Noback

MEMORANDUM **

Roger A. Noback appeals the bankruptcy court’s attorney fee award and the deni *449 al of his motion for sanctions and motion to file an enlarged motion for sanctions before the district court. We have jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 158 (d); 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court.

Noback contends that the bankruptcy court erred when it deviated from the lodestar approach in calculating his attorney’s fees. We review a bankruptcy court’s fee award for an abuse of discretion and a bankruptcy court’s factual findings for clear error. See Unsecured Creditors’ Comm. v. Puget Sound Plywood, Inc., 924 F.2d 955 , 957 (9th Cir.1991). Although the lodestar approach is customary for attorney fee calculations, this court has held that it is not required in the bankruptcy context where it would “not realistically quantify to numerical precision” the fee award. Id. at 960 (quoting In re Great Sweats, Inc., 113 B.R. 240, 244 (Bankr. E.D.Va.1990)). Because the record supports the bankruptcy court’s determination that Noback’s work was so “incompetent” and “grossly inefficient” as to render the lodestar approach useless, the bankruptcy court did not…