[DO N OT PUBLISH]
IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 15 61 8

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 9 :0 5- cv -8 07 65 -KLR YOUNG APARTMENTS, INC., et al ., Pl ai nt iff s- App el la nt s, GARY W ESTON, et al ., Co ns ol . Pla in ti ffs , ve rs us TOW N OF JUPITER, FLORI DA, ANDREW

LUKASIK, ROBERT LECKY, 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 forth e So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (J an ua ry 7, 2 01 3) Befo re HULL andFAY, Circ ui t J ud ge s, an d WHITTEMORE, Dis tri ctJu dg e. *
Honora ble J ames D. Whittemore, United States District Judge, Middle D istrict of * Florida , sitti ngby

desig nation. Case: 11-15618 Date Filed: 01/07/2013 Page: 1 of 45PER CURI AM:

App el la nt s Will ia m

Teda rd s an d M ic ha el W eek s, two at to rn ey s wh o rep res en te d t he ir c li en t, Pl ai nt iff You ng Apar tm en ts , in th is civ il laws ui t, ap pe al th e d is tri ctco urt’s i m

po si ti on of s an ct io ns on th em inth e fo rm

of a tt orne y s’ fees
un de r 28 U.S.C. § 1 92 7 i n fa vo r of Defen da nt s An dr ew Luk as ikan d R ob ert Lecky . After r ev ie w of the bri efs an d t he reco rdin th is cas e, an d wi th th e b en efi t of ora l ar gu m en t, we fi ndno ab us e o f di sc ret io n i n t he di st ric t co urt’s i m po si ti on of § 1 92 7 s an ct io ns an d a ffi rm . Thi s i s the th irdap pe al be fo re t hi s C ou rt i n thi s ca se . Plai nt iff You ng Apa rtments do es no t co nt es t o r ap pe al th e d is tri ctco urt’s $ 13 9,3 97 awardof at to rn ey s’ fees ag ai ns t Yo un g Ap art m en ts in fav orof t he Defen da nt s u nd er 4 2 U.S.C. § 1 98 8 and28 U.S.C. § 1 92 7. Ra th er, t hi s ap pe al co nc ern s o nl y th e at to rn ey s’ fees awardof $ 82 ,34 1 a ga in stco un se l fo r You ng Apar tm en ts un de r § 1 92 7. The ful l $ 13 9,3 97 rep res en ts all att orne y s’ fees in cu rredby D efen da nt s Luk as ikan d Lec ky in t he en ti re ca se . The $ 82 ,34 1, awa rd edag ai ns t Yo un g Apa rtments ’ co un se l, re pr es en ts on ly tha t p orti on of t he $1 39 ,39 7 a wardth atwas in cu rredby the Defen da nt s af te r th e fi rs t ap pe al in th is cas e. Sp eci fic al ly, th e $8 2,3 41 awardco ns is ts of: (1) $5 0,9 84 inatt orne y s’ fees in cu rredin th e d is co ve ry 2 Case: 11-15618 Date Filed: 01/07/2013 Page: 2 of 45an d s umm ary jud gm en t p ro ces s t ha t fo ll owe d t he fir stap pe al ; an d (2 ) $3 1,3 57 in

at to rn ey s’ fees in curredinth e se co ndap pe al , whi chaffi rm edth e en try of s umm ary jud gm en t i n fa vo r of

th e Defen da nt s. W e su m m ari ze b rie fly the un de rlyin g l it ig at io n s o a s t o p ro vi de co nt ex t fo r th is th irdap pe al an d t he di stric t co urt’s § 19 27 ord er ag ai ns t co un se l fo r You ng Apa rtments . I. TH E UNDERLYI NG LI TI GATI ON Pl ai nt iff You ng Apar tm en ts fil eda ci vi l ac ti on , pu rs ua ntto 42 U.S.C. § 1 98 3, ag ai ns t (1 ) th e Town of J up it er, Fl or id a (“ Jupi te r”), an d (2 ) to wn o ffi ci al s And rew Luk as ikan d R ob ertLecky (th e “ Defen da nt s” ). Luk as ikwas J up it er’s to wn m an ag er, an d Lec ky was Jupi te r’s he adbu il di ng off ic ia l. As r eco un te d be lo w, Defen da ntJupi te r pr ev ai le d i n t hi s l it ig at io n a ndis no t i nv ol ve d i n t hi s th irdap pe al . There fo re, i n t hi s o pi ni on , we referto Luk as ikan d Lec ky as th e Defen da nt s. InCo un t 1 of i ts am en de d c om pl ai nt , You ng Apar tm en ts all eg edth atJupi te r vi ol at edth e Fo urte en th Am en dm en t t hr ou gh it s i ll eg al en act m en t an d s el ect iv e
en fo rcem en t o f an “ Ove r-Cr owd in g Ord in an ce” ( th e “ Ord in an ce”) , whi ch pl aced
oc cupa nc y

li m it s o n re si de nt ia l d well in gs . Plai nt iff You ng Apar tm en ts ass ert ed Jupi te r’s Ordi na nc e was aim edat, an d s el ect iv el y en fo rcedag ai ns t, o nl y

His pa ni c 3 Case: 11-15618 Date Filed: 01/07/2013 Page: 3 of 45imm ig ran t wo rk ers an d h adth e eff ectof e li m in at in g a ffo rd ab le ho us in g a va il ab le to th es e worke rs . In Co un t 2 , You ng Apar tm en ts all eg edth atDefen da nt s Lu ka si k
an d Lec ky part ic ip at edin Jupi te r’s se le ct iv e en fo rcem en t o f th e Ord in an ce ag ai ns t His pa ni c imm ig ran ts in vi ol at io n o f th e Fo urte en th Am en dm en t. 1 A. Mot io ns to Di smis s un der Rul e 1 2( b)(6 ) Jupi te r an d Def

en da nt s Lu ka si k a ndLecky fil edtwo sep arat e Fed eral Ru le of Civ il Pro cedur e 1 2( b) (6 ) m ot io ns to di sm is s Yo un g Ap art m en ts ’ cl ai m s as to th em . See Fed . R. Civ . P. 12 (b )(6 ). Init s J an ua ry

20 06 rul in g, t he di st ric t co urt d is m is se d C ou nt2 ag ai ns t Defen da nt s Lu ka si k andLecky forfai lu re t o s ta te a cl ai m . The d is tri ctco urt fi rs t
co nc lu de d t ha t Yo un g Ap art m en ts ’ co m pl ai ntfai le d t o n ot ify Defen da nt s Lu ka si k
an d Lec ky tha t t he y

were b ei ng su edinth ei r in di vi du al cap aci ti es . Thu s, t he di st ric t co urt co ns tru edCo un t 2 as s et ti ng ou t an off ic ia l-c ap aci ty clai m

ag ai ns t Luk as ikan d Lec ky, andde te rm in edth atCo un t 2 “ [was ] si m pl y a reco ns ti tu ti on of [Yo un g Ap art m en ts ’] cla im ag ai ns t t he Town .” Becaus e Jupi te r was als o a de fen da ntin th e su it , th e d is tri ctco urt d et erm in edth atCo un t 2 was “ redun da nt ”
an d d is m is se d i t ag ai ns t Def en da nt s Lu ka si k a ndLecky . As to Luk as ikan d

YoungApar

tments’ complaint also containe d five other counts (thre e ag ainst J upiter and 1 two ag ainst Lukasik and L ecky ) that ar e not re levant to the pre sent appe al.

4 Case: 11-15618 Date Filed: 01/07/2013 Page: 4 of 45Lecky , th e d is tri ctco urt d idno t re ach th e m eri ts of P la in ti ff’s cl ai m s.

Inth is same Jan ua ry

20 06 ord er, t he di st ric t co urt al so di sm is se d t he
m ajor it y of C ou nt1 ag ai ns t J up it er, s av e fo r th e p orti on of C ou nt1 t ha t al le ge d th atJupi te r ha d e ng ag edin sel ect iv e en fo rcem en t o f it s Ord in an ce. The di st ric t
co urt fo un d t ha t Pl ai nt iff

You ng Apar tm en ts , as alan dl or d, l ack edst an di ng to
as se rt r ace- ba se d d is cri m in at ory en act m en t o r rac e-b as edsel ect iv e en fo rcem en t cl ai m s o n b eh al f of

it s Hi sp an ic ten an ts . There fo re, t he di st ric t co urt i nt erp ret ed Co un t 1 ag ai ns t J up it er as a cl ai m of “ di ffer en ti al tre atm en t b as edon a no nsu sp ectch arac te ris ti c,” i .e., a cla ss -o f-o ne cla im subjec t t o ra ti on al ba si s re vi ew. Thi s “ no n- su sp ectch arac te ris ti c” s el ect iv e en fo rcem en t cl ai m was a t t im es refe rredto as a“ cl as s o f on e” s el ect iv e en fo rcem en t cl ai m ba se d o n Yo un g Apa rtments (a cl as s o f on e) b ei ng all eg ed ly treat eddi ffer en tl y fro m ot he r si m il arl y si tu at edlan dl or ds . The d is tri ctco urt t he n c on cl ud edth atJupi te r’s Ordi na nc e, whi chpl acedoc cupa nc y

li m it s o n re si de nt ia l d well in gs , su rv iv edrat io na l b as is
sc ru ti ny becaus e itaid edJupi te r in att ai ni ng va rio us leg it im at e h eal th an d s afet y go al s. Alt ho ug h i t d is m is se d P la in ti ff Yo un g Ap art m en ts ’ raci al di sc riminat io n cl ai m s due to a la ckof s tand in g a s a l an dl or d, t he di st ric t co urt d idno t d is m is s You ng Apartm en ts ’ cl ai m of n on -s us pe ctch arac te ris ti c o r cl as s- of -o ne sel ect iv e 5 Case: 11-15618 Date Filed: 01/07/2013 Page: 5 of 45en fo rcem en t ag ai ns t J up it er. The di st ric t co urt n ot edth atYou ng Apar tm en ts ha d

