United States Trustee, William T. Neary, Appellant, v. Keravision, Inc., Debtor-appellee, 421 F.3d 1153 (9th Cir. 2005)

 Annotate this Case
US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - 421 F.3d 1153 (9th Cir. 2005) Argued and Submitted Februay 9, 2005
Filed September 7, 2005

Eric D. Miller (briefed and argued), and Robert M. Loeb (briefed), United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for the appellant.

Peter M. Gilhuly (briefed and argued), Kathryn M. Davis (briefed), and Eric D. Brown (briefed), Latham & Watkins LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for the appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California; Charles R. Breyer, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-03-00210-CRB.

Before WALLACE, RAWLINSON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

We affirm the judgment entered by the district court for the reasons stated in its opinion approving the appointment of the law firm. See In re Keravision, Inc., 273 B.R. 614 (N.D. Cal. 2002).1  The trustee did not raise the rules of professional responsibility in challenging the law firm's appointment before the district court. See id. at 618. Therefore, we decline to address that issue on appeal. See United States v. Alisal Water Corp., 370 F.3d 915, 923 (9th Cir. 2004).

AFFIRMED.

 1

We have jurisdiction over this appeal because the order awarding attorneys' fees is a final determination of the payment to be distributed to Latham from the estate. See Yermakov v. Fitzsimmons (In re Yermakov), 718 F.2d 1465, 1469 (9th Cir. 1983).

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.