DocketNumber： 12-60061
Filed Date： 7/10/2013
Status： Non-Precedential
Modified Date： 4/18/2021
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 10 2013 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT In re: IBT INTERNATIONAL, INC., No. 12-60061 Debtor, BAP No. 11-1684 IBT INTERNATIONAL, INC., MEMORANDUM* Appellant, v. DAVID TEDDER ENTITIES, Van Dan Limited Partnership, CMT Limited Partnership, DTG Limited Partnership, Gallery I, Inc., Hampton Limited Partnership, Key Enterprises, Inc., Slevin Limited Partnership, Showthunder, Inc., Trails End Limited Partnership, Birch International Limited Partnership; DONALD GRAMMER ENTITIES, Banyan Limited Partnership, Orange Blossom Limited Partnership, Pear Tree Limited Partnership, Appellees. In re: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA No. 12-60065 SUNBELT DEVELOPERS, INC., BAP No. 11-1685 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. Debtors, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SUNBELT DEVELOPERS, INC., Appellant, v. DAVID TEDDER ENTITIES, Van Dan Limited Partnership, CMT Limited Partnership, DTG Limited Partnership, Gallery I, Inc., Hampton Limited Partnership, Key Enterprises, Inc., Slevin Limited Partnership, Showthunder, Inc., Trails End Limited Partnership, Birch International Limited Partnership; DONALD GRAMMER ENTITIES, Banyan Limited Partnership, Orange Blossom Limited Partnership, Pear Tree Limited Partnership, Appellees. Appeal from the Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel Kirscher, Markell and Dunn, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding Submitted June 12, 2013** Before: SCHROEDER, FISHER and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 2 Appellants appeal the decision of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel affirming the decision of the bankruptcy court denying the appellants’ motion for attorney’s fees incurred at the appellate level. We affirm for the reasons stated in the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s well-reasoned memorandum decision of August 7, 2012. See Higgins v. Vortex Fishing Sys., Inc.,379 F.3d 701
, 708-09 (9th Cir. 2004) (holding that “§ 303(i)(1), which expressly grants discretionary authority to award fees at the trial level, should not be construed to grant similar authority to award fees at the appellate level”); Avagyan v. Holder,646 F.3d 672
, 677 (9th Cir. 2011) (“A three-judge panel cannot reconsider or overrule circuit precedent unless an intervening Supreme Court decision undermines an existing precedent of the Ninth Circuit, and both cases are closely on point.”). AFFIRMED. 3