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 : POINT.360,

De btor,

______________________________ POINT.360, a

C a lifornia

c orporation, Appe lla nt,
v. M EDLEY C APITAL C ORPOR ATION; M EDLEY OPPOR TUNITY FUND II, LP,

Appe lle e s. No. 20-55582 D.C . No. 2:19-c v-09935-PA
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Sta t e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia Pe rc y Ande rson, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d M a

rc h 3, 2021 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : KLEINFELD, TALLM AN, a nd OW ENS, C irc uit Judge s . 

# FIL ED
MAR 16 2021 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, 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 Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.The loa n a gre e m e nt be twe e n Point.360 a nd M e dle y

provide d for a ttorne y ’ s fe e s and c osts to M e dle y , a nd this provision wa s in a ppropria te c irc um sta

n c e s
re c i proc a l: In any a c tion on a c o n tra c t, whe re the c ontra c t spe c ific a lly provide s that a t t o r n e y ’ s fe e s a

nd c o sts, whic h are inc urre d to e nforc e that c ontra c t, s h al l be awarde d e ithe r to one of the pa rtie s or to the pre va iling par ty, the n the p a

rty who is d e te rm ine d to be the p arty pre va iling on the c ontra c t, w he the r he or s he is the p arty spe c ifie d in the c o ntra c t or not, sha ll be e ntitle d to re a sona b l e at t or n e y ’ s fe e s in a ddition to othe r c o sts. C a l. C iv. C ode § 1717(a ); se e also Santisas v . Goodin , 951 P.2d 399, 406–07 (C a l. 1998). An a c tion is “ on a c ontra c t” for the purpose s of Se c tion 1717 if it

“ ‘ involve s’ an a gre e m e nt, in these nse tha t the a c tion (or c a

use of a c t ion) a

rise s out of, is ba se d upon, or re late s to a n a gre e m e nt by se e king to de fine or inte rpre t its te rm s or to de te rm ine or e nforc e a pa rty ’ s rights or dutie s unde r the
a gre e m e nt . . . .” O rozc o v . W PV San J ose , LLC , 248 C a l. R

ptr. 3d 623, 650 (C t. App. 2019) (quoting Douglas E. Barnhart, Inc . v . C M C Fabric ators, Inc
. , 149 C a l. R ptr. 3d 440, 449 (C t. App. 2012)). To de te rm ine whe the r an a c tion is “ on a
c ontra c t,” a

c ourt m ust “ look to the

gravam e n of the ove ra l l a c tion” and the “ m a in thrust of thelitiga

t ion.” Id. a t 651 (quoting Pe arl, C a l. Attorne y Fe e Awa rds § 4.50 (C ont. Ed. B ar, 3d e d. 2018)).

2The fe e s a nd c o sts provision wa s de e m e d re c iproc a l in In re Pe nrod be c a u se
e nforc e a bility of the c ontra c t in ba

nkruptc y wa s the sole issue in the ba nkruptc y proc e e ding. 802 F.3d 1084, 1087–88 (9th C ir. 2015). B ut Bos v . Board of Truste e s distinguishe s Pe nrod

and c ontrols in this c a s e , be c a u se in Bos and in this
c a se a host of issue s tha

t “ arose e ntire ly

unde r the fe de ra l B ankruptc y C ode ” ra the r tha n the c ontra c ts we re im

plic a te d. 818 F.3d 486, 490 (9th C ir. 2016).

In ba nkruptc y c ourt, Point.360 sought a ll the fe e s a

nd c osts it incurre d in the
c onfirm ation proc e e dings, a nd a rgue d tha t “ the re is no ‘ a

pportionm e nt’ tha

t is
re quire d or tha

t would be pra c tic a

ble .” On a

ppe a l to the distric t c ourt, though, Point.360 a

rgue d tha t if it c ould not obta

in the roughly

$500,000 in a

ttorne y ’ s fe e s
and c osts for the e ntire c onfirm a tion proc e e d ing, it should a t le a st be awarde d the roughly $16,000 in a

ttorne y ’ s fe e s a

nd c osts for the de c la

ra t ory re lie f a dve rsary proc e e ding re ga

rding the a

pplic a bility of its c o ntra c ts with M e dle y . The distric t
c ourt did not a ddre ss this issue and we a lso do not a ddre ss the issue , be c a use the ba nkruptc y c ourt, whe n it m a d e the de c ision on fe e s a n d c osts, wa s not pre se nte d with a c l a im for only the roughly

$16,000 a ssoc iate d with the sum m a ry judgm e nt proc e e ding. W e the re fore de c line to a ddre ss the argum e nt for a pportionm e nt in this a ppe a l. S e e C ruz v . Int’l C

olle c tion C

o rp. , 673 F.3d 991, 998–99 (9th C ir. 32012); In re

J an W e ile rt RV, Inc
. , 315 F.3d 1192, 1199 (9th C ir.), ame nde d by 326 F.3d 1028 (9th C ir. 2003). As a n a ll or nothing c l a im

for a ttorne y ’ s fe e s a

nd c osts for the e ntire c o nfirm a t ion proc e e ding, whic h is how it wa s pre se nte d, we c annot
c onc lude tha

t the “ gra vam e n of the ove ra l l a c tion” and the “ m a in thrust of the [c onfirm a tion] litiga

t ion” wa s the dispute a

b out Point.360’ s c ontra c t s with M e dle y . Orozc o , 248 C a l. R

ptr. 3d a t 651.

AFFIRM E D.

4