T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3. NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T C H A R L E S E . Y E A G E R , a k aC h u c k ; GENERAL C HU CK YEAG ER F OU ND AT I ON , P l ai n t i ffs - A p p el l an t s, v. C ON NI E B OWL I N; E D B OWL I N; A V I A T I O N A U T O G R A P H S , anoni n co rp o rat ed G eo rg i a b u si n ess en t i ty; B O W L I N & A S S O C I A T E S , I N C ., D efen d an t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 10- 15297 D C N o . 2 : 0 8 c v - 0 1 0 2 W BS ME MOR AN DU M *

C H A R L E S E . Y E A G E R , a k aC h u c k ; GENERAL C HU CK YEAG ER F OU ND AT I ON , P l ai n t i ffs - A p p el l an t s, v. C ON NI E B OWL I N; E D B OWL I N; A V I A T I O N A U T O G R A P H S , anoni n co rp o rat ed G eo rg i a b u si n ess en t i ty; B O W L I N & A S S O C I A T E S , I N C ., N o. 10- 16503 D C N o . 2 : 0 8 c v - 0 1 0 2 W BS



# FI LED SEP 10 2012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALSIn th i s m em o ran d u m w e ad d ress an dd eci d e al l o f Y eag er’ s cl ai m s, 1 e xc e pthi s c l a i m s f

orvi ol a t i ons of

C a l i f orni a ’ s c om m on l a w r i ghtt o pr i va c ya nd s ta tu to ryr ig h t o f

p ub lic ity , w h ic h w e a d d r e s s in a n o p in io n f ile dc o n c u rr e n tlyw ith th i s me mo r a n d u m.

- 2- D efen d an t s - A p p el l ees.

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e E a s te rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia W i l l i a m B . S hubb, S e ni orD i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng A r gue d a nd S ubm i tt e d O c t obe r12, 2011 S a n F r a n c is c o , C a lif

o rn ia S ubm i s s i on V a c a t e d a nd D e f e rr e d O c t obe r13, 2011 R e s ubm i tt e d J ul y30, 2012 B efo re: B . F L E T C H E R , R E IN H A R D T , an dT A S H IM A , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P l a i nt i f f s C ha r l e s E . “ C huc k” Y e a ge ra nd hi s f ounda t i on c ha l l e nge the d is tr ic t c o u rt’s g r a n t o f

s u m m a ryju d g m e n t to D e f e n d a n ts E da n dC o n n ie B o w lin a n d th e a w a r d t o th e m o f a tt o rn e y s ’ f

e e s . W e a f

f i rm. 1 1 . T he di stri ctcourtconcl ud ed thatthe si ng l e- pu bl i cat i on rul e bar s a s u n ti m ely Y ea g er ’s claim s u n d erth e L an h am A ct, 1 5 U .S .C . § 1 0 5 1 , C alifo rn ia’s U n fai r C o m p et i t i o n L aw , C al . B u s. & P ro f. C o d e § 1 7 2 0 0 , an dC al i fo rn i a’ s F al se A d v e rtis in g A c t, i d. § 17500. W e a gree .- 3-

W e h a v e n o t r e s o lv e d w h e th e ras ta tu te o f lim ita tio n s d e f

e n s e ap p lie s to cl ai m s und erthe L anham A ct , w hi ch ar e of “ equi t abl e c hara ct er . ” Se e J arr ow Form ulas, Inc. v. N

utri t i on N

ow , Inc. , 3 0 4 F . 3 d8 2 9 , 8 3 6 ( 9 th C i r . 2 0 0 2 ) . On appeal , Y ea ger argues thatthe st atut e of l i m i t at i on s does notappl y t o L anham A ct cl ai m s. H ow ever , Y ea ger w ai ved thi s argum entby fa i l i ng t o rai se i ti n the di stri ct c o u rt in h is o p p o s itio n to th e B o w lin s ’ m o tio n f o rs u m m a ryju d g m e n t. Hi l l is v . H e i ne m an , 62 6 F . 3d 10 14 , 10 19 (9th C i r. 20 10 ). W e th erefo re d ecl i n e t o rev erse the di s tr i c tc ourton thi s ba s i s . I f the s t a tut e of

l i m i t a t i ons de f

e ns e appl i e s t o a c la im u n d e rth e L a n h a m A c t, th e s in g le - p u b lic a tio n ru le w o u ldap p lyto it. See, e . g. , Ca n a te l la v . V

a n De Ka mp , 486 F . 3d 1128, 1133 ( 9th C i r . 2007) ( appl y i ng s in g le - p u b lic a tio n ru le to as u it u n d e r4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 3 ) ; O j a v . U . S. A rmyC or

