Micheal H. Hagan, individually v. Craigmyle Halters

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MICHEAL H. HAGAN, individually and
on behalf of Craigmyle Halter Company,
LLC, a California limited liability
company; CRAIGMYLE HALTER
COMPANY, LLC,
Plaintiffs - Appellees,
v.
CRAIGMYLE HALTERS AND TACK
MANUFACTURING, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company, DBA The
Craigmyle Company,
Defendant,
and
CLYDE VELTMANN, an individual;
DIANTHA VELTMANN,
Defendants - Appellants.
No. 11-55080
D.C. No. 5:07-cv-00064-ODW-OP
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Otis D. Wright, II, District Judge, Presiding
FILED
NOV 20 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
11-55080 2
Submitted November 13, 2012**
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Clyde Veltmann and Diantha Veltmann appeal pro se from the district
court’s order awarding attorney’s fees and collection costs to plaintiffs in this
diversity action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an
abuse of discretion a district court’s award of attorney’s fees and costs, and for
clear error its underlying factual determinations. P.N. v. Seattle Sch. Dist. No. 1,
474 F.3d 1165, 1168 (9th Cir. 2007). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the amount
of attorney’s fees was reasonable. See Tahara v. Matson Terminals, Inc., 511 F.3d
950, 955 (9th Cir. 2007) (“This court grants ‘considerable deference’ to a district
court’s determination as to what hours are ‘excessive, redundant, or otherwise
unnecessary.’” (citation omitted)); see also Secalt S.A. v. Wuxi Shenxi Constr.
Mach. Co., 668 F.3d 677, 690 (9th Cir. 2012) (“[C]ounsel ‘is not required to record
in great detail how each minute of his time was expended.’” (citation omitted)).
Contrary to the Veltmanns’ contentions, the district court did not clearly err
in finding that the attorney’s fees incurred in other actions and the costs associated

-- 2 of 3 --

11-55080 3
with the transportation of the horses were reasonably related to the collection of the
promissory note. See Husain v. Olympic Airways, 316 F.3d 829, 835 (9th Cir.
2002) (“Clear error review is deferential to the district court, requiring a ‘definite
and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.’” (citation omitted)).
We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam).
The Veltmanns’ request for a stay is denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --