N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
PASKENTA B AND OF NOM LAKI INDIANS; PASKENTA ENTER PR ISES C ORPOR ATION, Pla i ntiffs-Appe lla

nts,
v. C OR NER STONE C OM M U

NITY B ANK; C OR NER STONE C OM M U

NITY B ANC ORP; UM PQUA B ANK; UM PQUA HOLDINGS COR POR ATION; GAR TH M OORE INSUR ANC E AND FINANC IAL SER

VIC ES, INC .; GAR TH M OORE; ASSOC IATED PENSION C ONSULTANTS, INC
. ,

De fe nda n ts-Appe lle e s. No. 17-16633 D.C . No. 2:15-c v-00538-M C E-C M K
M EM O R ANDUM *

PASKENTA B AND OF NOM LAKI INDIANS; PASKENTA ENTER PR ISES C ORPOR ATION, Pla i ntiffs-Appe lle e s,
v. No. 17-16673 D.C . No. 2:15-c v-00538-M C E-C M K 

# FIL ED JUN 25 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.UM PQUA B A NK; UM PQUA HOLDINGS C ORPOR

ATION, De fe nda n ts-Appe lla

nts. Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of C a lifornia M o rrison C . Engla

nd, Jr., Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm ission De fe rre d Ja

nua ry 13, 2021 Subm itte d Ja

nua ry 26, 2021 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : KLEINFELD, R AW LINSON, a

nd HUR W ITZ, C irc uit Judge s. The se two a

ppe a ls involve

dispute s ove r the distric t c ourt’ s a ward of
a ttorne y s’ fe e s a

nd c o sts. 1 W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C
. § 1291, a nd
re vie w de novo whe the r an “ a pplic a tion for a

ttorne y s’ fe e s wa s prope r unde r state la w a nd the c ontra c tua l provisions.” Re solution Tr. C

orp. v . Midw e

st Fe d. Sav

. Bank of Minot , 36 F.3d 785, 799 (9th C ir. 1994), as ame nde d
.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2). 1 W e pre viously

a ffirm e d the unde rly ing judgm e nts. Se e Pask e n t a Band of N omlak i Indians v . C

orne r stone C mty . Bank

, No. 17-15484, 846 Fe d. App’ x 590 (9th C ir. M ay

3, 2021); Pask

e nta Band of N

omlak i Indians v

. Umpqua Bank , No. 17-15486, 846 Fe d. App’ x 589 (9th C ir. M ay 3, 2021); Pask

e n ta Band of N

omlak i Indians v . Assoc iate d Pe nsion C onsultants, Inc

. , No. 17-15483, 2021 W L 1740364 (9th C ir. M ay

3, 2021). 21. Aw ar d of Costs

As we a ffirm e d the unde rly ing judgm e nts a ga inst Pla i ntiffs-Appe l la nts Pa ske n ta B and of Nom laki India

ns a n d Pa ske nta

Ente rprise s C orporation (c olle c tive ly , Pa ske nta ), the distric t c ourt’ s awards of c osts to De fe ndantsAppe l le e s C orne rstone C om m unity B a nk, C orne rstone C om

m unity B anc orp, a

nd Je ffre y Finc k (c olle c t ive ly , C orne rstone ), Um pqua B ank a nd Um pqua Holdings C orporation (c olle c t ive ly , Um pqua B ank), Ga

rth M oore and Ga

rth M oore Insura nc e and Fina

nc i a l (c olle c tive ly , M oore ), and Assoc iate d Pe nsion C onsulta nts, Inc . (APC ) are a ffirm e d a s we ll. Se e Mozart C o . v . Me rc e de

s-Be nz of N . Am., Inc ., 833 F.2d 1342, 1352 (9th C ir. 1987). 2. Sove r e ign Im m unity B y filing a c om pla int se e king a

ttorne y s’ fe e s, Pa ske nta

e xpre ssly wa ive d
sove re ign im

m unity with re spe c t to tha

t issue , a nd a lso c onse nte d to the c ourt’ s
a uthority to c onside r C orne rstone ’ s a nd Um pqua ’ s m otions for a

