In the Matter of: MICHAEL ANTHONY STELLA v. Bernie R. Rakozy

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without**
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
LS/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In the Matter of: MICHAEL ANTHONY
STELLA,
Debtor.
MICHAEL ANTHONY STELLA,
Appellant,
v.
BERNIE R. RAKOZY,
Appellee.
No. 07-35648
D.C. No. CV-07-00108-EJL
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Idaho
Edward J. Lodge, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 17, 2009**
FILED
DEC 14 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

LS/Research 2
Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Michael Anthony Stella appeals from the district court’s judgment affirming
an order of the bankruptcy court denying his counsel’s application for additional
attorney’s fees. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review
decisions of the bankruptcy court independently without deference to the district
court’s determinations. Leichty v. Neary (In re Strand), 375 F.3d 854, 857 (9th
Cir. 2004). We affirm.
Based on the evidence in the record, the bankruptcy court did not clearly err
by finding that no additional fees were warranted. See Law Offices of David A.
Boone v. Derham-Burk (In re Eliapo), 468 F.3d 592, 596 (9th Cir. 2006) (“We will
not reverse an award of fees unless we have a definite and firm conviction that the
bankruptcy court committed clear error in the conclusion it reached after weighing
all of the relevant factors.”).
Stella’s remaining contentions are unavailing.
We deny appellee’s motion to dismiss this appeal as moot because the
bankruptcy court retains subject matter jurisdiction over attorney’s fees issues
despite the dismissal of the underlying bankruptcy case. See Tsafaroff v. Taylor
(In re Taylor), 884 F.2d 478, 481 (9th Cir. 1989) (stating that a bankruptcy court
retains jurisdiction “to dispose of ancillary matters such as an application for an

-- 2 of 3 --

LS/Research 3
award of attorney’s fees for services rendered in connection with the [dismissed]
underlying action”).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --