NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: CRYSTAL WATERFALLS, LLC, DBA Park Inn By Radisson,

Debtor,

______________________________ B3 CAPITAL VENTURE, LLC,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v. CRYSTAL WATERFALLS, LLC, DBA Park Inn By Radisson,

Defendant

- Appellee. No. 17

- 56759
D.C. No. 2:17

- cv - 02730

- JAK

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California John A. Kronstadt, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted March 7, 2019 Pasadena, California
Before: THOMAS, Chief Circuit Judge, and GILMAN ** and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The Honorable Ronald Lee Gilman, United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation. 

# FILED

APR 25 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2

Creditor B3 Capital Venture, LLC appeals from the district cou rt’s judgment affirming the bankruptcy court’s order granting in part and denying in part B3’s oversecured claim against the estate of debtor Crystal Waterfalls, LLC. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d) , and we affirm. We review the bankruptcy c ourt’s factual findings for clear error and its
determinations of law, including the disallowance of a claim, de novo. In re Thorpe Insulation Co. , 671 F.3d 1011, 1019

– 20 (9th Cir. 2012). We may affirm the district court’s order affirming the bankruptcy court “on any ground finding support in the record.” In re Crystal Props

. , Ltd. , 268 F.3d 743, 755 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting Laboa v. Calderon , 224 F.3d 972, 981 n.7 (9th Cir. 2000)). “ We will not disturb a bankruptcy court’s award of attorneys’ fees unle ss the bankruptcy court abused its discretion or erroneously applied the law.” In re Hoopai , 581 F.3d 1090, 1095 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting In re Kord Enters. II , 139 F.3d 684, 686 (9th Cir. 1998)).
1. T he bankruptcy court did not err by denying B3’s claim for default interest prior to the date that B3 assumed the loan. F irst C ommercial B ank (“FCB”) waived any right to default interest by accepting late payments without objection, s ee Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 2076; Talbot v. Gadia , 267 P.2d 436, 440 (Cal. Ct. App. 1954), and by providing Crystal Waterfalls an estimated payoff3

amount that was inconsistent with an intent to impose default i nterest , see Crystal Props. , 268 F.3d at 753

. The loan agreement’s anti

- waiver clause did not vitiate FCB’s waiver as to
past payments; it merely preserved any right that FCB had to collect default
interest in the future

. See Bettelheim v. Hagstrom Food S tores, Inc. , 249 P.2d 301, 305 (Cal. Ct. App. 1952). Nor is B3 a holder in due course because it took the note with “notice that the instrument [was] overdue,” Cal. Com. Code § § 3302(a)(2)(C) , 3304(b)(3). Next, t he bankruptcy court did not abuse its disc retion by allowing Crystal Waterfalls the opportunity to supplement its reply brief on account of B3’s late opposition brief

. Finally , the court did not violate B3’s due process rights by rejecting as untimely evidence that B3 should have submitted prior to its motion
for reconsideration

. See Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop , 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000).
2. T he bankruptcy court also did not err in finding that B3 is not entitled to
post

- 2016 attorney’s fees. B3 file d an untim ely amended proof of claim on January 16, 2017, nine days before the hearing, in which it claimed fees only through 2016. The bankruptcy court denied B3’s request to amend its proof of
claim for a second time based on the court’s reasonabl e finding that t he cost of
post

- hearing proceedings would pre judice the estate and other creditors

. This ruling was not an abuse of discretion. See In re Roberts Farms Inc. , 980 F.2d4

1248, 1251 (9th Cir. 1992) (“The crucial inquiry is whether the opposing party
would be unduly prejudiced by the amendment.”).
AFFIRMED.