Case ID: f-appx_299/html/0921-01.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

AMBROSIA COAL AND CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, a Pennsylvania corporation, Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellee, v. Hector Carlos PAGES MORALES, et al., Defendants-Cross-Defendants, Isla Verde Beach Hotel & Casino S.E., et al., Defendants, Small Corporate Services, et al., Defendants-Counter-Claimants-Cross-Claimants, Aces Green Isle GP, Inc., Defendants-Cross-Defendants-Appellants.
    No. 07-14769
    Non-Argument Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
    Nov. 7, 2008.
    Glenn Jerrold Waldman, Waldman, Feluren Hildebrandt & Trigoboff, P.A., Weston, FL, for Defendants-Cross-Defendants-Appellants.
    Arnaldo Velez, Miami, FL, for Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellee.
    Before TJOFLAT, ANDERSON and HULL, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

This appeal is from the district court’s orders of October 2, 2006 and October 1, 2007, which collectively rejected appellants’ applications for “reasonable costs and attorney’s fees” pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 768.79, “excess costs, expenses, and attorney’s fees” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1927, and sanctions, in the form of attorney’s fees and costs, pursuant to the district court’s inherent power. Appellants contend that the district court misapplied §§ 768.79 and 1927 to the facts before it and therefore abused its discretion in denying their applications.

We are not persuaded. We conclude that the court properly read the case law interpreting § 768.79 and rightly concluded that appellants failed to satisfy its no-liability judgment -with prejudice requirement. The court also understood what must be shown to obtain sanctions under § 1927 and the court’s inherent power and committed no abuse of discretion in refusing to impose the sanctions appellants requested.

AFFIRMED.