FREDERICK BREWSTER V. WACHOVIA MORTGAGE, No. 12-35561 (9th Cir. 2017)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED OCT 26 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FREDERICK T. BREWSTER, Plaintiff-Appellee, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 12-35561 D.C. No. 3:11-cv-05597-RBL v. MEMORANDUM* WACHOVIA MORTGAGE, FSB, Defendant, and WELLS FARGO BANK, NA, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Ronald B. Leighton, District Judge, Presiding Submitted October 23, 2017** Before: McKEOWN, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges. Wells Fargo Bank, NA, appeals from the district court’s order awarding it * 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). $5,000 in attorney’s fees and costs on its motion for an attorney’s fees award in the amount of $29,561.40. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We vacate and remand. We are unable to review the district court’s order awarding attorney’s fees to Wells Fargo because the district court did not provide an adequate explanation for its decision. See Carter v. Caleb Brett LLC, 757 F.3d 866, 868-69 (9th Cir. 2014) (a district court is required to reach attorney’s fee decisions by considering the factors set forth in Kerr v. Screen Extras Guild, Inc., 526 F.2d 67, 70 (9th Cir. 1975) and “must also explain how it arrived at its determination with sufficient specificity to permit an appellate court to determine whether the district court abused its discretion in the way the analysis was undertaken.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). We vacate the district court’s order awarding attorney’s fees and remand for the district court to articulate the basis for its fee determination with sufficient specificity. The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal. VACATED and REMANDED. 2 12-35561

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.