Picerne Construction Corp. v. Castellino Villas, A. K. F. LLC (In Re Castellino Villas, A. K. F. LLC)

We are asked to determine whether the bankruptcy court erred as a matter of law by holding that attorneys’ fees in-curred during litigation after the confir-mation of a Chapter 11 bankruptcy plan were discharged by that bankruptcy. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158 (d). Picerne’s claim for attorneys’ fees arose before Castellino filed its bankruptcy petition, and Castellino’s post-discharge con-duct did not amount to “a whole new course of litigation,” Siegel v. Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp., 143 F.3d 525, 534 (9th Cir. 1998). Therefore, under the cir-cumstances of this case, Picerne’s attor-neys’ fees claim was discharged in Castel-lino’s bankruptcy.

I

Castellino Villas LLC (Castellino) hired Picerne Construction Corp. dba Camel-back Construction (Picerne), a general contractor, to construct a 120-unit apartment complex on Castellino’s property. Pi-cerne and Castellino entered into an agreement for the work that contained an attorneys’ fees provision, which stated, in pertinent part:

Castellino defaulted on its obligations and failed to pay Picerne and its subcon-tractors for their work. In response, Pi-cerne filed a demand for arbitration and a mechanic’s lien…