Case Name: AMERICAN GENERAL LIFE AND ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, and Bin Wu; Jun Wu; Ning Wu, Defendants-cross-defendants-Appellees, v. SHIN P. YANG, dba The Law Offices of Shin P. Yang, Defendant-cross-claimant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-02-14
Citations: 468 F. App'x 697
Docket Number: No. 10-55171
Parties: AMERICAN GENERAL LIFE AND ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, and Bin Wu; Jun Wu; Ning Wu, Defendants-cross-defendants-Appellees, v. SHIN P. YANG, dba The Law Offices of Shin P. Yang, Defendant-cross-claimant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: D.W. NELSON, O’SCANNLAIN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 468
Pages: 697–698

Head Matter:
AMERICAN GENERAL LIFE AND ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, and Bin Wu; Jun Wu; Ning Wu, Defendants-cross-defendants-Appellees, v. SHIN P. YANG, dba The Law Offices of Shin P. Yang, Defendant-cross-claimant-Appellant.
No. 10-55171.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 9, 2012.
Filed Feb. 14, 2012.
Adrienne C. Publicover, Dennis J. Rhodes, Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker, LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiff.
Matthew Fladell, Esquire, Douglas J. Ingraham, Esquire, Law Office of Matthew Fladell, Venice, CA, Frank S. Carleo, Law Offices of Shin P. Yang, San Gabriel, CA, Shin Yang, Law Offices of Shin P. Yang F., San Gabriel, CA for Defendant Cross-Defendant-Appellee.
Before: D.W. NELSON, O’SCANNLAIN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Shin P. Yang appeals the district court's denial of attorneys' fees on a theory of quantum meruit. The district court found that Yang's clients were not unjustly enriched. This factual determination was not clearly erroneous. Husain v. Olympic Airways, 316 F.3d 829, 835 (9th Cir.2002).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.