“ al le ge d t ha t i t . . . was t reat eddi ffer en tl y fro m si m il arl y si tu at edpro pe rti es in [J up it er], andth atth ere was no leg it im at e g ov ern m en ta l p ur po se forth e di ffer en ti al tre atm en t,” wh ic h was su ffi ci en t t o s ta te a cl ai m of s el ect iv e
en fo rcem en t u nd er t he Equ al Pro te ct io n C laus e. The d is tri ctco urt i nd ic at edth at , to pu rs ue su ch a cl ai m , a “pl ai nt iff ne edon ly alle ge th atitha s b een in te nt io na ll y

tre at eddi ffer en tl y

fro m ot he rs si m il arl y

si tu at edan d t ha t t he re i s n o rat io na l b as is forth e d iff eren ce i n t reat m en t.” Fro m th is po in t, i n l ig htof t he di st ric t co urt’s Ru le 12 (b )(6 ) di sm is sa l o rd er, Pl ai nt iff You ng Apar tm en ts pro ceed edag ai ns t J up it er s ol el y on th e se le ct iv e
en fo rcem en t p orti on of C ou nt1 u nd er a n on -s us pe ctch arac te ris ti c o r “ cl as s o f
on e” t he ory , rat he r th an un de r a t he ory of r aci al di sc riminat io n. B. Ju pi ter’ s Mo tio n fo r Summ ar y J udg m ent Fo ll owi ng di sc ov ery, Jupi te r fi le d am ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t, wh ic h th e d is tri ctco urt g ran te d i n Ap ril 20 07 . In i ts su m m ary jud gm en t o rd er, t he di st ric t co urt re it erat edth at , to pre va il on it s s el ect iv e en fo rcem en t cl ai m , Pla in ti ff You ng Apartm en ts ha d t o s ho w firs t t ha t, as to th e Ord in an ce, Jup it er t reat ed Pl ai nt iff di ffer en tl y

fro m othe r si m il arl y

si tu at edpro pe rti es ; an d s eco ndth at Jupi te r un equa ll y

ap pl ie d afaci al ly neu tra l o rd in an ce fo r th e p ur po se of
6 Case: 11-15618 Date Filed: 01/07/2013 Page: 6 of 45di sc riminat in g a ga in stYou ng Apar tm en ts . After n ot in g t he parti es ’ di sa gr eem en t

ab ou t wh atpre ci se co nduc t Yo un g Ap art m en ts ha d t o s ho w in ord er t o p ro ve it s
se le ct iv e en fo rcem en t cl ai m , th e d is tri ctco urt d et erm in edth atYou ng Apartm en ts fai le d t o d em on st rat e a d is pu te d i ss ue of m at eri al facton th e “ si m il arl y si tu at ed ” pr on g u nd er ei th er p arty ’s form ul at io n o f th e co rrec t s ta nd ard
. Inpa rti cu la r, Pla in ti ff Yo un g Ap artm en ts fai le d t o p res en t an y ev id en ce th at : (1 ) a res id en ce was ov ercr owd edbu t t ha t J up it er fa il edto is su e a ci ta ti on for vi ol at in g t he Over cro wdi ng Ordi na nc e; (2) un de r th e ru le pro po se d b y You ng Apa rtments it se lf, J up it er h adrece iv eda co m pl ai ntab ou t o ve rcro wdi ng an d fa il ed to in ve st ig at e; or ( 3) You ng Apar tm en ts was i ss ue d acit at io n fo r hu rri can e da m ag e an d tha t n o o th er p ro pe rty was s im il arl y cit ed . Thu s, t he di st ric t co urt
co nc lu de d t ha t Pl ai nt iff

You ng Apar tm en ts ha d fa il edto sat is fy th e fi rs t p ro ng of th e se le ct iv e en fo rcem en t eq ua l p ro te ct io n a na lysis , anditgra nt edJupi te r’s m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t. 2 Fo ll owi ng th e d is tri ctco urt’s s umm ary jud gm en t o rd er, wh ic h d is po se d o f al l o f You ng Apar tm en ts ’ rem ai ni ng cla im s, Yo un g Ap art m en ts fil eda no ti ce o f ap pe al in May 200 7. No tabl y , You ng Apar tm en ts de ci de d t o app eal on ly the

The district cour

t likewise conc luded that YoungApar tments failed to satisfy

the sec ond 2 prongof the a

naly sis, i.e., it did notdemonstrate that J upiter “une qually applied a f

acia lly neutra l ordinanc e for

the purpose of

discriminating a g ainst” YoungApar tments. 7 Case: 11-15618 Date Filed: 01/07/2013 Page: 7 of 45di st ric t co urt’s ea rli er Ru le 12 (b )(6 ) di sm is sa l o f th ei r rac ia l d is cri m in at io n c la im s

ag ai ns t (1 ) Jupi te r an d (2 ) Luk as ikan d Lec ky in t he ir i nd iv idua l capa ci ti es . You ng Apartm en ts di d n otap pe al th e d is tri ctco urt’s en try of s umm ary jud gm en t in Jupi te r’s fav oron You ng Apar tm en ts ’ no n- su sp ectch arac te ris ti c “ cl as s o f on e”
se le ct iv e en fo rcem en t cl ai m . C. 20 08 Firs t Appea l On ap pe al in 20 08 , th is Co urt re ve rs edth e d is tri ctco urt’s Ru le 12 (b )(6 ) di sm is sa l o f You ng Apar tm en ts ’ 42 U.S.C. § 1 98 3 c la im s i n C ou nt1 ag ai ns t Jupi te r, an d i n C ou nt2 ag ai ns t Lu ka si k a ndLecky , andrem an de d t he cas e fo r fu rth er p ro ceed in gs . See Yo un g Ap art m en ts , Inc . v. Town of J up it er, FL (“ You ng I”), 5 29 F.3d10 27 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ). As t o Lu ka si k a ndLecky , th is Co urt h el d t ha t Luk as ikan d Lec ky were su edin th ei r in di vi du al cap aci ti es , andth atYou ng Apa rtments ’ cl ai m

ag ai ns t t he m

in Co un t 2 co ul d p ro ceedbe cau se th ey were ad equa te ly not ifi edof t he ir p ot en ti al in di vi du al li ab il it y . Id. at10 46 -4 8. 3 Thi s C ou rt a ls o re ve rs edth e d is tri ctco urt’s co nc lu si on as t o Yo un g Apa rtments ’ st an di ng to bri ng raci al di sc riminat io n c la im s o n b eh al f of it s t en an ts , co nc lu di ng th atYou ng Apar tm en ts di d h av e st an di ng to pu rs ue su ch raci al

The district cour

t had dismissed various other c laims broug ht by YoungApar

tments in 3 Count 3, 4, and 5, and YoungApar tments did not contest the dismi ssal of those Counts on appea l. YoungI , 529 F.3d at 1037. 8

Case: 11-15618 Date Filed: 01/07/2013 Page: 8 of 45di sc riminat io n c la im s i n C ou nt1. Id . at 1 03 7- 44 . This Co urt n ot edth at , bec au se

th e d is tri ctco urt h adpre vi ou sl y co ns tru edYou ng Apar tm en ts ’ cl ai m ag ai ns t Jupi te r as a “ cl as s o f on e” cl ai m , th e d is tri ctco urt h ad“ ex cl ud edan y co ns id erat io n of di sc riminat io n b as edon a su sp ectcla ss ifi cat io n,” an d Yo un g Ap art m en ts on ap pe al “ cl ai m [ed ] th atitwas u nabl e to in tro du ce re le va ntev id en ce co nc ern in g Jupi te r’s di sc riminat ory

m ot iv es .” Id . at 1 04 5- 46 . You ng Apar tm en ts als o c la im ed
on ap pe al “ th atth e d is tri ctco urt’s an al y si s fa il edto ex am in e fu ll y whet he r You ng Apa rtments was t reat eddi ffer en tl y co m pa redto lan dl or ds of n on -His pa ni c te na nt s.” Id . at 1 04 6. The refo re, i n t he fir stap pe al , th is Co urt i nd ic at edth atbe cau se of t he di st ric t
co urt’s erro ne ou s ru li ng on st an di ng , th e d is tri ctco urt “ m ay ha ve wron gl y

refu se d to co ns id er an y

ev id en ce o f di sc riminat io n a ga in stJupi te r’s His pa ni c imm ig ran ts .” Id . This Co urt n ot ed , ho wev er, tha t wh et he r You ng Apar tm en ts all eg eda cl ai m of

“ di sc riminat io n b as edon a su sp ectcla ss ifi cat io n o r un de r a ‘clas s o f on e’ the ory ,” it“ m us t s ho w di sp arat e tr eat m en t co m pa redto a si m il arl y

si tu at edpa rty.” Id. As t o s el ect iv e en fo rcem en t, t hi s C ou rt a ls o o bs erv edth atPla in ti ff Yo un g Apa rtments ha d n otap pe al edth e d is tri ctco urt’s en try of s umm ary jud gm en t o n Pl ai nt iff’s no n- su sp ectch arac te ris ti c “ cl as s o f on e” s el ect iv e en fo rcem en t cl ai m . Id . This Co urt t hu s p erm it te d Yo un g Ap art m en ts to pu rs ue on rem an d o nl y cla im s
9 Case: 11-15618 Date Filed: 01/07/2013 Page: 9 of 45of

un equa l en fo rcem en t t o t he ex te ntth es e cl ai m s wer e b as edon ev id en ce o f rac ia l di sc riminat io n Yo un g Ap art m en ts ha d b een un ab le to ad du ce due to th e d is tri ct
co urt’s erro ne ou s n arro win g o f it s cl ai m s t o a“ cl as s- of -o ne ” cl ai m , st at in g: [Yo un g Apa rtments m ay ] rai se it s un equa l en fo rcem en t cl ai m s an ew on rem an d, bu t on ly in so fa r as it can es tabl is h th es e cl ai m s ba se d on ev id en ce of di sc riminat io n t ha t i t was un ab le to ad du ce be cau se of th e di st ric t co urt’s erro ne ou s na rro w i n g o f th e rel ev an t is su es . You ng Apa rtments m ay no t pr es s fo rward with an y se l ect iv e en fo rcem en t cl ai m s th at m erel y dupl ic at e it s fai le d “clas s of on e” un equa l en fo rcem en t ch al le ng e. Id . at 1 04 6 (e m

ph as is ad de d)
. D. Summ ar y J udg m ent Mo tio ns on Rem an d o n Rac ia l Di sc ri m in at io n Cla ims Fo ll owi ng th is Co urt’s d eci si on in You ng I, an d a fte r a p eri odof d is co ve ry , Jupi te r an d Def

en da nt s Lu ka si k andLecky m ov edforsu m

m ary jud gm en t i n t he di st ric t co urt o n P la in ti ff Yo un g Ap art m en ts ’ race -b as edsel ect iv e en fo rcem en t cl ai m s. Init s s umm ary jud gm en t m ot io n, Jupi te r arg ue d tha t Yo un g Ap art m en ts

4 ha d “ ne it he r so ug ht , no r ob ta in edan y ne w evi de nc e o f di sp arat e tr eat m en t o f it se lf
as op po se d [t o] ot he r si m il arl y si tu at edpro pe rty owne rs .” Inth ei r se pa rat e
su m m ary jud gm en t m ot io n, Def en da nt s Lu ka si k andLecky als o n ot edth at“ [n ]o Duringthis period, YoungApar tments’ discovery

included taking

depositions of 4 Lukasik, L ecky , other Jupit er of ficials, and va

rious other witnesse s. It is unclear f rom the re cord whether YoungApar

tments also conducted written discover y , but YoungApar

tments’ submissi on in oppositi on to the Def endants’ motions for summar y judgme nt did include various documentar

y submissi ons. 10 Case: 11-15618 Date Filed: 01/07/2013 Page: 10 of 45ne w evi de nc e o bt ai ne d s ho ws t ha t [Yo un g Ap art m en ts ] was tre at eddi ffer en tl y

fro m a si m il arl y

si tu at edlan dl or d wi th no n- His pa ni c te na nt s i n c on ne ct io n wi th th e en fo rcem en t o f [t he ] Ord in an ce.” In va rio us pl ead in gs fil eddu rin g t hi s
su m m ary jud gm en t p ha se , You ng Apar tm en ts em ph as iz edth atitwas n otpu rs ui ng a “ cl as s o f on e” cl ai m , bu t i ns te ad , it s cl ai m ag ai ns t t he Defen da nt s was th at

“ Lecky an d Lu ka si k d ire ct edth e en fo rcem en t o f th e [O]rdi na nc e so le ly agai ns t pr op ert ie s i n t he area s . . . th atwere h eav il y oc cupi edby H is pa ni c imm ig ran ts . . . an d t ha t Yo un g Ap art m en ts was h itby tha t t arg et edpro gr am .” InAug us t 2 00 9, t he di st ric t co urt g ran te d s umm ary jud gm en t i n fu ll to Jupi te r an d Def

en da nt s Lu ka si k andLecky . As to Defen da nt s Lu ka si k a ndLecky , th e d is tri ctco urt d et erm in edth at , in th ei r in di vi du al cap aci ti es , (1) Luk as ikan d Lecky di d n oten fo rce the Ordi na nc e in vi ol at io n o f th e Equ al Pro te ct io n C laus e o f th e Fo urte en th Am en dm en t, an d (2 ) Luk as ikan d Lec ky were en ti tl edto qu al ifi ed imm un it y . The d is tri ctco urt al so reject edYou ng Apartm en ts ’ cl ai m s o f rac ia ll y di sc riminat ory

en act m en t an d e nf

or cem en t ag ai ns t J up it er. The di st ric t co urt
co nc lu de d t ha t Yo un g Ap art m en ts pro du cedno ev id en ce o f se le ct iv e en fo rcem en t
m ot iv at edby racia l d is cri m in at io n, s ta ti ng : [t]he Elev en th Ci rcu it requi red pl ai nt iff to pr ov id e ne w ev id en ce to supp ort i ts [se le ct iv e en fo rcem en t] c la im . Th is Co urt h as rev ie wedth e en ti re reco rd an d is un ab le to fin d ne w ev i de nc e to supp ort pl ai nt iff ’s cl ai m . At th e he ari ng [o n th e m ot io ns fo r su m m ary jud gm en t], th is Co urt 11 Case: 11-15618 Date Filed: 01/07/2013 Page: 11 of 45sp eci fic al ly as ke d pl ai nt iff to de ta il th e ne w ev id en c e up on whi ch it

rel ie s. Pl ai nt iff ci te d two s o u r c e s of ev id en ce: (1 ) th e “ Ove rcro wdi ng In ve st ig at io ns ” lo g a n d (2 ) ov ercr owd in g co m pl ai nt s fro m fo rm er pl ai nt iff W es to n. Bo th of th os e do cu m en ts were be fo re th is Co urt whe n it in it ia ll y co ns id ered th is is s u e . N o n e of th is ev id en ce is di rect ed at es tabl is hi ng t h a t You ng Apa rtments was si m il arl y si tu at ed to an ot he r en ti ty th at Jupi te r kn ew was ov ercr owd ed an d th at J u p i t e r fai le d to in ve st ig at e o r ci te . Thi s sa m e is su e go es to an y se le ct iv e en fo rcem en t cl ai m pl ai nt iff b r i ng s ag ai ns t in di vi du al de fen da nt s Luk as ik an d Lecky . The re i s no th in g in th e reco rd th at sh ows th at You ng A p a r t m en ts was tre at ed di ffer en tl y

fro m a si m il arl y

si tu at edlan dl or d o f no n- His pa ni c te na nt s. (em ph as is ad de d)
. Pl ai nt iff You ng Apar tm en ts ap pe al edth e d is tri ctco urt’s g ran t o f su m m ary jud gm en t as to all Defen da nt s. In Decem be r 20 10 , th is Co urt af

firm edth e d is tri ct
co urt’s g ran t o f su m

m ary jud gm en t t o J up it er an d Def en da nt s Lu ka si k a ndLecky ba se d o n alac k o f ev id en ce. See You ng Apar tm en ts , Inc . v. Town of J up it er, Fl a., (“ You ng II”), 4 06 F. App ’x 37 6 (2 01 0) . In Yo un g II , th is Co urt s ta te d P la in ti ff You ng Apartm en ts ha d p ro du cedno ev id en ce t ha t l an dl or ds of n on -His pa ni c te na nt s wer e tr eat eddi ffer en tl y or m or e fav or ab ly tha n P la in ti ff, s ta ti ng : W e al so affi rm th e di st ric t co urt’s gr an t of su m m ary jud gm en t in fav or of Jupi te r, Luk as ik , an d Lecky on You ng ’s cl ai m of un e q ua l en fo rcem en t. Fi rs t, we ob se rv e fro m th e reco rd th at You ng fa i le d to pr es en t an y ne w ev id en ce of Jupi te r’s un equa l en fo rcem en t an d, in fact , m erel y dupl ic at ed it s pr ev io us arg um en t. Seco nd , be cau se You ng fai le d t o s h ow th at a si m il arl y si tu at ed la nd lo rd of no n- His pa ni c te na nt s w a s tre at ed di ffer en tl y fro m it , t he gr an t of su m m ary jud gm en t i s due to be affi rm ed
. 12 Case: 11-15618 Date Filed: 01/07/2013 Page: 12 of 45F i n a l l y, we ag ree wit h th e di stric t co urt th at Luk as ik an d Lecky

en joy qu al ifi ed im

m un it y . Y o u n g h as fai le d to es tabl is h th at ei th er of th es e in di vi du al s vi ol at ed it s fed eral co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s. Sp eci fic al ly, You ng su ed Luk as ik an d Lecky fo r en fo rci ng th e Ord in an ce un equa ll y ag ai ns t it as a la nd lo rd of His pa ni c te na nt s. As pr ev io us ly di sc us se d, th is cl ai m fai ls be cau se You ng pr oduc ed no ev id en ce of a si m il arl y si tu at ed la nd lo rd of no n- His pa ni c te na nt s who was tre at ed m or e f a v o rab ly, as requi redby ourcir cu itpre ced en ts . Id . at 3 78 (em

ph as is ad de d a ndfoo tn ot e o m it te d)
. On M arch 7, 2 01 1, t hi s C ou rt g ran te d Def en da nt s Lu ka si k a ndLecky ’s
m ot io n t o t ran sf

er t he is su e o f ap pe ll at e at to rn ey s’ fees in You ng II to th e d is tri ct
co urt fo r co ns id erat io n o f wha t fe es sh ou ldbe award edforth e You ng II ap pe al
. W it h t hi s b ack gr ou nd , we tu rnto th e § 19 27 att orne y s’ fees is su e th atis th e so le
subjec t o f th is th irdap pe al
.

II . THE ATT ORNEYS’ FEE S LI TI GATI ON A. Luk as ik

an d Lec k

y’ s Mo tio n Fil ed Apri l 2 9, 2 01 1 Fo ll owi ng th is Co urt’s d eci si on in You ng II, Defen da nt s Lu ka si k andLecky fil edanApri l 2 9, 2 01 1 re ne wedm ot io n fo r at to rn ey s’ fees in th e d is tri ctco urt, th ro ug h wh ic h t he y

so ug htto reco ve r th ei r at to rn ey s’ fees an d c os ts fro m You ng Apa rtments an d i ts co un se l. The Defen da nt s fi rs t ar gu edth atth ey were en ti tl ed , as pre va il in g p art ie s u nd er 4 2 U.S.C. § 19 88 , to reco ve r fro m You ng Apar tm en ts al l o f th e at to rn ey s’ fees th ey in cu rredin de fen di ng ag ai ns t Yo un g Ap art m en ts ’

13 Case: 11-15618 Date Filed: 01/07/2013 Page: 13 of 45su itfro m

in cep ti on an d thr ou gh ou t t he en ti re ca se be cau se th ere was ne ve r an y
ev id en ce t o s up po rt a ny of Pl ai nt iff’s all eg at io ns an d t he laws ui t was fri vo lo us . Fu rth er, as to Pla in ti ff’s co un se l, Defe nd an ts Luk as ikan d Lec ky’ s Ap ril 29
m ot io n e xp res sl y

so ug htto reco ve r at to rn ey s’ fees un de r 28 U.S.C. § 1 92 7 “ joi nt ly
an d s ev eral ly” from

“ You ng Apar tm en ts an d [i ts ] co un se l” of r eco rd , bu t l im it ed to on ly tho se fees in cu rredaft er t he You ng I de ci si on . As no te d abo ve , th e You ng I de ci si on ha d h el d tha t Def en da nt s Lu ka si k a ndLecky were s ue d i nd iv idua ll y , no t in th ei r of fic ia l capa ci ty. Defen da nt s Lu ka si k a ndLecky ’s m ot io n p oi nt edou t t ha t aft er t he You ng I de ci si on an d a fte r th e cas e was ba ckin th e d is tri ctco urt, co un se l fo r You ng Apar tm en ts pro se cu te d s el ect iv e en fo rcem en t cl ai m s ag ai ns t Defen da nt s Lu ka si k andLecky kn owi ng no ev id en ce s up po rte d t ho se cla im s. As a re su ltof P la in ti ff Yo un g Ap art m en ts ’ “ co un se l’s u nwi ll in gn es s t o ab an do n [a ] cl earl y

ba se le ss cla im ,” Defen da nt s Lu ka si k a ndLecky ’s Apri l 2 9
m ot io n a rg ue d t ha t t he y

in cu rredne arl y

$8 3,0 00 in att orne y s’ fees in (1) de fen di ng th em se lv es ag ai ns t Yo un g Ap art m en ts ’ ba se le ss cla im s i n t he di st ric t co urt af te r th e You ng I rem an d, (2 ) fi li ng a m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t, wh ic h t he di st ric t
co urt g ran te d i n t he Defen da nt s’ fav or , and(3) su cces sf ul ly defen di ng th e d is tri ct
co urt’s s umm ary jud gm en t ru li ng onap pe al in You ng II. Inth ei r Apr il 29 m ot io n, Defen da nt s Lu ka si k andLecky est im at edth at , of t he ap pr ox im at el y $8 3,0 00 sp en t
14 Case: 11-15618 Date Filed: 01/07/2013 Page: 14 of 45aft er t he rem an d i n Yo un g I, $ 55 ,00 0 was sp en t o n a tt orne y s’ fees forth ei r de fen se

in th e d is tri ctco urt af

te r You ng I, an d $ 28 ,00 0 was sp en t o n app el la te att orne y s’ fees for th ei r de fen se be fo re t hi s C ou rt i n t he You ng II p ro ceed in gs . Defen da nt s Lu ka si k andLecky ’s Apri l 2 9 m ot io n e xp la in edho w cou ns el fo r You ng Apar tm en ts en ga ge d i n “ un reas on ab le an d v ex at io us co nduc t,” wh ic h

“ m ul ti pl ie d t he pro ceed in gs ,” co ns ti tu te d “ ba d fa it h,” an d ju st ifi edanawardof at to rn ey s’ fees as asan ct io n u nd er § 19 27 . Luk as ikan d Lec ky’ s m ot io n p ut You ng Apartm en ts an d i ts co un se l o n n ot ic e o f th e sp eci fic co nduc t tha t s up po rte d th ei r § 1 92 7 m ot io n fo r at to rn ey s’ fees as s an ct io ns . In s ig ni fic an t d et ai l, Lu ka si k
an d Lec ky’ s 1 8- pa ge m ot io n s umm ari zedth e ab ov e p ro cedur al hi st ory of t he li ti ga ti on be fo re t he fir stap pe al , andth en de ta il edat l en gt h wh athapp en edin th e di st ric t co urt af

te r th e rem an d i n Yo un g I andlat er o n app eal in You ng II. Fo r ex am pl e, Defen da nt s Lu ka si k andLecky ’s Apri l 2 9 m ot io n e xp la in ed th ataft er t he rem an d, Yo un g Ap art m en ts ’ co un se l was all owe d t o t ak e d ep os it io ns
an d s ub m itwrit te n d is co ve ry , bu t n ev er fo un d o r pr es en te d any evi de nc e o f di sp arat e tr eat m en t o r un equa l en fo rcem en t t o s up po rt Yo un g Ap art m en ts ’ cl ai m s:

On re m an d, Yo un g Ap art m en ts was no t on ly al lo wed to pr es en t

. . . “ ne w ev id en ce”
. . . , bu t was in fact gi ve n th e op po rtu ni ty of c o n d u ct in g ne w de po si ti on s an d writ te n di sc ov ery in or de r to ob ta i n su ch ne w ev id en ce. Yet, whe n Jupi te r, Luk as ik , an d Lecky ag ai n m ov ed fo r su m m ary jud gm en t, You ng Apa rtments f a i l e d t o pr es en t an y ne w ev id en ce to sh ow th at it was tre at ed di ff e r e n t l y fro m la nd lo rd s of 15 Case: 11-15618 Date Filed: 01/07/2013 Page: 15 of 45no n- His pa ni c te na nt s. As su ch , [th e di st ric t co urt] gr an te d th e m ot io ns

fo r su m m ary jud gm en t . . . .

. . . . [The di st ric t co urt] co nc lu de d, “ The re is no th in g i n th e reco rd th at sh ows th at Y o u ng Apartments was tre at ed di ffer en tl y fro m a si m il arl y si tu at ed la nd lo rd of no n- His pa ni c te na nt s,” an d h e l d th at , “ Afte r a care fu l rev ie w of th e reco rd , th is Co urt do es no t f i n d th at Jupi te r se le ct iv el y

en fo rced[th e Ord in an ce]. . . .”

. . . . On May 2, 20 07 , You ng Apartments fil ed a no ti ce of ap pe al
. . . . In th ei r br ie f to t h e El ev en th Ci rcu it , Luk as ik an d Lecky fo cu se d ex te ns iv el y on th e fact th at You ng Apa rtments ha d fai le d to pr es en t an y ne w ev id en ce of un equa l en fo rcem en t. Y o u ng Apa rtments who ll y ig no red th e arg um en t, at t e mpti ng to st ray th e Elev en th Ci rcu it ’s at te nt io n fr om

th atfact . It was un su cces sf ul
. In de ed , t he Elev en th Ci rcu it affi rm ed[th e d is tri ctco urt’s or de r] gr an ti ng su m

m ary jud gm en t in fav or of Luk as ik an d Lecky , sp eci fic al ly no ti ng , W e al so affi rm th e di st ric t co urt’s gr an t of su m m ary jud gm e n t in fav or of Jupi te r, Luk as ik , an d Lecky on You ng ’s c la im

of u ne qu al en fo rcem en t. Fi rs t, we ob se rv e fro m th e reco rd th at You ng fai l e d to pr es en t an y ne w ev id en ce of Jupi te r’s un equa l en fo rcem en t an d , in fact , m erel y dupl ic at ed it s pr ev io us arg um en t. Seco nd , be cau se You ng fai le d to sh ow th at a si m il arl y si tu at ed la nd lo rd of no n- His pa ni c te na nt s was tre at ed di ffer en t l y fro m it , th e gr an t o f su m

m ary jud gm en t i s due to be affi rm ed
. Defen da nt s, An dr ew D. Luk as ikan d R ob ertLecky ’s Ren ewedVeri fie d M ot io n fo r Ent it le m en t o f Tria l an d Ap pe ll at e Att orne y s’ Fees an d C os ts , pag es 7-9 (he ad in gs
an d c it at io ns om it te d) . Sim pl y pu t, t he ba si s fo r Defen da nt s Lu ka si k a ndLecky ’s Apr il 29 m ot io n fo r § 1 92 7 a tt orne y s’ fees was m ai nl y th at“ You ng Apar tm en ts
16 Case: 11-15618 Date Filed: 01/07/2013 Page: 16 of 45co nt in ue d t o p ro se cu te th is cas e an d p res en te d t he same ins uf fic ie ntev id en ce i t pr es en te d a t t he fir stsu m m ary jud gm en t a year be fo re, i n turn re qu iri ng Luk as ik
an d Lec ky to c on ti nu e in cu rri ng fees to de fen d t hi s b as el es s ac ti on .” Defen da nt s’ m ot io n a ls o s pe ci fic al ly alle ge d t he se fact s: (1) th atPla in ti ff’s
co un se l’s u nr eas on ab le an d v ex at io us co nduc t was “ in co nt in ui ng to li ti ga te th is ba se le ss cla im

ag ai ns t Lu ka si k a ndLecky wit ho utan y

ev id en ce o f un equa l
en fo rcem en t” ; (2 ) th atth is “ un reas on ab le an d v ex at io us co nduc t h as m ul ti pl ie d t he pr oc eed in gs by com

pe ll in g Lu ka si k a ndLecky to de fen d th e cas e o n re m an d a nd
on ap pe al in You ng [II]”; (3 ) “ as a di rectres ul t o f You ng Apar tm en ts an d h is
co un se l’s u nwi ll in gn es s t o aba nd on th e cl earl y ba se le ss cla im ” Defen da nt s
ex pe nd edne arl y

$8 3,0 00 inatt orne y s’ fees ; an d (4 ) gi ve n t ha t co un se l kne w th ey ha d n o e vi de nc e to supp ort t he ir c la im , You ng Apar tm en ts ’ “ co un se l’s co nt in ue d li ti ga ti on of t he un equa l en fo rcem en t cl ai m onrem an d a m ou nt s t o b adfai th .” Co un se l fo r Defen da nt s Lu ka si k a ndLecky in cl ud eda “ Veri fic at io n o f Mo ti on ” p arag rap h i n t he Apri l 2 9 m ot io n, wh ic h s ta te d t ha t d efen se co un se l “ ha s pe rs on al kn owl ed ge of t he m at te rs setfor th he rei n. He h as readth e Mo ti on an d st at es th atth e fac ts all eg edan d s etfor th he rei n a re v eri fie d a ndco rrec t.” Defen da nt s Lu ka si k andLecky als o o ffer edto subm itaffi da vi ts reg ard in g th e rea so nabl en es s o f th e to ta l h ou rs ex pe nd edon an d fe es so ug htforth ei r
17 Case: 11-15618 Date Filed: 01/07/2013 Page: 17 of 45de fen se , in th e ev en t t ha t t he di st ric t co urt g ran te d t he m ot io n a s t o t he ir

en ti tl em en t t o a tt orne y s’ fees
. B. Dis tri ct Co urt’ s O rder , Date d J une 7 , 20 11 , Gra nti ng Defend an ts Luk as ik an d Lec k

y’ s § 19 27 Mot io n by Defa ul t Neit he r Pl ai nt iff

You ng Apar tm en ts no r it s co un se l o f rec or d fi le d a
res po ns e to Defen da nt s Lu ka si k a ndLecky ’s Apri l 2 9 m ot io n fo r at to rn ey s’ fees ag ai ns t b ot h Yo un g Ap art m en ts an d i ts co un se l u nd er § 19 27
. 5 On J un e 7 , 20 11 , th e d is tri ctco urt en te redanord er en ti tl ed“ Ord er Gran ti ng by Defaul t Re ne wedVeri fie d M ot io n fo r Tria l an d Ap pe ll at e Att orne y s’ Fees an d Co st s.” Th e d is tri ctco urt, af te r in di cat in g t ha t i t “ ha [d ] care fu ll y co ns id eredth e
m ot io n, ap pl ic ab le law, an d p ert in en t p orti on s o f th e rec or d,” gra nt edLuk as ikan d Lecky ’s m ot io n b y

de fau lt , pu rs ua ntto So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a Loc al Ru le 7.1 (c). Th e d is tri ctco urt’s o rd er quo te d t he tex t o f Ru le 7.1 (c), wh ic h s ta te s t ha t

“ [e]ach pa rty op po si ng a m ot io n s ha ll serve anop po si ng m em or an du m of l aw no la te r th an fou rte en(14 ) da y s af te r se rv ic e o f th e m ot io n. Fa il ur e to do so m ay be de em edsu ffi ci en t caus e fo r gr an ti ng th e m ot io n b y de fau lt .” S.D. Fla. L.R. 7 .1(c ). At t he ti m e th e d is tri ctco urt en te redit s J un e 7 de fau ltord er, Yo un g Apa rtments an d i ts co un se l h adno t re sp on de d t o Def en da nt s Lu ka si k a ndLecky ’s
We rec ognize that Defe ndants’ motion also sought f ees a g ainst YoungApar

tments under 5 § 1988 and § 1927. B eca use YoungApar

tments does not appea l the fee s ag ainst it, we focus on only the fe es aw arde d under § 1927 a g ainst YoungApar tments’ counsel. 18 Case: 11-15618 Date Filed: 01/07/2013 Page: 18 of 45§ 1 92 7 m ot io n fo r ov er 3 8 d ay s.

