N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT INDEPENDENT ELEC TR IC SUPPLY, INC ., Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. STR ONGHOLD ENGINEER ING, INC . , a C a l ifornia c orporat ion, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 13-56062

D.C . No. 2:12-c v-06532-PA-R Z 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 Pe rc y Ande rson, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d June 3, 2015 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : FISHER

and B YB E E, C irc uit Judge s, a nd FOOTE, Distric t Judge . ***



# FIL E D JUL 28 2015 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 de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** 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). *** The Honora

ble Eliz a be th E. Foote , Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the W e ste rn Distric t of Louisia na , sitting by de signa

tion.De fe nda nt-a ppe l la nt Stronghold Engine e ring, Inc . a ppe a l s the distric t c ourt’ s award of attorne y ’ s fe e s to pla intiff-a ppe lle e Inde p e n de nt Ele c t ric Supply , Inc . (“ IES” ), following IES’ s a c c e pta nc e of a Fe de ra l R

ule of C ivil Proc e dure 68 offe r of judgm e nt. The offe r a llowe d e ntry of judgm e nt a g a inst Stronghold in the am ount of “ $50,000 plus a ll c ourt c osts a

nd re a sona

ble attorne y

fe e s (a s de te rm i ne d by

the C ourt) . . . .” Upon IES’ s a c c e pta nc e , the distric t c ourt e nte re d judgm e nt in a c c orda

nc e with Stronghold’ s offe r of judgm e nt. IES the n m ove d the distric t c o urt to se t re a s ona ble attorne y ’ s fe e s. Stronghold the re a fte r obje c te d to IES’ s m otion for a

ttorne y ’ s fe e s, c onte nding tha t IES wa s not e ntitle d to a ttorne y ’ s fe e s for six of its seve n c la im s a s a m atte r of la

w. The distric t c ourt ultimate ly awarde d IES the e ntire am ount it sought in fe e s . W e have jurisdic tion pursua nt to 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a

n d we re vie w de novo issue s involving the inte rpre tation of R ule 68 offe rs of judgm e nt. Se e Erdm an v. C oc hise C nty ., Ariz ., 926 F.2d 877, 879 (9th C i r. 1991). W e a ffirm the distric t c ourt’ s a

ward. W e c onc lude tha

t Stronghold’ s offe r of judgm e nt wa s una m biguous a nd pla i nly a llowe d for the e ntry of re a sona

ble attorne y ’ s fe e s. Inde e d, the offe r’ s la ngua ge spe c ifie d tha

t the only que stion le ft to be re solve d wa s the re a sona ble ne ss of a fe e award, not thee xiste nc e of suc h an a w ard. Stronghold c onte nds tha t the la ngua ge of the offe r did not c o m pe l a fe e award, but ra

the r re se rve d to it the

right 2to opposeIES’ s c l a im for any award. W e disa gre e , c onc l uding tha t the la ngua ge wa s c le ar on its fa c e and e ntitle d IES to a ttorne y ’ s fe e s . In a

ny e ve n t, ha d the la ngua ge be e n am

b iguous, tha

t a m biguity would bec onstrue d

a ga inst Stronghold, a s “ de fe nda

nts a re the m a ste r of what the ir R ule 68 offe rs offe r.” Nusom v. C om h W oodburn, Inc ., 122 F.3d 830, 833 (9th C ir. 1997). Thela ngua ge dra fte d by Stronghold pe rm itte d it to c ha lle nge only the re a sona ble ne s s of the fe e s sought by IES -- a c ha lle nge Stronghold c hose not to pursue . AFFIRM E D .

3