Opinion ID: 416618
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Dahl/Pi Arn Squared

Text: 42 The district court awarded these defendants $28,194.50 in attorney's fees on both the trademark infringement and the breach of the franchise agreement claim. The award on the infringement claim is not at issue. 43 On the breach of the franchise agreement claim, the court applied Oregon law and ruled that a nonparty to a contract could recover under an attorney's fee provision in the contract and Or.Rev.Stat. Sec. 20.096 when the nonparty successfully defends against a claim that he or she is liable under the contract. The Oregon District Judge's conclusion on a question of Oregon law is entitled to substantial deference, and is reversible only if clearly wrong. See United States v. County of Humboldt, California, 628 F.2d 549, 551 (9th Cir.1980). 44 In concluding that Oregon would allow such an award, the district court relied on (1) the fact that Oregon's statute is patterned after California's, and that California now allows such awards 15 and (2) the fact that the Oregon Court of Appeals reached the same result. 16 In the absence of a ruling by Oregon's highest court to the contrary, we cannot find clear error.