The di stric t co urt’s o rd er al so pe rm it te d Def en da nt s Lu ka si k andLecky , wit hi n 3 0 d ay s, t o fi le affi da vi ts or o th er co rro bo rat in g d oc um en ta ti on in supp ort of th e rea so nabl en es s o f th e am ou ntof f ees an d c os ts reque st ed
. C. Affi da vi t an d Bi ll in g Rec or ds Fil ed J ul y 8 , 20 11 On J ul y 8, 2 01 1, i n s up po rt o f th ei r fee s m ot io n, Def en da nt s Lu ka si k a nd Lecky fil ed(1) anaffi da vi t fr om th ei r at to rn ey , and(2) ti m e an d b il li ng reco rd s, whi chde m on st rat edth atth ei r at to rn ey s h adex pe nd eda to ta l o f 10 68 .5 h ou rs on Luk as ikan d Lec ky’ s d efen se . Of th e 1 06 8.5 to ta l h ou rs , 37 6.3 were ex pe nd edin Luk as ikan d Lec ky’ s d efen se in th e d is tri ctco urt af te r th e You ng I rem an d, an d 23 4.7 were ex pe nd edde fen di ng th e d is tri ctco urt’s s umm ary jud gm en t ru li ng be fo re t hi s C ou rt i n t he You ng II p ro ceed in gs —a t ot al of 6 11 ho ur s. Lu ka si k a nd Lecky reque st edth atth e d is tri ctco urt fi ndth atho ur ly rates of $ 11 0 t o $ 13 0 p er ho urfor ass oc ia te s, an d up t o $ 18 0 p er h ou r fo r pa rtn ers , were rea so nabl e in li gh t of th e ex pe rie nc e o f th e at to rn ey s an d t he workpe rfo rm edin th e li ti ga ti on . Defen da nt s Lu ka si k andLecky ask edth atth e d is tri ctco urt awa rdth em (1 ) $1 39 ,39 7 i n a tt orne y s’ fees fro m You ng Apar tm en ts , un de r § 1 98 8, fo r fee s in cu rredin th e en ti re l it ig at io n; an d (2 ) $8 2,3 41 in att orne y s’ fees joi nt ly and
se ve ral ly recov erab le fro m You ng Apartm en ts an d i ts co un se l u nd er § 19 27 , for

19 Case: 11-15618 Date Filed: 01/07/2013 Page: 19 of 45fees aft er t he You ng I rem an d.

D. Teda rds ’s Resp on se Fil ed Aug us t 5, 2 01 1, o n Beh al f of Teda rds an d Wee k s, Cha ll eng in g Def enda nts ’ Enti tle m ent to Fees On Au gu st5, 2 01 1, Will ia m Teda rd s, o ne of Yo un g Ap artm en ts ’ co un se l, fil eda res po ns e to Defen da nt s’ Ju ly 8 do cu m en ts (sh owi ng Defen da nt s’ att orne y s’ ho ur s ex pe nd edan d b il li ng rat es ). Inth e d is tri ctco urt, Ted ard s’s re sp on se ad m it te d t ha t h e h adno au th or iz at io n fr om hi s cl ie nt—Yo un g Ap art m en ts —t o
co nt es t t he § 1 98 8 a wardof $ 13 9,3 97 ag ai ns t Yo un g Ap art m en ts . Rat he r, Teda rd s’s Au gu st5 re sp on se arg ue d t ha t t he di stric t co urt s ho ul d de ny whatTeda rd s t erm edth e “ ov erl ap pi ng ” § 19 27 fee re qu es t ag ai ns t co un se l fo r You ng Apar tm en ts . In o th er wo rd s, b ecau se th e fu ll am ou ntof $ 13 9,3 97 was
reco ve rab le un de r § 1 98 8 a ga in stYou ng Apar tm en ts , Teda rd s co nt en de d t ha t n o
su m was re co ve rab le un de r § 1 92 7 a ga in stco un se l fo r You ng Apar tm en ts . Im po rta nt ly for t hi s t hi rdap pe al , Cou ns el Teda rd s’s Au gu st5 re sp on se als o ad dr es se d t he subs ta nc e o f whe th er Defe nd an ts Luk as ikan d Lec ky were en ti tl ed to att orne y s’ fees ag ai ns t Yo un g Ap art m en ts ’ co un se l u nd er § 19 27 . Cou ns el Ted ard s’s Au gu st5 re sp on se , fil edin th e d is tri ctco urt, co nt en de d tha t h e d idno t te ll th is Co urt i n Yo un g I t ha t h e h adbe en pre ve nt edfro m in tro du ci ng cert ai n
ev id en ce, o r th athe in te nd edto ren ew a cl ai m , po st -rem an d i n Yo un g I, t ha t re li ed
on pre vi ou sl y

ex cl ud edev id en ce. Co un se l Ted ard s’s Au gu st5 re sp on se co nc ed ed 20 Case: 11-15618 Date Filed: 01/07/2013 Page: 20 of 45th atDefen da nt s Lu ka si k andLecky m ay ha ve be en m is le d dur in g the po st -Yo un g I rem an d s umm ary jud gm en t p ro ceed in gs an d m ay ha ve de vo te d u nn eces sa ry effo rt t o c ert ai n i ss ue s. Co un se l Ted ard s ad m it te d t ha t h e co ul d h av e em ph as iz ed
m or e cl earl y

th e p reci se na tu re o f You ng Apar tm en ts ’ cl ai m aft er re m an d a ndin th e se co ndsu m

m ary jud gm en t p ha se , th athe ha d o ffer edto set tl e th e § 19 27 at to rn ey s’ fees is su e wit h Def en da nt s, an d t ha t h is off

er h adbe en reject ed , st at in g: [c]on si de rin g al l of th e ci rcu m st an ces , You ng Apa rtments ’ co un se l ha s of fere d to ta ke res po ns ib il it y fo r a po rti on of th e ti m e th e in di vi du al de fen da nt s’ co un se l sp en t pr io r to th e b rie fin g in th e se co nd su m m ary jud gm en t ph as e, on th e th eo ry t h a t You ng Apa rtments co ul d ha ve em ph as iz ed m or e cl earl y a f te r th e rem an d th at it ha d no in te nt io n of ren ewin g a cl ai m whi ch wou ld de pe nd on “ si m il arl y -s itua te d” ev id en ce. Hav in g rece iv ed a reject io n of it s of fer fro m th e in di vi du al de fen da nt s, You ng Apa rtments ha s in co rp or at ed it s of fer in th e fo rm of th e pr op os ed or de r whi ch is at ta ch e d , w h i c h ad dr es se s on ly th e 28 U.S.C. § 19 27 cl ai m di rect ed to co un se l. C ou ns el subm it s th at th is is a fai r an d reas on ab le res ol ut io n of th is pa rti cu la r is su e, gi ve n th at th e ba si s fo r th e § 1 92 7 m ot io n, as refl ect edin th e ti m e en tri es , do es no t ex is t. Co un se l Ted ard s’s Au gu st5 re sp on se als o i nc lu de d apro po se d o rd er t o t he di st ric t
co urt co nc ern in g t he § 1 92 7 a ward , in whi ch Co un se l Ted ard s o ffer edto set tl e th e is su e o f at to rn ey s’ fees ag ai ns t co un se l fo r “ an am ou ntequa l t o t wen ty perce nt (2 0%) of t he att orne y

fees ex pe nd eddu rin g t he pro ceed in gs in [th e d is tri ctco urt] aft er re m an d fr om

th e Ele ve nt h C irc ui t, t he do ll ar am ou ntto be de te rm in edan d ag reedto by the pa rti es .” (em ph as is ad de d)
. Co un se l Ted ard s’s Au gu st5 re sp on se als o a rg ue d t ha t Yo un g Ap art m en ts ’ 21 Case: 11-15618 Date Filed: 01/07/2013 Page: 21 of 45lo cal co un se l, Mi ch ael W eek s, h adpl ay edno subs ta nt iv e ro le in th e cas e.

Defen da nt s Lu ka si k andLecky m ov edto st rik e Co un se l Ted ard s’s Au gu st5
res po ns e, arg ui ng th atitdi d n otad dr es s t he reas on ab le ne ss of the am ou ntof h ou rs
ex pe nd edor t he rat es ch arg edby the ir a tt orne y s. Defe nd an ts po in te d o utth at Co un se l Ted ard s’s Au gu st5 re sp on se , in st ead , addres se d the ba si s fo r th e
en ti tl em en t t o fe es , whi ch was a lre ady co nc lu si ve ly det erm in edin th e d is tri ct
co urt’s ea rli er d efau ltord er en te redon Ju ne 7, 2 01 1. E. Dis tri ct Co urt’ s O rder Fil ed Oc to ber 1 2, 2 01 1 On Oct ob er 1 2, 2 01 1, t he di st ric t co urt en te redanord er m ak in g s ev eral fin di ng s. Fo r ex am

pl e, th e d is tri ctco urt fo un d: (1) th at“ th e to ta l h ou rs ex pe nd ed by Defend an ts ’ at to rn ey s (1 ,06 8.5 ) was reas on ab le ”; (2) th at“ Defen da nt s’ at to rn ey s cl ai m

rat es of $ 11 0– $1 30 pe r ho urforass oc ia te s, an d am ax im um of $1 80 pe r ho urforpartn ers ”; (3) th at“ Defen da nt s al so subm it te d t he de cl arat io n o f
an att orne y s’ fees ex pe rt” ; an d (4 ) th at“ba se d o n t hi s ev id en ce, the na tu re o f th e
cas e, an d t he Co urt’s kno wled ge an d e xp eri en ce,” t he Defen da nt s’ att orne y s’

