FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTH CI RCUI T SEPTEMBER 23, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 11 40 6 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock et No. 1 :0 8- cv -2 03 74 -AJ

AMERIC AN UNIVERSITY OF THE CARIB BEAN, N.V. , a Net he rla nd s An ti ll es co m pa ny,
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pl ai nt iff - App el la nt ,

ve rs us CARITAS HEALTHCARE, INC., a New Yor k c or

po rat io n fo rm erl y

kn own as Cari ta s Hea lt hc are P la nn in g, In c., W YCKOFF HEIGHTS MEDICAL CENTER, a New Yor k c or

po rat io n, BROOKLYN QUEE NS HEALTH CARE, INC., a New Yor k c or

po rat io n,
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen da nt s - Ap pe ll ees

.

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

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t for th e So ut he rn Dis tri ct of F lo rid a

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Sep te m be r 23 , 20 11 )Befo re MAR CUS, WILSON an d B LACK, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

PER CURI AM:
Pl ai nt iff Am eri can Uni ve rs it y of t h e Cari bb ean , N.V. (“ AUC”) ap pe al s fro m
fin al or de rs of th e di st ric t co ur t de nyin g AUC’s m ot io n fo r at to rn ey ’s fees an d m ot io n
fo r reco ns id erat io n of th at de ni al

. The di st ric t co ur t de ni ed AUC’s m ot io ns aft er

gr an ti ng su m

m ary ju d g ment in fav or of AUC an d ag ai ns t Defen da nt s W y ck of f Heig ht s Med ic al Cen te r (“ W y ck of f”) an d Bro o kl y n Que en s Heal th care , In c. (“ BQHC”) , jo in tl y an d se ve ral ly, in th e am ou nt of $4 ,91 5,9 48 .75 pl us in te res t, in a
br each of co nt ract act io n ari si ng ou t of a pr om is so ry no te ag reem en t (“ th e Not e”)
le nd in g m on ey to Cari ta s Heal th care , In c. (“ Cari ta s” ), a who ll y own ed su bs id ia ry of BQHC, whi ch al so op erat es W y ck of f. On ap pe al , AUC arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t

erre d in de nyin g it s m ot io ns be cau se it fai le d to read th e N o t e a s a who le

. Afte r

care fu l re vi ew, we affi rm

. W e rev ie w de no vo a di st ric t co ur t’s in te rp ret at io n of a co nt ract ’s at to rn ey ’s fee

pr ov is io n. Fran ke nm

ut h Mu t. In s. Co . v . Es cam bi a Cn ty., 28 9 F .3d 72 3, 72 8 (1 1t h
Ci r. 20 02 ). W he n at to rn ey ’s fees are au th or iz ed , we rev ie w t h e d i st ric t co ur t’s
de ci si on to gr an t or den y th em fo r ab us e of di sc ret io n. Dav is v. Nat’l Med

. Ent ers ., In c., 25 3 F.3 d 13 14 , 13 18 -1 9 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 01 ). W e rev ie w a di st ric t co ur t’s de ni al of

a m ot io n fo r reco ns id erat io n fo r ab us e of di sc ret io n. Cl iff v. Payco Gen

. Am

. Cred it s,

2In c., 36 3 F .3d 11 13 , 11 21 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ).

In th is c a s e , AUC, as th e pr ev ai li ng pa rty in th e un de rlyin g la wsu it , se ek s

at to rn ey ’s fees fro m Defen da nt s BQHC an d W y ck of f ba se d on th e Not e. In pe rti ne nt

pa rt, ¶ 1 4 o f th e Not e p ro vi de s:
The Bo rro wer, an d each of th em , if m or e th an on e, joi nt ly an d se ve ral ly, pr om is es an d ag rees to pa y in th e ev en t of Defau l t , al l co st s an d
ex pe ns es in cu r r ed in th e co ll ect io n of th is Not e Agr eem en t, in cl ud in g reas on ab le att or ne y ’s fees an d c os ts

. [D. E. 10 0 a t 2 2]. The No te id en ti fie s t he rel ev an t p art ie s as fol lo ws:
Cari ta s Heal th care Pl an ni ng , In c. (“ Cari ta s” or “ Bo rro wer”) [is ] a New Yor k co rp or at io n wit h o f f ic es lo cat ed at 37 4 St oc kh ol m St reet , Bro ok lyn, New Yor k 11 23 7, an d a who ll y -o wne d su bs id ia r y of Bro ok lyn Que en s Heal th care , In c. (“ Bro ok lyn Que en s” ).

. . . Bro ok lyn Que en s al so op erat es W y ck of f Hei gh ts Med ic al Cen te r (“ W y ck of f”).

.

. . [Id . at 1 6].

Para gr ap h 1 7 o f th e Not e fu rth er p ro vi de s:
Bo rro wer an d al l su ret ie s, en do rs ers an d gu aran to rs of th is Not e Agr eem en t he reb y
. . . (e) ag ree th at , no twi th st an di ng th e oc cu rren ce of
a n y o f th e fo reg oi ng (ex cep t th e ex pr es s writ te n rel eas e by Len d e r o r an y su ch pe rs on ), th ey sh al l be an d rem ai n joi nt ly an d se ve ral ly, di rect ly
an d pr im ari ly, li ab le fo r al l su m s du e un de r th is Not e Agr eem e n t , an d
an y ot he r do cu m en ts sec ur in g t hi s No te Agre em en t. [Id . at 2 3].

