Cohen & Steinbrecher v. Steinbrecher & Associates

MEMORANDUM **

Bob M. Cohen & Associates Law Corporation (“Cohen”) appeals from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s (BAP) decision affirming the bankruptcy court’s denial of Cohen’s “Motion ... For Further Enforcement of Settlement Agreement and Related Court Orders” and affirming the bankruptcy court’s imposition of sanctions. Cohen does not challenge the factual findings made by the bankruptcy court.

We affirm the bankruptcy court’s denial of Cohen’s motion for the reasons stated by the BAP. We further hold that the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion by sanctioning Cohen pursuant to its inherent authority. We decline to consider Cohen’s other arguments relating to sanctions that are raised for the first time on appeal. See In re Cybernetic Servs., Inc., 252 F.3d 1039 , 1045 n. 3 (9th Cir.2001) (declining, in an appeal from a BAP decision, to address arguments not raised below as waived).

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

dissenting.

The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel held that the settlement agreement between Cohen and Steinbrecher contemplated the fee-splitting arrangement with Gilbert, which was already in place when Cohen and Steinbrecher signed the settlement agreement. In so doing, the B.A.P. refers to the Bankruptcy Court’s “implicit finding” that Cohen had actual or constructive knowledge of the fee-splitting arrangement, including whether Steinbrecher had complied with California Rule of Professional Conduct 2-200 when he entered into the settlement agreement. The Bankruptcy Court made no actual findings of fact, and did not hold an evidentiary hearing to determine these critical issues of fact.

*194 The parties presented conflicting evidence to the Bankruptcy Court as to what Cohen knew at the time of the settlement agreement. Steinbreeher submitted a declaration that he had discussed the fee-splitting arrangement in detail with Cohen, but Cohen submitted a declaration claiming that he had not been told about it at all and had never even heard of Gilbert’s firm. The Bankruptcy Court dismissed Cohen’s statement because it was “self-serving,” but this is not a justification for dismissing…