“ rat es are re as on ab le .” The d is tri ctco urt g ran te d t he m ot io n fo r fee s i n p art , award in g Def

en da nt s Lu ka si k a ndLecky $1 39 ,39 7 i n a tt orne y s’ fees (pl us in te res t) u nd er § 19 88
. The di stric t co urt al so co nc lu de d, h owe ve r, th atbe cau se th e 6 11 ho ur s
22 Case: 11-15618 Date Filed: 01/07/2013 Page: 22 of 45cl ai m edun de r § 1 92 7 wer e al ready in cl ud edin th e to ta l 1 06 8.5 ho ur s cl ai m ed
un de r § 1 98 8, t he reque stforanawardun de r § 1 92 7 was “ dupl ic at iv e” an d t hu s de ni ed
. Not ab ly too forth is th irdap pe al , th e d is tri ctco urt al so ad dr es se d C ou ns el Ted ard s’s Au gu st5 re sp on se , whi ch arg ue d t ha t t he Defen da nt s wer e n oten ti tl ed to fees un de r § 1 92 7. Init s Oct ob er 1 2 o rd er, t he di st ric t co urt co nc lu de d t ha t: (1 ) “ Pl ai nt iff

fai le d t o l od ge an y

ob jecti on s t o t he reas on ab le ne ss of t he rat es ” an d

“ Pl ai nt iff fai le d t o l od ge an y

ob jecti on s re ga rd in g t he reas on ab le ne ss of t he ho ur s cl ai m ed ”; (2) “ [r]ath er, Pl ai nt iff’s op po si ti on im pr op erl y ch al le ng es Defen da nt s’
en ti tl em en t to fees ” an d “ th e Co urt h as alr ead y de ci de d t he is su e o f en ti tl em en t” ; (3 ) Pl ai nt iff

waiv edit s o pp ortu ni ty to ar gu e th e en ti tl em en t i ss ue “ whe n i t fa il edto ti m el y res po ndto th e m ot io n fo r at to rn ey s’ fees ”; an d (4 ) Pl ai nt iff “ ha s al so waiv edit s o pp ortu ni ty to ar gu e th e is su e o f rea so nabl en es s b y fai li ng to ad dr es s th is is su e atall in it s re sp on se to Defen da nt s’ m em or an du m .” 6 Afte r th e d is tri ctco urt en te redth is Octo be r 12 ord er, Defe nd an ts Luk as ik
an d Lec ky, on Oct ob er 1 4, 2 01 1, fi le d am ot io n fo r “ cl ari fic at io n a ndco rrec ti on ” of th e d is tri ctco urt’s Oct ob er 1 2 o rd er. Luk as ikan d Lec ky’ s Oct ob er 1 4 m ot io n Although D efe ndants had moved to strike Te dards’ s August 5 response, the district c ourt 6 did not gr ant their motion to strike. Instead, the district c ourt consider ed Te dards’ s August 5 response and dete rmined that Teda rds had a lrea dy

had an oppor

tunity to be hea rd but defa

ulted as to the issue of entitlement. 23

Case: 11-15618 Date Filed: 01/07/2013 Page: 23 of 45po in te d o utth atth ey ha d n otso ug htanad di ti on al or dup li cat iv e awardam ou nt
un de r § 1 92 7, b utrat he r, ha d a rg ue d t ha t t he y were en ti tl edto th e $ 13 9,3 97 on two alt ern at iv e b as es : u nd er § 19 88 forth e fu ll am ou ntof $ 13 9,3 97 , andun de r § 1 92 7 fo r th e p os t-Yo un g I r em an d p orti on of $ 82 ,34 1. Defe nd an ts Luk as ikan d Lecky als o c la rif

ie d t ha t t he $8 2,3 41 , whi chth ey so ug htun de r § 1 92 7, was
reco ve rab le fro m

You ng Apar tm en ts an d i ts co un se l o f rec or d, as ex pr es sl y st at ed in Luk as ikan d Lec ky’ s Ap ril 29 m ot io n fo r fee s. F. Dis tri ct Co urt’ s O rder Fil ed Oc to ber 2 6, 2 01 1 On Oct ob er 2 6, 2 01 1, t he di st ric t co urt en te redanord er t ha t m od ifi edit s Octo be r 12 ord er o n fe es . The d is tri ctco urt re it erat edth atth e to ta l am ou ntof at to rn ey s’ fees award edto Defen da nt s Lu ka si k a ndLecky un de r § 1 98 8 re m ai ne d $1 39 ,39 7. The di stric t co urt’s Oct ob er 2 6 o rd er s ta te d t ha t t he Octo be r 12 ord er “ is
m od ifi edforcla rif

ic at io n o nl y

wit h re sp ectto th e p orti on of the fees award ed pu rs ua ntto 28 U.S.C. § 1 92 7.” The d is tri ctco urt cl ari fie d t ha t the “po rti on of t he to ta l at to rn ey s’ fees whi ch is att rib ut ab le to ” at to rn ey ti m e ex pe nd edaft er t he
rem an d— or$8 2,3 41 of t he to ta l $ 13 9,3 97 —“ sh al l b e rec ov erab le [un de r § 1 92 7] fro m [You ng Apar tm en ts ] an d i ts co un se l o f rec or d, jo in tl y an d s ev eral ly.” G. Teda rds ’s Octo ber 3 1, 2 01 1 Fi li ng s a nd the Dis tri ct Co urt’ s Feb rua ry 22 , 20 12 Orde r 24 Case: 11-15618 Date Filed: 01/07/2013 Page: 24 of 45On Oct ob er 3 1, 2 01 1, Co un se l Ted ard s t he n fi le d t wo p le ad in gs : (1 ) a

res po ns e to Defen da nt s Lu ka si k a ndLecky ’s Octo be r 14 m ot io n fo r cl ari fic at io n
an d c orrect io n, an d (2 ) a m ot io n t o a m en d o r co rrec t t he di st ric t co urt’s Oct ob er 2 6
or de r. Co un se l Ted ard s’s Oct ob er 3 1 re sp on se , as h adhi s ea rli er Au gu st5
res po ns e, arg ue d t ha t t he fees Luk as ikan d Lec ky were se ek in g a ga in stco un se l
un de r § 1 92 7 wer e st il l “ ov erl ap pi ng ” o f th e awardalr ead y m ad e u nd er § 19 88 an d sh ou ldbe de ni ed . Cou ns el Teda rd s’s Oct ob er 3 1 re sp on se als o arg ue d t ha t “ an y awardun de r 28 U.S.C. § 1 92 7 s ho ul d b e li m it edto th e ex ces s fe es th e Defen da nt s al le ge dl y in cu rreddu rin g t he [po st -rem an d] su m m ary jud gm en t p ha se m is ta ke nl y [d efen di ng ag ai ns t] an i nd iv idua l ‘cla ss of o ne ’ type o f cl ai m th atYou ng Apa rtments was n o l on ge r pu rs ui ng .” Mo stof C ou ns el Teda rd s’s Oct ob er 3 1 re sp on se , as h adhi s ea rli er Au gu st5
res po ns e, arg ue d abo uten ti tl em en t, i nc lu di ng th atlo cal co un se l Weeks pl ay edno
subs ta nt iv e ro le in th e cas e an d was no t re sp on si bl e fo r an y de ci si on s o r act io ns in th e cas es , andth us sh ou ldno t b e li ab le un de r § 1 92 7. Ted ard s’s Oct ob er 3 1
res po ns e, jus t as hi s Au gu st5 re sp on se , fai le d t o a dd res s t he de fau ltan d fa il edto gi ve anex cu se or e ve n a ny exp la na ti on forwhy co un se l, b ot h Ted ard s an d Week s,

25 Case: 11-15618 Date Filed: 01/07/2013 Page: 25 of 45ha d d efau lt edas t o Def en da nt s’ Apri l 2 9 m ot io n a s t o e nt it le m en t. 7 The n, i n a n o rd er en te redFeb ru ary 22 , 20 12 , th e d is tri ctco urt ag ai n
co ns id eredYou ng Apar tm en ts ’ co un se l’s o pp os it io n t o t he § 1 92 7 s an ct io ns ag ai ns t co un se l. The di st ric t co urt co ns tru edTeda rd s’s Oct ob er 3 1 m ot io n t o
am en d o r co rrec t t he Octo be r 12 ord er as a m ot io n fo r rec on si de rat io n o f th e § 1 92 7 a wardan d d en ie d t he m ot io n. Th e d is tri ctco urt re vi ewedth e fac tu al hi st ory of the att orne y s’ fees li ti ga ti on an d a ga in po in te d o utth at(as to Defen da nt s Luk as ikan d Lec ky’ s Ap ril 29 m ot io n) Pla in ti ff’s co un se l h ad“ fai le d t o fi le a
res po ns e wit hi n the ti m e p ro vi de d b y th e ru le s, an d o n J un e 7 , 20 11 , th e Co urt gr an te d Def

en da nt s’ m ot io n b y

de fau ltas t o t he is su es of e nt it le m en t. . . . [an d] Defen da nt s [Lu ka si k a ndLecky ] were al so ord eredto fil e a s up pl em en ta l
m em or an du m

reg ard in g t he reas on ab le ne ss of t he am ou ntof f ees reque st ed .” As p artof r eco un ti ng th e fac tu al hi st ory , th e d is tri ctco urt n ot ed(1) ho w Luk as ikan d Lec ky file d t he ir f ee m em or an du m

an d s up po rti ng do cu m en ta ti on as to th e am ou ntof f

ees , bu t (2 ) Ted ard s’s Au gu st5 res po ns e “ on ly addres se d i ss ue s of en ti tl em en t, wh ic h t he Co urt h adalr ead y de ci de d i n i ts Ju ne [7], 20 11 ord er.” The di st ric t co urt t he n n ot ed(1) th atit s Oct ob er 1 2 o rd er h adgra nt edLuk as ikan d

YoungApar

tments’ counsel a lso tim ely filed a N otice of A

ppeal f rom the district court’ s 7 October 26 modified § 1927 sanctions orde r. 26 Case: 11-15618 Date Filed: 01/07/2013 Page: 26 of 45Lecky

$1 39 ,39 7 i n re as on ab le att orne y s’ fees un de r § 1 98 8 a ndin it ia ll y de ni ed“ as dupl ic at iv e wha t t he Co urt co ns tru edas areque stforad di ti on al fees ” u nd er § 1 92 7, b utth en (2) Luk as ikan d Lec ky file d am ot io n fo r cl ari fic at io n o r
co rrec ti on of t ha t Oct ob er 1 2 o rd er, ex pl ai ni ng th atLuk as ikan d Lec ky’ s § 19 27

“ reque stwas n ota reque stforad di ti on al fees ,” bu t was in st ead“ m ad e as an al te rn at iv e th eo ry

forreco ve ry .” Fu rth er as to factua l h is to ry , th e d is tri ctco urt al so ob se rv edth at

“ Defen da nt s ce rti fie d t ha t t he y ha d c on ferr edwit h c ou ns el for[You ng Apa rtments ] who ag reedwit h t h[ e] factu al rep res en ta ti on ” th atitwas an al te rn at iv e th eo ry

foraward in g fe es . In l ig htof the § 1 92 7 re qu es t b ei ng an al te rn at iv e th eo ry

an d P la in ti ff’s co un se l’s p rio r de fau ltas t o t ha t re qu es t, t he di st ric t co urt ex pl ai ne d tha t i t en te redit s Oct ob er 2 6 o rd er o f cl ari fic at io n t o m ak e th e $ 82 ,34 1 a tt rib ut ab le to th e at to rn ey ho ur s ex pe nd edaft er the You ng I rem an d
reco ve rab le fro m

bo th You ng Apar tm en ts an d i ts co un se l o f rec or d, jo in tl y an d
se ve ral ly und er § 19 27 . The d is tri ctco urt p oi nt edou t t ha t the to ta l am ou ntof at to rn ey s’ fees award edrem ai ne d u nd is tu rb ed
. Inde nyin g C ou ns el Teda rd s’s Oct ob er 3 1 m ot io n fo r rec on si de rat io n o f th e § 1 92 7 fe e awardas t o c ou ns el , th e d is tri ctco urt fu rth er fo un d t ha t: (1) W eek s h ad pa rti ci pa te d a s Yo un g Ap art m en ts ’ co un se l as earl y as De cem

be r 20 08 ;
27 Case: 11-15618 Date Filed: 01/07/2013 Page: 27 of 45(2 ) Defen da nt s Lu ka si k a ndLecky fil edth ei r m ot io n fo r at to rn ey s’ fees ne arl y th ree years l at er i n Ap ril 20 11 ; (3 ) Pl ai nt iff ’s cou ns el “ ha d a m

pl e o pp ortu ni ty to
as se rt a ny argu m en ts wit h re sp ectto Defen da nt s’ ent it le m en t t o a tt orne y s’ fees
un de r se ct io n 1 92 7 b y

fil in g ati m el y

res po ns e to th e [Ap ril 29 ] m ot io n” ; an d (4 ) Pl ai nt iff’s cou ns el “ fai le d t o d o s o, an d h is lat e at te m ptto arg ue is su es whi ch ha ve alr ead y

be en de ci de d i s n ota pr op er b as is forreco ns id erat io n.” Pl ai nt iff’s cou ns el no w app eal as t o t he § 1 92 7 a wardag ai ns t t he m .