As th e di st ric t co ur t fo und, the N ote una m bigu ou sl y fo rces on ly “ th e Bo rro wer”

3to pa y reas on ab le at to rn ey ’s f ees an d co st s sp en t on co ll ect in g u p o n th e Not e. The

Not e fu rth er de fin es th e “Bo r r o wer” on ly as Cari ta s, an d no t W y ck of f or BQHC.

Bec au se Fl or id a la w, th e ap pl ic ab le la w he re, req ui res co nt ract ua l pr ov is io n s fo r

at to rn ey ’s fees to “ un am

bi gu ou sl y st at e th at in te nt io n an d cl earl y id en ti fy th e m at te r
in whi ch th e at to rn ey ’s fees are reco ve rab le ,” Sh ol ko ff v. Bo ca Rat on Co m m

. Hos p.,
In c., 69 3 So

. 2d 11 14 , 11 18 (Fl a. Dis t. Ct

. App

. 19 97 ) (req ui rin g pa rti es to “ m an ife st
i n so m e cl ear way ” an ag reem en t to in de m ni fy fo r at to rn ey ’s fees th ro ug h e x p r e s s
la ng ua ge ev id en ci ng a “ m eet in g of th e m in ds ”), w e can no t sa y th at th e Not e

un am bi gu ou sl y pr ov id es th at AUC can reco ve r at to rn ey’s f e e s fro m W y ck of

f or BQHC. AUC th eref

or e is no t en ti tl ed to fees

. See Fl a. Pat ie nt ’s Co m pe ns at io n Fu nd
v. Rowe, 47 2 So. 2d 11 45 , 11 48 (Fl a. 19 85 ) (“ [A]tto rn ey fees m ay be award ed by a

co ur t o nl y

when au th or iz ed by stat ut e o r by agre em en t o f th e p art ie s.”)

. AUC arg ue s th at by si gn in g th e Not e, BQHC and W y ck of f be cam e “ su ret ie s,

en do rs ers an d gu aran to rs ” of th e Not e, an d th ereb y ag reed to pa y an y at to rn ey ’s fees

as a “ su m du e un de r th is Not e,” pur su an t to ¶ 17

. Howev er, Flor id a la w reco gn iz es
th e “ do ct rin e of ex pr es si o u n iu s es t ex cl us io al te riu s,” whi ch “ in st ru ct s th at whe n

cert ai n m at te rs are m en ti on ed in a co nt ract , ot he r si m il ar m at te rs no t m en ti on ed were
in te nd ed to be ex cl ud ed .” In re Cel ot ex Co rp ., 48 7 F.3 d 13 20 , 13 34 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 07 ) (q uo ta ti on om it te d) ; acco rd Sh um rak v. Brok en So un d Clu b, Inc., 89 8 So. 2d 10 18 ,

410 20 (Fl a. Dis t. Ct

. App

. 20 05 ). The Not e di d no t in cl ud e BQHC or W y ck of f in th e

at to rn ey ’s fees pr ov is io n, ¶ 14 , ev en th ou gh it di sc us se d th e pa rti es by th ei r de fin ed

na m es in ¶¶ 2, 3, 4, 5, an d 19 -- su gg es ti ng th at if th e pa rti es ha d in te nd ed BQHC or
W y ck of f to be li ab le fo r at to rn ey ’s fees , th ey wou ld ha ve be en ex pr es sl y li st ed in th at

pr ov is io n.
Mo reo ve r, ev en as su m in g th at th e Not e was refe rri ng to BQHC an d W y ck of f

as “ su ret ie s, en do rs ers an d gu aran to rs ” in th e ge ne ral “ al l su m s du e” pr ov is io n, ¶ 17 , th is pr ov is io n di d no t m ak e an y refe r e n c e t o at to rn ey ’s f ees

. Bec au se “ [a] c on tra ct

pr ov is io n sp eci fic al ly de al in g wit h a pa rti cu la r su bjec t co nt r o l s ov er a ge ne ral

pr ov is io n d eal in g wi th th at sa m e su bjec t,” C ol on ia l Ba nk , N.A. v. Taylor Mo rri so n
Serv ., In c. 10 So

. 3d 65 3, 65 5- 56 (Fl a. Dis t. Ct

. App

. 20 09 ), we can no t pr es um e th at
th e pa rti es in te nd ed BQHC or W y ck of f to be li ab le fo r th e at to rn ey ’s fees li st ed in ¶

14

. In sh or t, read in g th e Not e as a who le , we can no t ag ree wit h AUC t h a t i t is

en ti tl ed to reco ve r at to rn ey ’s fees fro m BQHC or W y ck of f, ba se d so le ly on a ge ne ral

co nt ract ua l pr ov is io n, whe n th e sp eci fic at to rn ey ’s fees pr ov is io n m ad e no refe ren ce

to th es e pa rti es

. Th e d i s t r ic t co ur t th eref or e di d no t err in de nyin g fees to AUC, o r
in de nyin g i ts m ot io n fo r rec on si de rat io n.
AFFIRMED.

5