Dorsett

Dorsett v. Neilson (In re Slatkin)

Good Law
225 F. App'x 610
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMarch 19, 2007No. 05-55382California244 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Kendall Dorsett, Michael McGahee, Ann Thomas and Seymour Thomas appeal the district court’s order which affirmed the bankruptcy court’s award of attorneys fees to Kirkland & Ellis LLP for its work on behalf of the bankruptcy estate. We affirm.

On this record, we cannot say that the bankruptcy court erred in its decisions regarding the facts or the law, or that it abused its wide discretion regarding the award of attorneys fees. See 11 U.S.C. § 330 ; Fed. R. Bankr.P.2014; Dawson v. Wash. Mut. Bank, F.A. (In re Dawson), 390 F.3d 1139 , 1145 (9th Cir.2004); see also Roberts, Sheridan & Kotel, P.C. v. Bergen Brunswig Drug Co. (In re Mednet), 251 B.R. 103, 106, 108 (9th Cir. BAP 2000). The bankruptcy court did not err in deciding that the services rendered by Kirkland & Ellis benefitted the bankruptcy estate. See Smith v. Edwards & Hale, Ltd. (In re Smith), 317 F.3d 918, 926 (9th Cir.2002). Nor did it abuse its discretion when it declined to penalize Kirkland & Ellis for failure to disclose a connection between itself and an interested party. See Neben & Starrett, Inc. v. Chartwell Fin. Corp. (In re Park-Helena Corp.), 63 F.3d 877, 880 (9th Cir.1995); Film Ventures…

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.