FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT IN RE NANETTE MARIE SISK, No. 18-17445 Debtor, D.C. No. 5:16-bk-50548 NANETTE MARIE SISK, Appellant. IN RE MARK IRVIN CANDALLA, No. 18-17446 Debtor, D.C. No. 5:16-bk-50659 MARK IRVIN CANDALLA, Appellant. IN RE JERI LYLE SALDUA MERCADO, No. 18-17447 Debtor, D.C. No. 5:16-bk-50651 JERI LYLE SALDUA MERCADO, Appellant. 2 IN RE SISK IN RE DENNIS MICHAEL ESCARCEGA, No. 18-17448 Debtor, D.C. No. 5:16-bk-50368 DENNIS MICHAEL ESCARCEGA, Appellant. ORDER Filed September 1, 2020 Before: Kim McLane Wardlaw, Milan D. Smith, Jr. and Patrick J. Bumatay, Circuit Judges. Order SUMMARY * Bankruptcy / Equal Access to Justice Act The panel filed an order denying applications for attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act, filed by debtors in four bankruptcy appeals. The panel reversed the bankruptcy court’s and the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s denial of Chapter 13 bankruptcy plans and held that the Bankruptcy Code allowed the debtors’ original plans to be confirmed. As the prevailing parties, debtors then moved for attorney fees against the lower courts pursuant to the EAJA, which * This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader. IN RE SISK 3 authorizes fees incurred by a prevailing party in a civil action brought by or against the United States. The panel held that the EAJA did not authorize attorney fees because a bankruptcy court does not fall within the EAJA’s definition of “United States,” and uncontested bankruptcy cases are not “civil actions brought by or against the United States.” COUNSEL Norma L. Hammes, James J. Gold, and Lucinda L.H. Gold, Gold and Hammes, San Jose, California, for Debtor- Appellants Nanette Marie Sisk, Mark Irvin Candalla, and Dennis Michael Escarcega. James S.K. Shulman, Shulman Law Offices, San Jose, California, for Debtor-Appellant Jeri Lyle Saldua Mercado. ORDER We consider applications for attorney fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (‘‘EAJA’’), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d), in four bankruptcy appeals. Because the applications present similar issues, we consider them together. I. This case first came before us from the bankruptcy court and Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (“BAP”) after Debtors appealed the denial of their initial Chapter 13 bankruptcy plans. The Debtors’ preferred plans included estimated, rather than fixed, plan durations, which no trustee or creditor had opposed. In re Sisk, 962 F.3d 1133, 1140 (9th Cir. 4 IN RE SISK 2020). Nevertheless, the bankruptcy court and BAP rejected the proposals sua sponte. Id. We reversed and held that the Bankruptcy Code allowed Debtors’ original plans to be confirmed. Id. at 1151. As the prevailing parties, Debtors have now filed a timely motion for attorney fees against the lower courts pursuant to the EAJA. We deny it. II. “[B]ecause the EAJA is a limited waiver of the government’s sovereign immunity, it must be strictly construed in favor of maintaining immunity not specifically and clearly waived.” Kreines v. United States, 33 F.3d 1105, 1109 (9th Cir. 1994). ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals