In re: ALLANA BARONI v. CIT BANK N.A., FKA One West Bank, FSB, FKA One West Bank, NA

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: ALLANA BARONI,
Debtor,
______________________________
ALLANA BARONI,
Appellant,
v.
CIT BANK N.A., FKA One West Bank,
FSB, FKA One West Bank, NA,
Appellee.
No. 18-55514
D.C. No. 2:17-cv-07947-SVW
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Stephen V. Wilson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 22, 2019**
Pasadena, California
FILED
OCT 24 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 3 --

Before: CALLAHAN and OWENS, Circuit Judges, and RESTANI,*** Judge.
After the Bankruptcy Court (BC) granted summary judgment for One West
Bank (OWB) on Allana Baroni’s challenge to OWB’s claim under a promissory
note, Baroni appealed from the BC’s award of attorneys’ fees to OWB. The
district court affirmed, and Baroni appealed to our court. Baroni challenges only
the amount of the fees awarded ($538,323), asserting that OWB did not provide the
BC with sufficient detail to support the award.
“We review decisions of the bankruptcy court independently without
deference to the district court’s determination.” Higgins v. Vortex Fishing Sys.,
Inc., 379 F.3d 701, 705 (9th Cir. 2004) (citation omitted). We review a bankruptcy
court’s award of attorneys’ fees for abuse of discretion. Ibrahim v. U.S. Dep’t of
Homeland Security, 912 F.3d 1147, 1166 (9th Cir. 2019) (en banc). A decision is
an abuse of discretion if it is based on an erroneous conclusion of law or if the
record contains no evidence on which it rationally could have been based. Stanger
v. China Elec. Motor, Inc., 812 F.3d 734, 738 (9th Cir. 2016) (per curiam).
Baroni has not shouldered her burden of showing that the BC’s award of
attorneys’ fees was an abuse of discretion or inadequate to allow appellate review.
*** The Honorable Jane A. Restani, Judge for the United States Court of
International Trade, sitting by designation.
2

-- 2 of 3 --

Baroni does not allege that the BC based its decision on an erroneous conclusion of
law. Rather, she asserts that OWB failed to present the BC with sufficient
evidence to support its application for attorneys’ fees. However, the BC devoted
seven pages of its decision to addressing the reasonableness of the fee and
concluded that the declaration filed under seal was sufficiently detailed to establish
the reasonableness of the services rendered. The BC considered Baroni’s
objections to the amount of attorneys’ fees requested by OWB. It disallowed
$82,006 in fees, which reduced the award to $538,323, and determined that OWB
had “suffered considerable legal expense as a result of [Baroni’s] aggressive
litigation tactics,” which were unsuccessful and included three frivolous appeals.
The conclusory allegations in Baroni’s brief fail to specifically challenge the
BC’s determination that the billing records and declaration adequately supported
the award. The district court’s affirmance of the BC’s award of attorneys’ fees is
AFFIRMED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --