FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T OCT 8, 2010 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NO T PUBLISH]
IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 10 35 9 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 1 :0 7- cv -2 10 93 -J LK JOHN J AFFE, BARBARA JAFFE,
Pl ai nt iff s- App el la nt s,
ve rs us BANK OF AMERICA COR PORATION, N.A., AGRICULTURAL BANK OF CHINA, Defen da nt s- App el le es .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e So uthe rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Oct ob er 8 , 20 10 ) Befo re BLACK, CARNES a ndMARCUS , Cir cu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM:Jo hn an d B arb ara J affe ap pe al th e d is tri ctco urt’s o rd er g ran ti ng Ban k o f

Am eri ca, N.A.’ s (B OA) m ot io n fo r at to rn ey s’ fees , cos ts , andex pe ns es . On ap pe al , th e Ja ffes co nt en d t he di st ric t co urt’s o rd er was erro ne ou s b ecau se : (1 ) th e Ja ffes di d n otass en t t o t he att orne y s’ fees an d c os ts pro vi si onof t he App li cat io n
an d Ag reem en t g ov ern in g t he Lett er o f Cre di t, an d (2 ) th e Ja ffes were n otli ab le fo r at to rn ey s’ fees an d c os ts un de r Fl a. St at . § 6 75 .11 1. Afterrev ie w, we affi rm 1 th e d is tri ctco urt’s tho ro ug h andwell -rea so ne d o rd er. 2 I. In20 04 , th e Ja ffes ex ecu te d B an k o f Am eri ca’s Ap pl ic at io n a ndAgre em en t fo r St an db y

Lett er o f Cre di t (Ap pl ic at io n a ndAgre em en t). On p ag e two , th e App li cat io n a ndAgre em en t i nc lu de d apro vi si on st at in g the Jaf fes wou ld : [I]nd em ni fy an d h ol d B an k o f Am eri ca h arm le ss fro m an d a ga in st. . . al l co st s an d e xp en se s (i nc lu di ng reas on ab le att orne y s’ fees
. . . an d

The Jaffes do not ra ise any substantive argument reg arding the district court’s 1 conclusion that Agricultural B ank of China ( AB C) is entitled to the procee ds of the posted injunction bond of $150,000. This issue is deemed wa ived. See U nited States v. Flores , 572 F.3d 1254, 1265 n.3 ( 11th Cir. 2009). The Jaffes a lso do not contest the rea sonablene ss of the attorney s’ fe es, costs, and e x penses a war ded to B OA. The y

did not contest rea sonablene ss of BO A’s fe es and c osts in the district cour t, either, de spite numerous opportunities to do so. This issue is also deemed w aived. See E agle Hosp. Physic ians, LL C v. SRG Consulting, Inc. , 561 F.3d 1298, 1303–04 ( 11th Cir. 2009). We reviewa district cour t’s order of attorne y s’ fe es and c osts for abuse of discre tion, 2 revie wingquestions of law de novo and finding s of fa ct for c lear err or. Atlanta Journal & Constit ution v. City of Atlanta Dep’ t of Aviation , 442 F.3d 1283, 1287 ( 11th Cir. 2006). 2le ga l ex pe ns es ) of all cla im s o r le ga l p ro ceed in gs ari si ng ou t o f th e is su an ce b y

Ban k o f Am eri ca o f th e Let te r of Cred it
. . . in cl ud in g, witho utli m it at io n, l eg al pro ceed in gs rel at edto an y co urt o rd er, in jun ct io n, o r ot he r pr oc es s o r de cree see ki ng to res tra in Ban k o f Am eri ca fr om

pa y in g a ny am ou ntun de r th e Let te r of Cred it
. On ap pe al , th e Ja ffes co nt en d the y di d n otass en t t o thi s p ro vi si on on pa ge two of th e th ree- pa ge App li cat io n a ndAgre em en t. The Jaf fes als o c on te ndan y

reco ve ry
un de r th is pro vi si on sh ou ldbe li m it edto BOA’ s co un te rcl ai m forin de m

ni fic at io n. The di stric t co urt’s fi nd in g t ha t the Jaf fes ex ecu te d t he App li cat io n a nd Agr eem en t, i nc lu di ng th e p ag e co nt ai ni ng th e at to rn ey ’s fees pro vi si on , was n ot cl earl y erro ne ou s. Se e Ander

so n v. Ci tyof

Bess emer

Cit y , 47 0 U.S. 5 64 , 57 3– 75 (1 98 5) (st at in g u nd er the cle ar erro r st an da rd , a di st ric t co urt’s fa ctua l fi nd in gs
m us t b e uph el d i f it s i nt erp ret at io n o f th e ev id en ce i s p laus ib le ). In m ak in g t hi s fin di ng , th e d is tri ctco urt re li edup on th e p art ie s’ Rev is edJo in t Pr etria l St ip ul at io n st at in g t he Jaf

fes “ ex ecu te d a n Ap pl ic at io n a ndAgre em en t fo r St an db y Lett er o f Cred it , andare b ou ndby its term s.” Th e d is tri ctco urt al so rel ie d o n t he factth at th e App li cat io n a ndAgre em en t— in cl ud in g p ag e two —was m ark edan d a dm it te d in to ev id en ce attri al , witho utob jecti on fro m

th e Ja ffes . Mor eo ve r, “ Mr. J affe hi m se lf i de nt ifi edth e ex hi bi t as th e ap pl ic at io n wh il e o n the st an d.” 3The di stric t co urt al so di d n oterr i n c on cl ud in g a ll of t he Jaf fes ’ cl ai m s ag ai ns t BOA fe ll withi n t he sco pe of t he App li cat io n a ndAgre em en t’s p ro vi si on fo r at to rn ey s’ fees , cos ts , andex pe ns es . The p ro vi si on is bro ad ly w or de d,
en co m pa ss in g “ al l co st s an d e xp en se s . . . of a ll cla im s o r le ga l p ro ceed in gs ari si ng
ou t o f th e is su an ce b y

Ban k o f Am eri ca o f th e Lette r of Cred it
. . . .” Here, al l o f th e cl ai m s as se rte d a ga in stBOA—wh ic h i nc lu de d a n i nju nc ti on to res tra in BOA’ s pa ym en t o f th e Let te r of

Cred it , an a ll eg edbre achof f iduc ia ry du ty, equi tabl e
es to pp el , andne gl ig en t m is rep res en ta ti on—p ur po rte d t o a ris e fro m

th e is su an ce o f th e Let te r of

Cred itor c on st itut edleg al pro ceed in gs rel at in g t o t he Jaf fes ’ at te m pt to en joi n B OA from pa y in g t he Lett er o f Cre di t. Acco rd in gl y , th e d is tri ctco urt di d n oterr i n c on cl ud in g B OA was en ti tl edto anawardof a tt orne y s’ fees an d
co st s u nd er the App li cat io n a ndAgre em en t. II. The di stric t co urt al so co nc lu de d B OA was en ti tl edto att orne y s’ fees an d li ti ga ti on ex pe ns es un de r a s ep arat e so ur ce, Fl a. St at . § 6 75 .11 1( 5) . On ap pe al , th e Ja ffes co nt en d t hi s fi nd in g was erro ne ou s b ecau se th ey di d n otsee k i njunc ti ve rel ie f ag ai ns t BOA und er the Flo rid a St atut e. Fl or id a St atut e § 67 5.1 11 (5 ) st at es : “ Rea so nabl e at to rn ey ’s fees an d o th er
ex pe ns es of l it ig at io n m

us t b e award edto th e p rev ai li ng party in a n a ct io n i n

4whi cha rem edy is so ug htun de r th is ch ap te r.” The re i s n o d is pu te BOA was the pr ev ai li ng pa rty. In bo th th ei r or ig in al an d am en de d c om pl ai nt s, the Jaf

fes
ex pr es sl y so ug htanin

jun ct io n a ga in stBOA pu rs ua ntto Fla . Sta t. § 67 5.1 09 (2 ). Und er the pl ai n l an gu ag e o f Fl a. St at . § 6 75 .11 1( 5) , reas on ab le att orne y s’ fees an d th e ex pe ns es of l it ig at io n mus t be award edto BOA, as the pre va il in g p arty , be cau se th e Ja ffes ’ su itwas a n a ct io n i n wh ic h arem edy was s ou gh t u nd er ch ap te r 67 5. Th us , th e d is tri ctco urt d idno t err in award in g re as on ab le att orne y s’ fees an d li ti ga ti on ex pe ns es to BOA, th e p rev ai li ng pa rty, und er Fl a. St at . § 6 75 .11 1( 5)
. 3 AFFIRMED.

The Jaffes a lso contend any rec overy under F la. Stat. § 675.111 would be limited to 3 their cla im for injunctive re lief. We nee d not consider this issue, as B OA is entitled to attorney s’ fee s on the J aff

es’ other claims under the Application and Agree ment.

5