ttorne y s’ fe e s. Se e C onfe de rate d

Tribe s of the C olv ille Rsrv . Tribal C

re dit v

. W hite (In reW hite ) , 139 F.3d 1268, 1271 (9th C ir. 1998). 3. Aw ar d of Attor ne y s’ Fe e s to Cor ne r stone The una m b iguous la

ngua ge of the attorne y s’ fe e s provision in the inde m nity
a gre e m e nt be twe e n Pa s ke nta an d C orne rstone (Inde m nity Agre e m e nt) provide s for
3a

fe e award to the pre va iling pa rty whe n e ithe r party

brings “ any a c tion to e nforc e or inte rpre t the te rm s” of the a gre e m e nt. Onc e Pa ske nta file d this a c tion a s se rting
c la im s tha

t ha d be e n re le a se d by

the Inde m

nity Agre e m e nt, the a c tion ne c e ssa rily im plic a t e d the e nforc e m e nt a nd inte rpre tation of the Inde m n ity Agre e m e nt. Se e Mountain Air Ente

rs., LLC v . Sundowne r

Tow e rs, LLC , 398 P.3d 556, 561-62 (C a l. 2017). Ac c ordingly , we a ffirm the distric t c ourt’ s a

ward of attorne y s’ fe e s to C orne rstone . 4. De nial of Um pqua’s M otion forAttor ne y s ’ Fe e s Pa ske nta ’ s ba

nk a c c ount te rm s with Um pqua (Ac c ount Te rm s) provide s tha t Pa ske n ta will “ be lia b le . . . for [Um

pqua ’ s] re a sona

ble a ttorne y s’ fe e s . . . whe the r inc urre d a s a

re sult of c olle c tion or in a ny othe r dispute involving your a c c ount.” The distric t c ourt e rre d by de ny ing Um pqua ’ s m otion for a

ttorne y s’ fe e s ba se d on the h e a ding of theAc c ount Te rm s: “ Lia bility for Ove rdra fts.” The Ac c ount Te rm s
e xpre s sly provide that the “ he a dings in this doc um e nt . . . will not gove

rn the inte rpre tation of theprovisions.” Additionally , the phra se “ any othe r dispute involving your a c c ount” is not a m biguous a nd c annot be re a sona

bly be re a d a s

4lim ite d to dispute s involving c olle c tions, a c c ount shorta ge s, or ove rdra fts. 2 Se e

May nard v . BTI Grp., Inc
. , 216 C a l. App. 4th 984, 993 (2013) (e xpla ining tha

t “ an
a ttorne y fe e provision a

warding fe e s ba se d on the outc om e of ‘ any dispute ’
e nc om pa sse s a ll c l a im s” ); se e also Blue Shie l d of C al. Life & He alth Ins. C

o. v . Supe rior C

t. , 192 C a l. App. 4th 727, 740 (2011) (de c lining to “ a d opt a re stric tive
m e aning” whe n inte rpre ting thephra se “ a ny othe r m a tte r arising out of this Pla n” be c a use the phra se c ould not “ re a sona bly be re a d” a s pa

rt of the lim ite d list tha

t proc e e de d it). Ac c ordingly , we re ve rse and re m and for the distric t c ourt to
c a lc ulat e the fe e award in thefirst insta nc e . Se e C

arpe n te rs He alth &W

e l fare Tr. for S. C al. v . Vonde rharr , 384 F.3d 667, 674 (9th C ir. 2004). AFFIRM E D IN PART , RE V E RSE D IN PART , AND RE M ANDE D.

2 B e c a use the attorne y s’ fe e s provision wa s not a m biguous, the

distric t c ourt a lso e rre d in c o nstruing the

provision aga inst Um

pqua . Se ePow e r

s v . Dic k s on, C arlson & C ampillo , 54 C a l. App. 4th 1102, 1112 (1997), as modifie d
.

5