In re: SEA HAWAII RAFTING, LLC, JAY LAWRENCE FRIEDHEIM v. DANE S. FIELD, Trustee in USBC Case 14-01520

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: SEA HAWAII RAFTING, LLC,
______________________________
JAY LAWRENCE FRIEDHEIM,
Appellant,
v.
DANE S. FIELD, Trustee in USBC Case
14-01520,
Appellee.
No. 18-16098
D.C. No.
1:16-cv-00183-JMS-KJM
MEMORANDUM
and ORDER*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Hawaii
J. Michael Seabright, Chief District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 22, 2019**
Honolulu, Hawaii
Before: GRABER, M. SMITH, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Jay Lawrence Friedheim appeals from the district court’s denial of his
motion for attorney’s fees. Because the district court properly found no legal basis
* 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).
FILED
OCT 24 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

Page 2 of 3
for awarding fees, we affirm.
As a general rule, prevailing parties are not entitled to attorney’s fees
“absent statute or enforceable contract.” Alyeska Pipeline Serv. Co. v. Wilderness
Soc’y, 421 U.S. 240, 257 (1975). No statute supports Friedheim’s request for fees,
and the relevant Bankruptcy Rule does not mention attorney’s fees in its
enumerated list of taxable costs on appeal. Fed. R. Bankr. Proc. 8021(c). Nor does
this case implicate a contractual fee-shifting provision. As a result, Friedheim may
recover attorney’s fees only if the Trustee acted in bad faith or pursued frivolous
litigation. See Alyeska, 421 U.S. at 258–59 (explaining courts’ “inherent power” to
award attorney’s fees in specific circumstances).
The Trustee’s motion for sanctions was neither frivolous nor filed in bad
faith. The Trustee filed the motion after the district court concluded that Friedheim
had “very likely violated” the bankruptcy court’s stay order by attempting to verify
the amended complaint in his maritime action. The bankruptcy court agreed with
the district court’s assessment and granted the Trustee’s motion for sanctions.
Though we subsequently nullified the basis for such sanctions by holding that
bankruptcy stay orders do not apply to maritime cases, Barnes v. Sea Haw. Rafting,
LLC, 889 F.3d 517, 532–33 (9th Cir. 2018), the Trustee’s motion was not
unreasonable or meritless at the time it was filed.
Contrary to Friedheim’s argument, Vaughan v. Atkinson, 369 U.S. 527

-- 2 of 3 --

Page 3 of 3
(1962), does not support his request for fees. Vaughan concerned a seaman’s right
to recover attorney’s fees after his employer refused to pay maintenance and cure.
Id. at 529–31. The question before us, by contrast, is whether Friedheim can
receive reimbursement for the cost of defending himself against sanctions—not
whether Friedheim’s client can recover attorney’s fees for his employer’s failure to
pay maintenance and cure.
We have considered Friedheim’s remaining arguments concerning the
district court’s failure to apply maritime law and the constitutionality of the
Bankruptcy Act, and find them to be unpersuasive.
Friedheim’s Motion to Supplement Excerpts of Record on Appeal with
Transcript (Dkt. No. 59) is DENIED.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --