Case ID: f-appx_303/html/0745-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Scott HIRSCH, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. NOVA SOUTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY, INC., a Florida not for profit corporation, a.k.a. Nova Southeastern Health Professions Division, College of Dental Medicine, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 07-10280
    Non-Argument Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
    Dec. 16, 2008.
    Richard A. Beauchamp, Alison Smith, Panza, Maurer & Maynard, Ft. Lauder-dale, FL, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Keith Thomas Grumer, Grumer & Levin, P.A., Maidenly Sotuyo-Macaluso, Ft. Lauderdale, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Before TJOFLAT, DUBINA and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

As the prevailing party in this action, Nova Southeastern University, Inc. (Nova) appeals the district court’s denial of its request for attorneys’ fees under the American with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12205, and the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794a(b). Nova contends the district court abused its discretion in denying Nova’s motion for attorneys’ fees because: (1) Scott Hirsch litigated his claims in bad faith, and (2) Hirsch’s claims were frivolous and unreasonable ab initio.

We have thoroughly reviewed the record and the briefs in this case and find no abuse of discretion by the district court. We affirm for the reasons set forth in the magistrate judge’s well-reasoned order of March 3, 2006.

AFFIRMED. 
      
      . The magistrate judge’s order only addresses Nova's request for attorneys' fees under the Rehabilitation Act. The ADA’s provision for attorneys’ fees is nearly identical to the Rehabilitation Act's provision; accordingly, the magistrate judge’s analysis applies equally to Nova's request for attorneys’ fees under the ADA.