Edwards v. Broadwater Casitas Care Center, LLC
221 Cal. App. 4th 1300
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Edwards appeals costs and attorney’s fees awarded after arbitration of her employment discrimination claim; dismissal motion denied.
- Trial court awarded Broadwater Casitas Care Center, LLC and Nathan Ure $19,826 in costs (Oct 25, 2012 writ) and $158,471.25 in attorney’s fees (Jan 16, 2013).
- Edwards filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy on Feb 9, 2013; the plan confirmed Jun 12, 2013; the bankruptcy petition listed the cost award but not the fee award.
- Proof of claim in bankruptcy listed both the cost and the fee awards; Edwards did not object to the claim.
- The question is whether the confirmed Chapter 13 plan precludes Edwards’ challenge to the trial court’s cost and fee awards.
- Court considers res judicata effects of a confirmed plan and potential modification under §1329 to determine if appeal is moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does §1327(a) moot Edwards’ appeal? | Edwards argues plan does not bar appeal of costs/fees. | Plan precludes challenges to issues within its scope. | No; limited res judicata does not bar this appeal. |
| Does a confirmed Chapter 13 plan have preclusive effect on the merits of state court cost/fee awards? | Res judicata may not bar state-law merits challenging court-imposed obligations. | Plan binding on creditors and may foreclose related challenges. | Plan has limited preclusive effect; does not automatically bar merits challenge. |
| Can Edwards seek modification of the confirmed plan under §1329(a) to reduce payments if successful on appeal? | Modification may be appropriate to reflect reduced liability. | Modification depends on plan provisions and 1329 criteria. | Modification remains possible; not foreclosed by appeal outcome. |
| Is the appeal moot because the bankruptcy plan confirmed while this appeal was pending? | Some claim to relief could still be available outside bankruptcy. | Plan confirmation precludes further proceedings on costs/fees. | Not moot; limited res judicata allows potential relief. |
| Did Edwards’ failure to litigate the costs/fees in bankruptcy foreclose the appeal? | Issue was not actually litigated in bankruptcy court. | Confirmation process governs all plan-related issues. | Not precluded; issues not litigated in bankruptcy can be raised. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Enewally, 368 F.3d 1165 (9th Cir. 2004) (res judicata extends to plan-related questions only and within scope)
- In re Summerville, 361 B.R. 133 (Bankr. 9th Cir. 2007) (limited preclusive effect; issues not resolved in confirmation can survive)
- In re Brawders, 325 B.R. 405 (Bankr. 9th Cir. 2005) (plan's effect on later claims and liens limited)
- Elliott v. ITT Corp., 150 B.R. 36 (N.D. Ill. 1992) (debts acknowledged in plan may not bar underlying challenges to claims)
- In re Witkowski, 16 F.3d 739 (7th Cir. 1994) (modifications under §1329 permit changing plan treatment; not fixed by §1327)
- Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp. v. Bonjorno, 494 U.S. 827 (1990) (statutory language governs interpretation; avoid absurd results)
- Griffin v. Oceanic Contractors, Inc., 458 U.S. 564 (1982) (rare cases where drafters' intent controls over literal language)
- Astoria Federal Sav. and Loan Assn. v. Solimino, 501 U.S. 104 (1991) (permitting modification preserves congressional purpose)
- Stern v. Marshall, 564 U.S. _ (2011) (bankruptcy judges' authority and merits considerations clarified)
- Eye Dog Foundation v. State Board of Guide Dogs for the Blind, 67 Cal.2d 536 (1967) (standing to seek relief; mootness considerations)