ps o f E n g ’rs , 440 F . 3d 1122, 1130- 33 ( 9th C i r . 2006) ( appl y i ng s i ngl e - publ i c a t i on rul e t o the fe dera l P ri vacyA ct ); . T here fore , w e a ff i rm the di stri ctcourt ’ s di sm i ss al o f Y e a g e r ’s L a n h a m A c t c la im a s u n tim e ly . Y e a g e ra ls o a r g u e s th a t C a lif o rn ia ’s s ta tu to rys in g le - p u b lic a tio n ru le , C a l. C iv . C o d e § 3 4 2 5 .3 , c a n n o t b e ap p lie dto h is c la im s u n d e rth e C a lif o rn iaU n f

a ir C o m p e titio n L a w a n d th e C a lif o rn iaF a ls e A d v e rtis in g A c t b e c au s e th e ya r e b o th ac t i on s i n equ i ty. Y ea ger a l so w ai ved these ar gu m ent s by f ai l i ng t o adv ance them in th e d is tr ic t c o u rt. Hillis , 626 F . 3d a t1019.- 4-

2. Y e a g e ra ls o c h a lle n g e s th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s r e je c tio n o f

e q u itab le t ol l i ng and est op pel for hi s c om m on l aw cl ai m s f or fr aud and brea ch of oral c o n tr a c t. Y e a g e ra s s e rts th a t c o r e f a c tu a l d is p u te s r e m a in th a t a r e r e le v a n t to h is e qui t abl e t ol l i ng a nd e s t oppe l c l a i m s . H e a l s o a r gue s tha tthe di s tr i c tc ourtdi d not suff i ci ent l y anal yz e hi s e qu i t abl e t ol l i ng and est op pel cl ai m s r egar di ng hi s bre ac h o f o ral co n tractan d frau d cl ai m s o n h i s “ L ei st o n L eg en d s” p ri n t s.

“ [ F ] e de r a l c ourt s e xe r c i s i ng di ve r s i tyj ur i s di c t i on a r e t o us e s t a t e s t a tut e s of l i m i t at i on . ” N

e v . P ow e rC o. v . Mons anto C o. , 95 5 F . 2d 13 04 , 13 06 (9th C i r. 1 9 9 2 ) . “F e d e r a l c o u rts m u s t ab id e b yas ta te ’s to llin g ru le s , w h ic h a r e in te g r a lly re l at ed t o st atues of l i m i t at i on s. ” A lb a n o v . Sh e a H o m e s L td. P ’s h ip , 634 F . 3d 524, 5 3 0 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 1 1 ) . In C al i forni a, equi t abl e t ol l i ng appl i es “ w hen an i nj ured pers on has s ever al l egal re m edi es and, re as on abl y and i n g oo d fai th, pu rs ues one. ” McD on ald v. A n te lo p e V a lle yCm ty . C o ll. D is t. , 19 4 P . 3d 10 26 , 10 31 (C al . 20 08 ) ( i nt ernal quot a t i on m a rks a nd a l t e r a t i ons om i tt e d) . Y e a ge rdoe s notpoi ntt o a nye vi de nc e of thi s type of

s i tua t i on i n the r e c or d, r e l a t e d t o hi s L e i s t on L e ge nds pr i nt s or othe rw i s e . E qui t abl e e s t oppe l appl i e s w he n the pa rtya s s e rt i ng the s t a tut e of lim ita tio n s d e f

e n s e “in d u c e d a n o th e rin to f o rb e a r in g s u it w ith in th e ap p lic ab le l i m i t at i on s per i od . ” L an t zyv. C entexH

om es , 7 3 P .3 d5 1 7 , 5 3 2 ( C a l. 2 0 0 3 ) .“ B l oc k bi l l i ng i s the t i m e - ke e pi ng m e thod byw hi c h e a c h l a w y e ra nd 2 l egal as si st antent er s the t ot al dai l y t i m e s pentw orki ng on a c as e, ra ther than ite m iz in g th e tim e e x p e n d e d o n s p e c if ic ta s k s .” W

e lc h v . Me tr o. L i

f e I ns . C o. , 480 F .3 d 9 4 2 , 9 4 5 n .2 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ) ( in te rn a l q u o ta tio n m a rk s a n dc ita tio n o m itte d ) .

