FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT May 19, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK

Honora ble Eug ene Siler, Jr., United States Circuit J udg e for the Six th Circuit, sit ting by * desig nation. [DO N OT PUBLISH]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 07- 1381 7

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D . C. D oc ke t N o. 06- 8125 5- CV -W JZ SAUL FOX, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us PORSC HE CARS NORTH AMERICA, INC., Defen da nt -Ap pe ll ee.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the S outhe rnD istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (M ay 1 9, 200 8) Be fo re A N D E RS O N , H U L L a nd S IL E R, Ci rc uit Jud ge s. * PE R CU RIA M:2

In this div ersity

action, plaintiff-a

ppellant Saul Fox seeks to recover attor ne y ’ s f ee s and l iti ga tio n c ost s un de r Fl or ida S ta tut e § 68 1. 112 inc ur

re d inhis successful Florida lem on law ar bitration proceeding against defendant-appellee Po rs ch e Cars N orth A m er ic a, I nc . ( “ PC N A ”) . P CN A a rg ue s th at the pla in langua ge of

§ 68 1. 112 al low s ac ourt t o aw ar d ac onsum er , w ho p re va ils in a § 68 1. 112 ac tio n, “ re as ona ble a tto rn ey ’ s f

ee s” inc ur

re d inthat § 681. 112 ac tio n, but not a tto rn ey ’ s f

ee s in curr ed

in tha t l em on l awa rb itr at ionpr oc ee din g a s so ught by F ox. P CN A f

urthe r ar gue s th at

a tto rn ey ’ s f

ee s are not

“ da m ag es ” unde r the fi rs t se nte nc e of

§ 68 1. 112 an d thus d am ag es ( oth er than a tto rn ey ’ s f

ee s) m ust be soug ht in th e § 681.112 action b efore a consum er c an rec over attorney ’ s fees under the second sentence of § 681 .112. A ll parties agree that Florida law co nt ro ls th is ap pe al . The F lorida Fourth District Court of Appeal, howe ver, alrea dy has ad dr es se d th is que sti on and r ea ch ed the opp osi te c onc lus ion , statin g th at : Ge linas’ s claim

for attorney ’ s fees and costs is also cogni zable under section 681 .112, beca

use wher e a consum er’ s vehicle has been deem ed a “ le m on” by

the a rb itr at ion board , a viol at ion of [F lor ida ] Ch ap te r 681 ha s be en fo un d, and tha t c onsum er c anse ek a tto rn ey ’ s f

ee s and c ost s unde r se ct ion 681. 112 be ca use suc h cannot be soug ht from the arb it rat io n b oa rd. . . .3

Ge linas v. Forest River , I nc., 931 So. 2d 970 , 975-76 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006 ), re vie wde nie d, 954 S o. 2d 2 7 ( Fl a. 200 7) . A lth oughthe pla int if f in G el ina s di d se ek to re co ve r oth er

pe cuniary

los se s, the F lor ida

appe llate c ourt i n G el ina s di d not ti e or c ondi tio n th e re co ve ry

of a tto rn ey ’ s f

ee s f ro m G el ina s’ s su cc es sf

ul se parate a rb itr at ionto G el ina s’ s se ek ing a ddi tio na l l oss es in the § 68 1. 112 ac tio n, but c onc lud ed

that a c la im f or a tto rn ey ’ s f

ee s and c ost s f

ro m the se parate arb it rat io n p ro ceed in g i s “ al so co gn iz ab le un de r se ct io n 6 81 .11 2.” Id. at 97 5. Whe the r w e dis ag re e w iththe F lor ida D istri ct Co urt of Appe al ’ s r ea din g of

thi s Fl or ida statut e is n ot the iss ue . R athe r, P CN A ha s f ai le d to m ee t i ts b ur de n of showing th ere is “ som e persuasive indication” that th e Florida Supre m e Court
w oul d de ci de thi s is sue dif fe re ntl y than th e Fl or ida

F ourth D istri ct

Co urt of App eal di d i n Gel in as . See Si lv erb erg v. Pa in e, W eb be r, Ja ck so n & Cu rti s, In c., 710 F. 2d 6 78, 690 ( 11th C ir . 198 3) ; F lin tko te Co . v. D ravo C or p. , 678 F . 2d 9 42, 945 (11t h Cir. 1982 ). T hus, after reviewand oral argum ent, w e re verse the district co urt’ s or de r gr an tin g su m m ar y j udgm en t i n f

av or of P CN A , a nd r em an d to the di st ric t co ur t fo r pr oc eed in gs co ns is te nt wit h t hi s o pi ni on . REVERSED AND REMANDED.