Phillip Carnes Jennifer Carnes Kathryn Schaller Kevin Schaller H. Gene Carnes v. Michael A. Zamani Nancy Zamani

Good Law
488 F.3d 1057·2007 WL 1584579·2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 12864
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJune 4, 200705-15084California1,334 words

Opinion

Opinion

Holland, J.

Appellants Phillip Carnes, Jennifer Carnes, Kathryn Schaller, Kevin Schaller, and H. Gene Carnes (“the Carneses”) appeal the district court’s denial of their motion for attorney fees and costs incurred in enforcing a judgment in their favor against appellees Michael A. and Nancy Zamani (“the Zamanis”). This appeal raises the question of whether Rule 69(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure applies to a motion for post-judgment attorney fees, and if so, whether under California law, the Carneses’ fee motion was untimely. The district court held that Rule 69(a) applied to the Carneses’ fee motion and that the motion was untimely. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

I.

This diversity action, which arose out of a commercial real estate transaction between the parties, was commenced by the Carneses on January 21, 2000. On March 5, 2001, the district court granted summary judgment in the Carneses’ favor. On February 19, 2002, pursuant to California’s Civil Code section 1717, the district court awarded attorney fees to the Carnes-es. In August 2002, the Carneses began to execute on the assets of the Zamanis. On January 28, 2008, the Zamanis wired to…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.