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 : KEVIN W

A L KER , De

btor,

B AYER W ISHM AN & LEOTTA, Appe lla nt,
v. R OD DANIELSON, C ha pte r 13 Truste e ; KEVIN WALKER , Appe lle e s. No. 14-56520 D.C . No. 5:13-c v-01430-DDP
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 De a n D. Pre ge rson, Distric t

Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d

June 10, 2016 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia 

# FIL ED
JUN 14 2016 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 d e nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa ne l una n im ously c onc lude s tha

t this c a se is suita

ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).B e fore : GOULD a nd HUR W ITZ, C irc u it Judge s, a

nd RESTANI, *** Judge
. B ay e r W ishm an & L e otta (“ B W L ” ) a

ppe a l s the distric t c ourt’ s orde r
a ffirm ing the ba

nkruptc y c ourt’ s pa

rtia l de nia l of supple m e nta l attorne y ’ s fe e s. W e have jurisdic tion pursua

nt to 28 U.S.C . §§ 158(d) a nd 1291. “ W e re vie wde c isions of the ba nkruptc y c o urt inde pe nde ntly

without de fe re n c e to the distric t c ourt’ s de te rm i nations.” Le ic hty v. Ne ary (In re Strand), 375 F.3d 854, 857 (9th C ir. 2004) (quoting Galam

v. C arm e l (in re La

rry ’ s Apa rtm e nt, L.L.C .), 249 F.3d 832, 836 (9th C i r. 2001)). “ W e will not disturb a ba nkruptc y c o urt’ s award of
a ttorne y ’ s fe e s ‘ a

bse nt a n a buse of disc re tion or a

n e rrone o us a

pplic ation of the la w.’ ” La w Offic e s of Da

vid A. B oone v. De rham -B urk (In re Elia po), 468 F.3d 592, 596 (9th C ir. 2006) (quoting In re Nuc o rp Ene rgy , Inc ., 764 F.2d 655, 657 (9th C ir. 1985)). B W L did not c arry its burde n of proving its e ntitle m e n t to the fe e s re que ste d be c a use it fa i le d to produc e suffic ie nt e vide nc e tha t the fe e re que st wa s re a sona ble
. Se e 11 U.S.C . §§ 330(a )(2), (a )(3); C am a c ho v. B ridge port Fin., Inc
. , 523 F.3d 973, 980 (9th C ir. 2008) (“ [T] he burde n is on thefe e a pplic ant to produc e
satisfa c tory

e vide nc e
— in a d d ition to the attorne y ’ s own a ffidavits— that the

*** The Honora

ble Ja ne A. R e sta

ni, Judgefor the Unite d State s C ourt of Inte rnationa l Tra de , sitting by de signa tion. 2re que s te d [fe e s are re a sona ble
. ] ” (quoting B lum

v. Ste nson, 465 U.S. 886, 895 n.11 (1984)). Additiona

lly , nothing re quire d the ba nkruptc y c ourt to a

pply the lode sta

r
m e thod, Unse c ure d C re ditors’ C om m . v. Puge t Sound Ply

wood, Inc ., 924 F.2d 955, 960 (9th C ir. 1991), whic h, a s we have pre viously note d, is proble m atic in C ha pte r 13 c a se s, se e In re Elia po, 468 F.3d a

t 598–99 (de sc ribing theproble m s with a pply ing the lode sta

r m e thod in C ha

pte r 13 c a se s a

nd a pproving theuse of pre s um ptive fe e s in suc h c a se s). The fe e study re lie d upon by

the ba nkruptc y c ourt (“ Fe e Study ” ), c onsisting of 125 supple m e nta l fe e re que sts file d in the R ive rside Division for pre

pa ra t ion of a

C ha pte r 13 sta

tus re port (the ta sk for whic h B W L sought c om

pe nsation), provide d c o nc re te e vide nc e of the c om pa ra tive
unre a s ona

ble ne ss of B W L’ s fe e re que st. B a se d on the e vide nc e in the re c ord, the ba nkruptc y c ourt did not c le arly

e rr or a buse its disc re tion in de te rm ining tha t $600.00 wa s a

re a sona ble fe e for pre pa

ring a sta tus re port. In re Elia

p o, 468 F.3d
a t 596 (“ [W ] e will not re ve rse a n a ward of fe e s unle ss we have a de finite an d firm

3c onvic tion tha t the ba nkruptc y c ourt c o m

m itte d c le ar e rror in the c onc l usion it
re a c he d a fte r we ighing a l l of the re le va nt fa c tors.” ). 1 AFFIRM E D.

1 The c ourt de nie s B W L’ s pe nding M otion to Ta ke Judic ia l Notic e . Eve n we re the c ourt to ta

ke judic ia l notic e of the hourly ra te s re que ste d in fe e a pplic a tions inc lude d in the Fe e Study , B W L fa ile d to ra ise an a rgum e n t ba se d on suc h fa c ts be fore e ithe r the ba nkruptc y or distric t c ourt, or in its ope ning brie f. Any suc h a rgum e nt is the re fore wa ive d. Se e Sm ith v. M arsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th C ir. 1999). 4