Hobson v. Orthodontic Centers of America Inc.
Docket: Nos. 05-15105, 05-15857
Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; January 28, 2007; Federal Appellate Court
OCA (Orthodontic Centers of America, Inc. and Orthodontic Centers of California, Inc.) appeals three rulings from the district court, which the appellate court affirms. 1. **Promissory Notes Removal**: OCA argued that the district court wrongly removed promissory notes from the case. However, this claim was abandoned by OCA when it consented to their removal during the trial, thus it is not considered on appeal. 2. **Prevailing Party Determination**: The district court applied the correct legal standard under California Civil Code § 1717 to identify the prevailing party in accordance with their Business Services Agreement, which states the prevailing party may recover attorneys' fees and costs. The court determined Hobson was the prevailing party. 3. **Cost Awards**: The district court awarded all costs to Hobson, supported by the Agreement’s language indicating that the prevailing party intended to recover all costs. The appellate court found that the federal statutes 28 U.S.C. §§ 1821 and 1920 do not limit cost recovery since the contract allows for additional costs. The amount awarded was deemed appropriate and within the district court's discretion. The appellate court emphasizes that a party abandons an issue when it opts for a position that removes it from the case after having the opportunity to address it. The court also notes that while contract interpretation is reviewed de novo, the determination of the prevailing party is subject to an abuse of discretion standard. The ruling is not intended for publication and does not serve as precedent except as specified by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.