Richard A. Chan v. Chase Aircraft Finance Co., Unincorporated Division of Chase Commercial Corporation Chase Commercial Corporation

1 F.3d 1246 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Richard A. CHAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CHASE AIRCRAFT FINANCE CO., unincorporated division of Chase Commercial Corporation; Chase Commercial Corporation, et al, Defendants-Appellants. No. 91-16417. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted July 27, 1993. * Decided July 29, 1993. Before SNEED, SCHROEDER and CANBY, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 In our memorandum disposition of July 18, 1991, we stated: 3 The district court's explanation of its fee award does not provide us with enough information to determine whether it erroneously denied fees for defending those aspects of the fraud claims which were inextricably intertwined with its contract collection action.... It may be that defense of the fraud claims is intertwined, but that defense of the RICO and conspiracy claims present separate issues. 5 The district court is much more familiar with this case than we, and is in a better position to…