Wang v. Douglas Aircraft Co.

Full title: Gui Ying WANG, as guardian ad litem of Li Na Li, Plaintiff,and BAUM…

Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: May 10, 2000

221 F.3d 1350 (9th Cir. 2000)

Opinion

221 F.3d 1350 (9th Cir. 2000) Gui Ying WANG, as guardian ad litem of Li Na Li, Plaintiff, BAUM, HEDLUND, ARISTEI, GUILFORD & DOWNEY, formerly Kananack, Murgatroyd, Baum & Hedlund, Appellant, v. DOUGLAS AIRCRAFT CO., Defendant-Appellee. Gui Ying WANG, as guardian ad litem of Li Na Li, Plaintiff, v. DOUGLAS AIRCRAFT CO., Does 1 Through 30, inclusive, Defendants-Appellees, MAGANA, CATHCART, AND MCCARTHY, Real-party-in-interest-Appellant. DC No. CV 94-5055 R. Nos. 98-56860, 98-56944 United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit May 10, 2000

Editorial Note:

This opinion appears in the Federal reporter in a table titled "Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions". (See FI CTA9 Rule 36-3 regarding use of unpublished opinions)

Argued and Submitted Dec. 9, 1999.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Manuel L. Real, District Judge, Presiding.

Before BRUNETTI and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges, and SCHWARZER, District Judge.

MEMORANDUM ^*

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit, except as provided by Ninth Cir. R. 36-6.

These appeals arise out of a personal injury action in which the plaintiff, Lina Li ("Li"), sought damages from an aircraft manufacturer. Four law firms collaborated on Li's case. Two of the law firms, Kananack, Murgatroyd, Baum & Hedlund ("Kananack") ¹ and Magana, Cathcart & McCarthy ("Magana"), appeal the district court's order on remand that they each pay one-third of their previously awarded attorney's fees to the Pu Dong Law Office ("Pu Dong") of Shanghai, based on a fee-splitting agreement among the law firms. The district court had jurisdiction over the underlying action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(a)(2) and 1441. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and now reverse and remand.

1 The Kananack firm is now known as Baum, Hedlund, Aristei, Guilford & Downey. To avoid confusion, we use "Kananack" to refer to the firm.

In a previous order, this court vacated the portion of the district court's order which found that Pu Dong was not entitled to attorney's fees because it is a foreign law firm. Specifically, we stated in our mandate that:

We vacate the portion of the district court's order denying fees to Pu Dong. We remand to the district court for a determination of whether Pu Dong performed services for Li's benefit that did not duplicate the services of the attorneys working on her case in California. If Pu Dong performed such services, the district court should make an appropriate award of attorney's fees based on the reasonable value of the services that Pu Dong performed in Shanghai.

Gui Ying Wang v. Douglas Aircraft Co., 1997 WL 419054,^**4 (9 ^th Cir.1997).

The district court refused to grant Pu Dong any award under quantum meruit because Pu Dong failed to provide contemporaneous time records and because "the time records furnished to the Court [were] not credible since they appear[ed] to be grossly overstated for the tasks performed by Pu Dong." Nevertheless, the district court ordered Kananack and Magana each to pay one-third of their fees to Pu Dong, based on a letter agreement among the law firms, which we previously determined was void as to Li.

Here, the district court violated the rule of the mandate doctrine by granting attorney's fees to Pu Dong based on the letter agreement. See Odima v. Westin Tucson Hotel, 53 F.3d 1484, 1497 (9th Cir.1995) ("When a case has been decided by an appellate court and remanded, the court to which it is remanded must proceed in accordance with the mandate and such law of the case as was established by the appellate court.") (citing Firth v. United States, 554 F.2d 990, 993 (9th Cir.1977)).

According to the terms of the mandate, our remand was strictly for the purpose of determining reasonable attorney's fees for Pu Dong's services and thus precluded any other inquiry, including reallocating fees based on the letter agreement. We therefore reverse the district court's order requiring Kananack and Magana each to pay one-third of their fees to Pu Dong. Furthermore, although the district court refused to award fees under quantum meruit because it found Pu Dong's time records were "grossly overstated," it is nevertheless unclear whether it found that Pu Dong performed non-duplicative services, given that it awarded attorney's fees to Pu Dong. Thus, we remand to the district court solely to determine under principles of quantum meruit under California law whether Pu Dong performed services for Li's benefit that did not duplicate the services of the attorneys working on her case in California. If Pu Dong performed such services, the district court shall make an appropriate award of attorney's fees based on the reasonable value of the services that Pu Dong performed in Shanghai. Any such award shall be paid by Li's estate.

REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this memorandum disposition.