Summary
affirming bankruptcy court's order requiring disgorgement of fees that were unreasonable given the lack of contemporaneous time records and the failure to provide competent and complete representation
Summary of this case from In re LeeOpinion
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); 9th Cir.R. 34-4.
Editorial Note:
This opinion appears in the Federal reporter in a table titled "Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions". (See FI CTA9 Rule 36-3 regarding use of unpublished opinions)
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Kim McLane Wardlaw, District Judge, Presiding.
Before SCHROEDER, TROTT, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir.R. 36-3.
Abd El-Hamid A. El-Fadly appeals pro se the district court's summary judgment in favor of defendants in El-Fadly's action alleging he was denied promotions on account of his religion and national origin, and in retaliation for filing discrimination complaints, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review a grant of summary judgment de novo, see Warren v. City of Carlsbad, 58 F.3d 439, 441 (9th Cir.1995), and we affirm.
We agree with the district court that, because El-Fadly failed to show that he was qualified for the promotions he sought, he failed to make a prima facie case of discrimination. See McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973). Even if El-Fadly had established a prima facie case, defendants met their burden of offering legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for their actions. See Lowe v. City of Monrovia, 775 F.2d 998, 1005 (9th Cir.1985), amended by, 784 F.2d 1407 (9th Cir.1986). The district court properly found that El-Fadly failed to establish a prima facie case of retaliation. See Yartzoff v. Thomas, 809 F.2d 1371, 1375 (9th Cir.1987).
The district court did not err by declining El-Fadly's motions for continuances and proceeding to summary judgment. See Qualls v. Blue Cross of Calif., Inc., 22 F.3d 839, 844 (9th Cir.1994).
The clerk shall file El-Fadly's amended informal brief which was lodged on August 12, 1997.
AFFIRMED.