Case Name: Somkhit NASEE; Wisit Kampilo; Bunsri Nametha, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. GLOBAL HORIZONS MANPOWER, INC.; Platte River Insurance Company; Accredited Surety and Casualty Company, Inc.; Valley Fruit Orchards, LLC; Green Acre Farms, Inc., Defendants, and Mordechai Orian, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-03-21
Citations: 423 F. App'x 696
Docket Number: No. 10-35161
Parties: Somkhit NASEE; Wisit Kampilo; Bunsri Nametha, Plaintiffs— Appellees, v. GLOBAL HORIZONS MANPOWER, INC.; Platte River Insurance Company; Accredited Surety and Casualty Company, Inc.; Valley Fruit Orchards, LLC; Green Acre Farms, Inc., Defendants, and Mordechai Orian, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before: McKEOWN, FISHER, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 423
Pages: 696–697

Head Matter:
Somkhit NASEE; Wisit Kampilo; Bunsri Nametha, Plaintiffs— Appellees, v. GLOBAL HORIZONS MANPOWER, INC.; Platte River Insurance Company; Accredited Surety and Casualty Company, Inc.; Valley Fruit Orchards, LLC; Green Acre Farms, Inc., Defendants, and Mordechai Orian, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 10-35161.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 9, 2011.
Filed March 21, 2011.
Garth L. Jones, Keith Kessler, Stritmat-ter Kessler Whelan Coluccio, Hoquiam, WA, Brad J. Moore, Stritmatter Kessler Whelan Coluccio, Michael Elwood Withey, Law Offices of Michael E. Withey, Seattle, WA, for Plaintiffs-Appellees.
Mordechai Orian, Honolulu, HI, pro se.
Before: McKEOWN, FISHER, and GOULD, 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
Defendant-Appellant Mordechai Orian appeals the district court's denial of his motion for attorney fees. We affirm.
Though the district court unquestionably possessed the power to award Orian fees, Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 43, 111 S.Ct. 2123, 115 L.Ed.2d 27 (1991), Orian has not shown that a fee award was required by any federal statute or precedent. The court's decision not to award fees was not an abuse of discretion. Similarly, the district court did not abuse its discretion by exercising its inherent power to deny Orian's motion for fees brought pursuant to Washington Revised Code § 19.30.170(1). See Chambers, 501 U.S. at 55, 111 S.Ct. 2123 (holding that a district court's power to fashion a sanction under inherent powers trumps state policy to the contrary); Willy v. Coastal Corp., 503 U.S. 131, 139, 112 S.Ct. 1076, 117 L.Ed.2d 280 (1992) (holding that a district court's power to sanction survives lack of subject-matter jurisdiction).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.