Narrative Opinion Summary
In this case, the appellants challenged a district court's affirmation of a bankruptcy court-approved settlement regarding a malpractice claim against several attorneys and their firm, collectively known as Kolodny. The appellants argued the settlement constituted an impermissible assignment of a malpractice claim under California law. However, the court found it to be a legitimate settlement rather than an illegal assignment. Additionally, the appellants contended that the agreement was void due to a delay in its confirmation, but the appellate court refused to consider this issue as it was not raised at the bankruptcy court level. Furthermore, the appellant had chosen specific exemptions under California Judgment Debtor law which were not amended before the settlement's approval, and thus, any subsequent changes were not addressed in this appeal. Ultimately, the court affirmed the legality and enforceability of the settlement agreement, supporting the district court's decision. The disposition is deemed non-precedential and is not eligible for citation, except as permitted by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Legal Issues Addressed
Appellate Review and Issues Not Raised Belowsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court declined to consider the Keenans' argument regarding the timing of the agreement's confirmation because it was not raised in the bankruptcy court.
Reasoning: Additionally, the Keenans claim the agreement is void due to more than ninety days passing before its confirmation by the bankruptcy court; however, this argument was not raised in the bankruptcy court, and the appellate court declines to address it.
Assignment of Malpractice Claims under California Lawsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court determined that the settlement agreement did not constitute an illegal assignment of a malpractice claim, but rather a proper settlement.
Reasoning: The Keenans contend that the settlement agreement is illegal, arguing it constitutes an assignment of a malpractice claim, which is prohibited under California law. However, the court finds that the Kolodny agreement was a fair settlement rather than a sale of the claim, despite its original framing.
Enforceability of Settlement Agreementssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court upheld the enforceability of the settlement under California law, finding it legal and affirming the district court's decision.
Reasoning: The court concludes that the settlement is legal and enforceable under California law and affirms the district court's decision.
Exemption Claims in Bankruptcy Proceedingssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: James Keenan's choice of California Judgment Debtor exemptions, which was not amended before the settlement's approval, precludes any later changes from being considered in this appeal.
Reasoning: At the time of the agreement's approval, James Keenan had opted for California Judgment Debtor exemptions, which exclude certain future earnings from his bankruptcy estate. He did not amend his exemptions before the approval, and any changes made later are not part of this appeal.