc uit Judge s. He a the r B rann a

p pe a l s from

the distric t c ourt’ s holding tha t he r c la im a ga inst W illia

m s, Love , O’ Le ary , & Powe rs, P.C . (W L OP) is not se c ure d by an a ttorne y ’ s lie n, m a king he r an unse c ure d c re ditor. B rann a lso a ppe a l s from

the distric t c o urt’ s holding tha t the fe de ra l judgm e nt rate is a ppropria te for the postpe tition intere st owe d to he r. B e c a use the pa rtie s a re fa m i lia r with the fa c ts a

nd proc e d ura l history

of this c a se , we re pe a t only those fa c ts ne c e ssa

ry to re s olve the issue s ra i se d on a

ppe a l. W e a ffirm . The Ore g on attorne y ’ s lie n sta tute , Or. R e v. Stat. § 87.445, gra nts a n a ttorne y a lie n “ u pon a c t ions, suits a

nd proc e e d ings” and “

judgm e n ts, orde rs a

ndawards e nte re d the re i n in the c lie nt’ s favor a nd the proc e e ds the re of to the e xte nt of fe e s and c om

pe nsation spe c ia lly

a gre e d upon with the

c lie n t, or if the re is no a gre e m e nt, for the re a sona ble va lue of the se rvic e s of the a ttorne y .” This sta tute c re ate s a n attorne y ’ s lie n upon thea c tion tha t wa s pursue d

by the a ttorne y

for the c lie nt. Potte r v . Sc hle

sse r C o., Inc ., 335 Or. 209, 213, 215 (2003). Howe ve r, the a ttorne y ’ s lie n only

grants a ttorne y s the sa

m e right “ to e n forc e the ir lie ns a s the ir c lie nts ha ve for the am ount due the re on to the m .” Or. R e v . Stat. § 87.480. B e c a use the c lie nts re pre se nte d by W LOP and B rann c ould not ta ke a c tion a ga inst W LOP for pa

ym e nt due on the a c tion, B ran n’ s a c tion a g a inst W LOP is not se c ure d by an a ttorne y ’ s lie n, a

nd she is a

n unse c ure d c re ditor. As a n unse c ure d c re ditor, B ran n is e ntitle d to post-pe tition intere st “ a t the le ga l rate .” 11 U.S.C . § 726(a )(5); se e In reC arde luc c i , 285 F.3d 1231, 1234 (9th C ir. 2002). W e have a l re a dy he ld tha t “ the le ga l rate ” m e a

ns the fe de ra l judgm e nt ra te . In reC

arde luc c i , 285 F.3d a

t 1233. Thus, B rann’ s post-pe tition intere st should be c a l c ulat e d using the fe de ra l judgm e nt inte re st rate . Appe lla nt to pa y c osts. AFFIRM E D

2