II I. STANDARD OF REVIE W W e rev ie w a di st ric t co urt’s awar d o f at to rn ey fees un de r 28 U.S.C. § 1 92 7 fo r an ab us e o f di sc ret io n. Se e Nor el us v. Den ny’ s, In c., 62 8 F .3d12 70 , 12 80 (1 1t h C ir. 2 01 0) ; Am lo ng & Am lo ng , P.A. v. Denn y ’s, Inc ., 50 0 F .3d12 30 , 12 37 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 7) ; M cMa ha n v . Tot o, 2 56 F.3d11 20 , 11 28 (11 th Cir . 20 01 ). “ The ap pl ic at io n o f an ab us e-o f-d is cret io n re vi ew reco gn iz es th e ran ge of p os si bl e
co nc lu si on s t he tri al jud ge m ay reac h.” Nore lu s, 6 28 F.3dat 1 28 0 (q uo ta ti on
m ark s o m it te d) . As we n ot edin th e § 19 27 cas e Nor el us , [U]nde r an ab us e of di sc ret io n st an da rd th ere wil l be ci rcu m st an c e s in whi ch we wou ld affi rm th e di st ric t co urt whi ch ev er way it wen t[.] [See ] In re Ras bu ry , 24 F.3 d 15 9, 16 8 (1 1t h Ci r. 1 99 4) (“ Qui te fran kl y , we wou ldha ve affi rm edth e d is tri ctco urt h aditreac he d adi ffer en t re su lt , an d if we were rev ie win g th is m at te r de no vo , we m ay well ha ve de ci de d it di ffer en tl y .”). [W] he n em pl oyin g an ab us e-o f-d is cret io n st an da rd , we m us t affi rm un le ss we fin d th at th e di st ric t co urt ha s m ad e a cl ear erro r of jud gm en t, o r ha s ap pl ie d t he wron g l eg al st an da rd
. 28 Case: 11-15618 Date Filed: 01/07/2013 Page: 28 of 45Nor el us , 62 8 F .3dat 1 28 0 (f irs t an d l as t al te rat io ns in ori gi na l) ( in te rn al qu ot at io n
m ark s o m it te d)
. IV. DIS CUSSI ON A. Leg al Princ ip le s Co ncer ni ng 28 U.S.C. § 19 27 Sect io n 1 92 7 p ro vi de s t ha t “ [a]ny at to rn ey . . . who so m

ul ti pl ie s the pr oc eed in gs in an y

cas e u nr eas on ab ly andve xa ti ou sl y m ay be requi redby the
co urt t o s at is fy

pe rs on al ly the ex ces s co st s, ex pe ns es , andatt orne y s’ fees
reas on ab ly inc urredbe cau se of s uc h c on du ct .” 28 U.S.C. § 1 92 7. To warran t
sa nc ti on s p ur su an t t o § 19 27 , an a tt orne y m us t (1 ) “ en ga ge in un reas on ab le an d
ve xa ti ou s co nduc t” ; (2 ) “ th is co nduc t m us t m ul ti pl y th e p ro ceed in gs ”; an d (3 ) “ th e
am ou ntof t he san ct io n c an no t ex ceedth e co st s o ccas io ne d b y th e o bjec ti on ab le
co nduc t.” Pe er v . Lewis , 60 6 F .3d13 06 , 13 14 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ) (i nt ern al qu ot at io n
m ark s o m it te d) ; Am lo ng , 50 0 F .3dat 1 23 9. An at to rn ey

m ul ti pl ie s t he pro ceed in gs un reas on ab ly andve xa ti ou sl y “ on ly whe n the att orne y ’s con du ctis so eg reg io us th atitis ‘ ta nt am ou ntto ba d fa it h,’ ” whi chtu rn s o n the ob

jecti ve co nduc t o f th e at to rn ey . Peer, 6 06 F.3dat 1 31 4 (quo ti ng Am lo ng , 50 0 F .3dat 1 23 9) . Badfai th is anob jecti ve st an da rdth atis
sa ti sf ie d wh enanatt orne y

“ kn owi ng ly or reck le ss ly pur su es a fri vo lo us cla im or
en ga ge s i n l it ig at io n t act ic s tha t n eed le ss ly obs tru ctth e li ti ga ti on of n on -fri vo lo us
29 Case: 11-15618 Date Filed: 01/07/2013 Page: 29 of 45cl ai m s.” Am lo ng , 50 0 F .3dat 1 24 2 (q uo ti ng Sch wart z v . Mil li on Air, In c., 34 1

F.3 d 1 22 0, 1 22 5 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 3) ). Sim il arl y , whet he r anatt orne y ’s con du ctis

“ ve xa ti ou s” “ requi res anev al ua ti on of t he att orne y ’s ob jecti ve co nduc t.” Id . at 12 40 . “ [T]he at to rn ey ’s subjec ti ve st at e o f m in d i s fr eque nt ly an im po rta ntpi ece of th e cal cu lu s, b ecau se a gi ve n a ctis m or e li ke ly to fa ll ou ts id e th e b ou nd s o f
acce pt ab le co nduc t an d t he refo re b e ‘un reas on ab l[e ] an d v ex at io us [ ]’ if i t i s d on e wit h am al ic io us pu rp os e o r in te nt .” Id . (al te rat io ns in ori gi na l). An at to rn ey faci ng § 1 92 7 s an ct io ns m us t b e aff or de d a n o pp ortu ni ty to b e h eard . Id. at12 42
. B. Ana ly si s Att orne y s Ted ard s an d Week s (“ Co un se l” ) of fer fo urarg um en ts in supp ort of th ei r co nt en ti on th atth e d is tri ctco urt ab us edit s d is cret io n i n award in g at to rn ey s’ fees ag ai ns t t he m un de r § 1 92 7: (1) th ere was no m ul ti pl ic at io n o f pr oc eed in gs as r equi redby § 19 27 be cau se th ere wer e n o “ ex ces s” co st s i nc urred by Defend an t b ey on d t ho se Defen da nt s cl ai m edun de r § 1 98 8; (2) an y
m ul ti pl ic at io n o f pr oc eed in gs di d n otres ul t i n Lu ka si k a ndLecky in cu rri ng su ch

“ ex ces s” co st s o r fee s; (3) th e d is tri ctco urt fa il edto m ak e fac tu al fin di ng s wi th
res pe ctto eit he r th e m

ul ti pl ic at io n o f pr oc eed in gs or a ny “ ex ces s” fees or c os ts ;
an d (4 ) Att orne y

W eek s, as lo cal co un se l, o nl y cam e in to th e p ro ceed in gs fo ll owi ng th is Co urt’s d eci si on in You ng I, an d h e p la y eda li m it ed , no n30 Case: 11-15618 Date Filed: 01/07/2013 Page: 30 of 45subs ta nt iv e ro le
. 8

Co un se l’s ap pe al lac ks m eri t fo r se ve ral reas on s. Fi rs t, t he di st ric t co urt d id
no t err in gra nt in g Def

en da nt s Lu ka si k a ndLecky ’s Apri l 2 9, 2 01 1 m ot io n fo r at to rn ey s’ fees by defau lt . It i s u nd is pu te d tha t Lu ka si k andLecky ’s Apri l 2 9
m ot io n fo r at to rn ey s’ fees ga ve Co un se l cl ear n ot ic e o f th ei r own po te nt ia l l iabi li ty
un de r § 1 92 7. Th atApri l 2 9 m ot io n a ls o d es cri be d t he co nduc t t ha t was ve xa ti ou s
an d c au se d m

ul ti pl ic at io n o f th e p ro ceed in gs aft er Yo un g I. Sp eci fic al ly, th e Apr il 29 m ot io n a ll eg edth at : (1 ) Pl ai nt iff’s Cou ns el aft er re m an d p ur su eda ba se le ss
se le ct iv e en fo rcem en t cl ai m kn owi ng th ere was no ev id en ce t o s up po rt t ha t cl ai m ; (2 ) th is cau se d Lu ka si k a ndLecky to de fen d t he cas e, pa rti ci pa te in di sc ov ery, an d fil e a m ot io n fo r su m

m ary jud gm en t i n t he di st ric t co urt; an d (3 ) th en requi red Luk as ikan d Lec ky to d efen d t he di st ric t co urt’s s umm ary jud gm en t ru li ng in th e You ng II ap pe al
.

The dissent make s sever al ar guments that the Appellants’ initial brief does not make. 8 For example, the dissent argues that Plaintiff’s Counsel should have ha d “a mor e mea ningf ul opportunity

to be hea rd.” A s the dissent relucta ntly admits counsel did not raise that issue on appea l. Indeed, A

ppellants’ brie f does not list lack of a n opportunity

to be hea rd as a n issue raised on a

ppeal. Instead, the f

our sec tions of the Appellants’ br ief tra ck expressly and only the four issues we list above. We also respe ctfully

sug g est that the district court f ully hear d from Plaintiff’s Counsel in the August 5 response, whic h was re jected in the district c ourt’s Oc tober orde rs, and then considere d Plaintiff’s Counsel’s October 31 arguments befor e re

jectingthem in the Fe bruar y 22, 2012 order . Notably

too, Tedar ds’s Octobe r 31 re sponse ar gued esse ntially what wa s alrea dy argued in his August 5 response a nd was a lrea dy

reje cted by

the district court in its October order s. I f any

thing, the r ecor d ref

lects full due pr ocess in this case
.

