National Commission for Certification of Crane Operators, Inc. v. California Crane School, Inc. , 470 F. App'x 698 ( 2012 )


Menu:
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                         FILED
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT                           MAR 05 2012
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR THE                      No. 10-56468
    CERTIFICATION OF CRANE
    OPERATORS, INC., a District of                   D.C. No. 2:08-cv-05440-JVS-AN
    Columbia non-profit corporation,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,              MEMORANDUM *
    v.
    CALIFORNIA CRANE SCHOOL, INC., a
    California corporation and JOHN NYPL,
    an individual,
    Defendants - Appellants.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Central District of California
    James V. Selna, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted February 8, 2012 **
    Pasadena, California
    Before: REINHARDT, WARDLAW, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
    **
    The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    California Crane School, Inc. (“CCS”) and its owner John Nypl appeal the
    district court’s grant of summary judgment to National Commission for the
    Certification of Crane Operators, Inc. (“NCCCO”) on its breach of contract and
    civil contempt claims, and the district court’s award of attorney’s fees. We have
    jurisdiction under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    , and we affirm.
    1.     The district court did not err in granting summary judgment on the
    breach of contract claim. We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment
    de novo. Oak Harbor Freight Lines, Inc. v. Sears Roebuck, & Co., 
    513 F.3d 949
    ,
    954 (9th Cir. 2008). No genuine issue of material facts exists as to whether CCS
    breached the parties’ 2005 settlement agreement by using the “CCO” mark in
    Internet domain names that advertised CCS’s crane operator training courses.
    Internet addresses are not case-sensitive, and thus registering domains containing
    those letters, like ccotesting.com, was a breach of the agreement. CCS and Nypl
    admitted that they or their agents renewed the registration of fourteen domain
    names incorporating “CCO” after entering the settlement agreement. Nypl’s self-
    serving affidavit did not suffice to create a genuine issue of material fact. See FTC
    v. Pub. Clearing House, Inc., 
    104 F.3d 1168
    , 1171 (9th Cir. 1997) (“A conclusory,
    self-serving affidavit, lacking detailed facts and any supporting evidence, is
    insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact.”).
    NCCCO did not implicitly waive its right to enforce the settlement
    agreement by acceding to CCS’s use of the “CCO” mark. Appellants adduced no
    evidence that NCCCO was aware of CCS’s continued use of the mark in violation
    of the settlement agreement between September 2005 and April 2008. Further,
    NCCCO did not breach the settlement agreement when it later ended its relations
    with CCS. CCS’s compliance with the terms of the settlement agreement—which
    never occurred—was a condition precedent to all of NCCCO’s obligations to
    engage in business with CCS. See Bennett v. Carlen, 
    213 Cal. App. 2d 307
    , 310-
    11 (1963).
    2.     The district court also properly granted summary judgment on the
    civil contempt claim. In 2005, the court enjoined Appellants from using the
    “CCO” mark. Appellants’ breach of the settlement agreement also violated the
    injunction, and was “disobedience to a specific and definite court order by failure
    to take all reasonable steps within [their] power to comply.” In re Dual-Deck
    Video Cassette Recorder Antitrust Litigation, 
    10 F.3d 693
    , 695 (9th Cir. 1993)
    (quotation omitted). The district court afforded CCS and Nypl due process by
    providing notice and multiple opportunities to be heard on the contempt claim
    prior to granting summary judgment in favor of NCCCO. United States v. Ayers,
    
    166 F.3d 991
    , 995 (9th Cir. 1999) (“Civil contempt may be imposed in an ordinary
    civil proceeding upon notice and an opportunity to be heard. Neither a jury trial
    nor proof beyond a reasonable doubt is required.”).
    3.     The district court did not abuse its discretion when it awarded
    attorney’s fees. In civil contempt cases, “the question of attorney’s fees [is
    entrusted] to the sound discretion of district courts.” Donovan v. Burlington
    Northern, Inc., 
    781 F.2d 680
    , 683 (9th Cir. 1986). CCS renewed its registration of
    the Internet domain names with the “CCO” mark within months of the injunction,
    and “the cost of bringing the violation to the attention of the court is part of the
    damages suffered by [NCCCO].” 
    Id. at 684
    . The award of attorney’s fees was
    also justified under the undisputed terms of the settlement agreement, which
    requires the non-prevailing party to pay the costs (including attorney’s fees) of any
    action to enforce the injunction or settlement agreement. Finally, the award of fees
    was justified under California Civil Code section 1717, which gives the prevailing
    party on a contract claim “a right to recover attorney fees, whether or not that party
    is the party specified in the contract.” Hsu v. Abbara, 
    9 Cal. 4th 863
    , 865 (1995).
    The district court properly held that NCCCO was the prevailing party
    notwithstanding its election to seek nominal damages for breach of contract.
    AFFIRMED.