In Re Debtor Arciniega

I. INTRODUCTION

The relevant factual background is set forth in this Court’s Order Vacating and Remanding Bankruptcy Court Judgment, filed in the related case (the third appeal). (See Clark v. Arciniega, 5:19-cv-01383-JLS (C.D. Cal.) (Doc. 33 (“Remand Order”).) The lengthy procedural history, through the adjudication of the third appeal, is also set forth in the Remand Order. Those facts and procedural history are well known to the parties, the Bankruptcy Court, and this Court. They are not set forth again here. But since that time, as required by this Court’s Remand Order, the Bankruptcy Court considered whether Debtor-Appellant should be considered a prevailing party for purposes of both an award of attorney fees and an award of costs. For the reasons set forth in the transcript from the hearing held on February 2, 2023, the Bankruptcy Court determined that there was no prevailing party and that, in the absence of a prevailing party, it would award neither attorney fees nor costs. (See BK Doc. 897 (Order Denying Motion to Determine that [Debtor] is the Prevailing Party); see

1 Herein, the Court cites to docket entries of the main bankruptcy case as “BK Doc.” and the…