In re Monica H. Hujazi
- Edward Chen
- 3:21-cv-00691
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In re Monica H. Hujazi: Judge Chen dismissed her appeal because the bankruptcy-fee order was interlocutory and she did not satisfy standards for immediate review.
Monica H. Hujazi’s appeal was dismissed, ending this district-court appeal; the court did not decide the validity or amount of Dentons US LLP’s interim fees.
What happened
In re Monica H. Hujazi involved Monica H. Hujazi’s appeal of a bankruptcy court order approving Dentons US LLP’s request for interim fees and expenses as counsel for the bankruptcy trustee. Hujazi argued that the fees were excessive or unjustified.
The trustee argued that the appeal should not be heard because the bankruptcy court’s order was not final. The district court agreed that interim fee awards can be changed later and therefore are not final orders. It also found that Hujazi had not shown the required legal basis for an immediate appeal of an interim order.
Judge Edward M. Chen granted the trustee’s motion to dismiss Hujazi’s appeal and ordered the clerk to close the case. The court did not decide whether the fees were excessive or otherwise unjustified.
The detailed version
- In re Monica H. Hujazi · No. 3:21-cv-00691
- Edward Chen
- July 15, 2021
Background
Monica H. Hujazi appealed a January 2021 bankruptcy court order approving the fourth application for interim compensation and expenses filed by Dentons US LLP, counsel for the bankruptcy trustee. The application covered services and expenses from October 1, 2019, through October 31, 2020. Hujazi argued that the fees were excessive or otherwise unjustified. The trustee disputed that argument and moved to dismiss the appeal.
Appealability of the Bankruptcy Court Order
The district court held that the bankruptcy court’s order was an interlocutory order, meaning an order issued before the bankruptcy case is fully resolved and subject to later revision. The court relied on 11 U.S.C. § 331, which permits court-appointed professionals to receive compensation during a bankruptcy case. Citing Ninth Circuit precedent, the court explained that interim fee awards are tentative and may be reviewed, adjusted, or amended later under the bankruptcy court’s authority to make a final award.
The court rejected Hujazi’s arguments that the fee award should be treated as final because the funds had been disbursed or because some cited cases involved appeals to the Ninth Circuit rather than to a district court. The court also noted that disbursed funds may be ordered returned and that Hujazi identified no authority treating an interim bankruptcy fee award as final in these circumstances.
Permission for an Interlocutory Appeal
Because the order was interlocutory, the district court had discretion to hear the appeal only if the applicable standards for immediate review were met. Those standards require a controlling legal question, substantial disagreement about that question, and a showing that immediate review could materially advance the end of the litigation. The court found that Hujazi had not identified a controlling legal question and had not shown how an appeal about attorney fees, which the court described as largely collateral, could materially advance the bankruptcy proceeding.
Disposition
Judge Edward M. Chen granted the trustee’s motion to dismiss Hujazi’s appeal of the bankruptcy court’s interim-fee order. The clerk was ordered to close the file. The court did not reach Hujazi’s argument that the fees were excessive or unjustified.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.