- 5- Y e a g e rd o e s n o t p o in t to a n ye v id e n c e in th e r e c o r dth a t th e B o w lin s in d u c e dh im in to f o rb e a r in g s u it w ith in th e ap p lic ab le lim ita tio n s p e r io df o ra n yo f h is c la im s . T he di s tr i c tc ourtdi d note rri n r e j e c t i ng the appl i c a t i on of e qui t abl e t ol l i ng an d est o p p el t o th ese cl ai m s. 3. T he B ow l i ns m ov ed for a tt orneys ’ fe es and cost s und erthe L anham A c t, 1 5 U .S .C . § 1 1 1 7 ( a ) , a n d C a lif o rn ia ’s s ta tu to ryr ig h t o f p u b lic ity , C a l. C iv . C o d e § 3 3 4 4 ( a ) . T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt in itia llyr e je c te dth e m o tio n b e c au s e o v e re ig h ty pe r c e ntof

the e ntr i e s w e r e “ bl oc k- bi l l e d. ” T he di s tr i c tc ourtl a t e rgr a nt e d the 2 m ot i on a f

t e rthe B ow l i ns s ubm i tt e d a n a m e nde d bi l l i ng s t a t e m e nt , w hi c h the d i stri ctco u rtd et erm i n ed w as “ su ffi ci en t l y rel i ab l e. ” B ased i n p arto n th ese a m e n d e d b illin g s ta te m e n ts , th e d is tr ic t c o u rt g r a n te dth e B o w lin s $ 2 6 8 ,6 7 7 .5 0 in att o rn eys’ fees an d $ 6 , 9 1 9 . 0 8 i n co st s. A fe dera l courtshou l d g ener al l y f ol l ow st at e l aw on att orneys ’ fe es w hen e x e r c is in g its ju r is d ic tio n o v e ras ta te la w c la im . See M R O C om m c’ ns, Inc. v. A T& T C or p. , 1 9 7 F .3 d 1 2 7 6 , 1 2 8 1 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ) . I n th is c a s e , w e c o n s id e rb o th fe dera l and C al i forni a l aw because the att orneys ’ fe es and cost s w er e grant ed un der- 6-

both f e de r a l a nd s t a t e l a w . U nde rboth f e de r a l a nd C a l i f

orni al a w , a w a r ds of a tto rn e y s ’ f

e e s a r e r e v ie w e d f

o rab u s e o f

d is c r e tio n . Se e T

r ansgo, I nc . v . A j ac T r ans m is s i on P ar t

s C or p. , 7 6 8 F .2 d1 0 0 1 , 1 0 1 4 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 8 5 ) ; Serra n o v. P ri est , 56 9 P . 2d 13 03 , 13 17 (C al . 19 77 ). F i r s t , w e di s a gr e e w i th Y e a ge r ’ s a s s e rt i on tha tthe di s tr i c tc ourta l l ow e d the B o w lin s le a v e to r e c o n s tru c t th e irc o u n s e l’s tim e e n tr ie s b e c au s e it m is ta k e n ly b e lie v e d th a t it h a d n o d is c r e tio n to d is a llo w th e f e e r e q u e s t. T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt d id no texpres s thi s bel i ef

. S ec on d, w e r ej ec tY ea ger’ s argum entthatthe di stri ctcourt abused i t s di sc re t i on by perm i tt i ng the B ow l i ns’ coun se l t o rec on structi t s bl ock b illin g . A d is tr ic t c o u rt m a ya llo w ap a rtys e e k in g a tto rn e y s ’ f e e s to a m e n dits b illin g s ta te m e n ts . Da v is v . Ci t y& Cn t y . o f S. F. , 97 6 F . 2d 15 36 , 15 42 (9th C i r. 1 9 9 2 ) ; B e ll v . V

is ta U n ifie d Sc h . D is t. , 9 8 C a l. Rp tr . 2 d2 6 3 , 2 7 5 ( C t. A p p . 2 0 0 0 ) . O nce the B ow l i ns subm i tt ed thei r r ec on struct ed re cords, the di stri ctcourtm ade a “d e ta ile d a n a ly s is o f

th e tim e r e c o r d s p r e s e n te da n daf in d in g a s to th e r e a s o n ab le ho url y r at e. ” Frank Musi c Corp. v. Metro-G oldw yn-M ayerInc. , 886 F . 2d 1545, 1 5 5 7 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 8 9 ) . In hi s r epl y bri ef

, Y ea ger argues thathe shou l d n otbe charged for f ee s g en erat ed fro m th e B o w l i n s’ d efen se o f n o n -fee b eari n g cl ai m s. W e d o n o tad d ress th is a r g u m e n t b e c au s e Y e a g e rf a ile dto in c lu d e it in h is o p e n in g b r ie f . Se e Q u a lity- 7-

L oan Se rv . C or

p. v . 24702 P al las W

ay , 63 5 F . 3d 11 28 , 11 35 n. 11 (9th C i r. 20 11 ); F e d . R . A p p . P r o c . 2 8 ( a ) ( 9 ) . T h e d i stri ctco u rtd i d n o tab u se i t s d i scret i o n i n i t s aw ard o f att o rn eys’ fees. • • • ! ! ! • • • T h e j u d g m en to f th e d i stri ctco u rtan di t s p o st -j u d g m en taw ard o f att o rn eys’ fe es ar e AF F I RME D.