31 Case: 11-15618 Date Filed: 01/07/2013 Page: 31 of 45Afte r rec ei vi ng no ti ce o f wha t co nduc t was all eg edto be ve xa ti ou s, i n b ad

fai th , andm

ul ti pl ic it ou s, Pl ai nt iff’s Cou ns el di d n otres po ndat a ll to th is Apri l 2 9
m ot io n wi th in th e ti m e li m it s p res cri be d b y th e Loc al Ru le go ve rn in g m ot io ns pr act ic e in th e So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a, th ereb y pl aci ng Co un se l i n d efau ltan d pr ov id in g t he di stric t co urt wi th a su ffi ci en t b as is forgra nt in g t he Apri l 2 9 m ot io n
as to th e en ti tl em en t i ss ue . See S.D. Fl a. L.R. 7.1 (c) (s ta ti ng th at“ [e]ach pa rty op po si ng a m ot io n s ha ll serve anop po si ng m em or an du m of l aw no lat er t ha n fo urte en (14 ) da y s af

te r se rv ic e o f th e m ot io n. Fa il ur e to do so m ay be de em ed
su ffi ci en t caus e fo r gr an ti ng th e m ot io n b y de fau lt .”). AndPla in ti ff’s Co un se l, b y th ei r de fau lt , adm it te d t he factua l al le ga ti on s o f
ve xa ti ou s co nduc t, b adfai th , andm ul ti pl ic it y of p ro ceed in gs co nt ai ne d i n the 18 -p ag e, Apr il 29 m ot io n fo r at to rn ey s’ fees un de r § 1 92 7 a ga in stPla in ti ff an d i ts
co un se l. Cf. Eag le Hos p. Ph y si ci an s, LLC v . SRG Co ns ul ti ng , Inc ., 56 1 F .3d 12 98 , 13 07 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ) (“ A def en da nt , by hi s d efau lt , adm it s t he pl ai nt iff’s well -p le ad edall eg at io ns of f act , is co nc lu de d o n t ho se fact s b y th e jud gm en t, an d is barredfro m

co nt es ti ng onap pe al th e fac ts th us est ab li sh ed .” (i nt ern al qu ot at io n
m ark s o m it te d) ); B uc ha na n v . Bowm an , 82 0 F .2d35 9, 3 61 (11 th Cir . 19 87 ) (s ta ti ng “ [t]he li ab il it y

of [ th e d efen da nt ] is no t atis su e. Su ch li ab il ity is [s uf fic ie nt ly] pl edin th e co m pl ai nt , andis th eref

or e es tabl is he d b y

th e en try of
32 Case: 11-15618 Date Filed: 01/07/2013 Page: 32 of 45de fau ltag ai ns t h im .”); Nis hi m at su Co ns tr. C o., Ltd . v. Ho us to n Nat ’l Ban k, 5 15

F.2 d 1 20 0, 1 20 6 (5 th Cir . 19 75 ) (s ta ti ng “ [a]tt em pt s b y a de fen da ntto esc ap e th e effe ct s o f hi s d efau ltsh ou ldbe st ric tl y cir cu m sc rib ed ; h e sh ou ldno t b e g iv en th e op po rtu ni ty to l it ig at e wha t h as alr ead y be en co ns id eredad m it te d i n l aw.”). By 9 vi rtu e o f th ei r de fau lt , Pla in ti ff’s Co un se l ad m it te d t he all eg at io ns in th e Apr il 29
m ot io n, wh ic h wer e th atth ey pu rs ue d aba se le ss cla im kn owi ng no ev id en ce
supp orte d i t, t ha t t hi s was ve xa ti ou s co nduc t t ha t am ou nt edto ba d fa it h, an d t ha t
as a di rectres ul t o f th ei r un wil li ng ne ss to ab an do n the cle arl y ba se le ss cla im , th e Defen da nt s h adto de fen d t he m se lv es inth e se co ndsu m m ary jud gm en t pr oc eed in gs an d t he You ng II ap pe al . The Ap ril 29 m ot io n c le arl y all eg edth atall of th e p os t-r em an d p ro ceed in gs am ou nt edto a ba d fa it h p ur su itof aba se le ss cla im ag ai ns t Def

en da nt s Lu ka si k a ndLecky wit ho utan y

ev id en ce. Si nc e th atfactua l ba si s o f th e § 19 27 m ot io n was ad m it te d b y de fau lt , th ere was no factua l d is pu te fo r th e d is tri ctco urt t o re so lv e as to en ti tl em en t. Seco nd , Cou ns el ’s bri efs on ap pe al do no t ad dr es s the di st ric t co urt’s J un e 7 de fau ltord er o r th e actua l— an d c orrect—b as is forall of i ts rul in gs on Luk as ik
an d Lec ky’ s m ot io n fo r at to rn ey s’ fees : Co un se l’s d efau ltin no t re sp on di ng to

In Bonne r v. City

of Prichar d, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 ( 11th Cir. 1981) (en ba nc), w e 9 adopted a s binding pre cede nt all decisions of the for mer F ifth Circuit handed down pr ior to the close of busine ss on September 30, 1981. 33

Case: 11-15618 Date Filed: 01/07/2013 Page: 33 of 45Defen da nt s’ Apri l 2 9 m ot io n. Co un se l d o n otco nt es t t he di st ric t co urt’s fi nd in g

of de fau ltas t o Lu ka si k andLecky ’s ent it le m en t t o fe es un de r § 1 92 7 a ga in st Co un se l. In de ed , Cou ns el ’s Aug us t 5 an d Oct ob er 3 1 re sp on se s i gn or edth e de fau ltfin di ng as t o e nt it le m en t, n ev er o ffer edanex cu se or any exp la na ti on for
no t re sp on di ng to th atApri l 2 9 m ot io n, wh ic h the di st ric t co urt g ran te d o n J un e 7 , an d c on ti nu edto m ak e th e sa m e arg um en ts ab ou t en ti tl em en t wh ic h wer e reject ed by the di st ric t co urt i n i ts Octo be r 20 11 an d F eb ru ary 20 12 ord ers du e to th e in it ia l de fau lt
. Thi rd , as t o t he am ou ntof f ees , Cou ns el do no t ev en rai se anarg um en t o n ap pe al as t o the reas on ab le ne ss of e it he r (1 ) th e n um be r of ho ur s ex pe nd edby the at to rn ey s fo r Luk as ikan d Lec ky, or (2 ) th e h ou rly rates ch arg edby the att orne y s fo r Luk as ikan d Lec ky. Acco rd in gl y , Cou ns el ha ve ab an do ne d a ny argu m en t as to th e rea so nabl en es s o f th e h ou rs ex pe nd edor t he rat es ch arg ed
. See Acc es s No w, 1 0
Attorney Teda rds has c andidly

admitted that local counse l Weeks played a limited role 1 0 in the litigation. We note that Weeks ente red his notice of appea ranc e on YoungApar

tments’ behalf on Dec ember

18, 2008, less than a month af ter the district c ourt reope ned the pr ocee dings on rema nd afte r YoungI . Weeks repr esente d YoungApar tments from that 2008 date a nd throug h the 2011 YoungI I appea l and eve n to the prese nt. Weeks could have timely responde d to Lukasik and L ecky ’s motion for fe es and c osts under § 1927, but elec ted not to do so, instead defa ulting under

the L ocal Rules. In addition, we note that a ll of YoungApar tments’ filings we re signed by both attorney s of re cord, a

nd, even a cce pting Te dards’ s statement re g arding Weeks’s limited role, Weeks never theless par

ticipated in the litigation as counsel of r ecor d. We theref ore c annot say

that the district court abuse d its discretion by makingWeeks jointly

and seve rally

liable for the § 1927 awa rd, g iven that Weeks too defa ulted in the district court.

34 Case: 11-15618 Date Filed: 01/07/2013 Page: 34 of 45In c. v. Sw. Ai rli ne s C o., 3 85 F.3d13 24 , 13 30 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ) (rec og ni zi ng as a

well -s et tl edpri nc ip le th at“ a le ga l cl ai m or arg um en t t ha t h as no t b eenbri efed be fo re t he co urt i s d eem edab an do ne d a ndit s m eri ts wil l n otbe ad dr es se d” ). Fo urth , we reco gn iz e th atPla in ti ff’s Co un se l ar gu es th at(1) th ere c an be no
m ul ti pl ic it y of p ro ceed in gs un de r § 1 92 7 u nl es s t he att orne y s’ con du ctpro du ced
co st s b ey on d wh atth e Defen da nt s al ready reco ve redun de r § 1 98 8, an d (2 ) th us ,

“ ex ces s” co st s ca us edby badfai th co nduc t m ean s co st s b ey on d wh atis reco ve red
un de r § 1 98 8. Thi s “ ex ces s co st s” arg um en t n oton ly lack s m eri t b utwho ll y

1 1
m is ap pr eh en ds § 1 92 7. Se ct io n 1 98 8 d oe s n otawardfees ag ai ns t co un se l b uton ly ag ai ns t t he no n- pr ev ai li ng pa rty. See 42 U.S.C. § 1 98 8( b) . In co nt ras t, § 19 27 award s fe es ag ai ns t co un se l fo r th atco un se l’s b adfai th co nduc t, s uc h a s p ur su itof a b as el es s cl ai m

kn owi ng no ev id en ce s up po rte d i t. See 28 U.S.C. § 1 92 7; Am lo ng , 50 0 F .3dat 1 24 2. Th ere i s n o b as is , andPla in ti ff’s Co un se l ci te no ne , to li m itth e ap pl ic at io n o f § 1 92 7 b y a reque stforfees un de r § 1 98 8. An d t he re was

Her e is Plaintiff’s Counsel’s first issue and a rgument: 1 1 A sine qua non is that the conduct of the attorney must “ multipl y the proce eding s.” I n t h i s case , that would mean that the proce eding s would have to have been multipl ied to pr oduce costs beyond those that the defe ndants are claiming under 42 U.S.C. § 1988. Otherw ise, the require ment that sanctions be impo s ed only on the basis of “excess” costs would have no meaning
. The defe ndants’ statement that the costs are “conc urre nt” neg ates any argument that the costs ex ce ed t h o s e that are alre ady beingincurre d. 35 Case: 11-15618 Date Filed: 01/07/2013 Page: 35 of 45no ne edto factua ll y de te rm in e wha t p orti on of t he po st -rem an d fe es were
reco ve rab le be cau se Defen da nt s’ Apri l 2 9 m ot io n m ad e cl ear t ha t Def en da nt s al le ge d t ha t t he en ti re p os t-r em an d p ro ceed in gs , in cl ud in g t he sec on d s umm ary jud gm en t p ro ceed in gs an d t he sec on d app eal , in vo lv eda cl ai m Pla in ti ff’s Co un se l kn ew was ba se le ss an d wi th ou t an y ev id en ti ary supp ort. Pl ai nt iff’s Cou ns el de fau lt edan d thu s co nc ed edth os e fac tu al all eg at io ns in th e Apr il 29 m ot io n. 1 2 Inli gh t o f th e fo reg oi ng , aft er o urrev ie w of t he bri efs an d t he reco rdin th is
cas e, an d wi th th e b en efi t o f or al arg um en t, we co nc lu de th atCo un se l h av e n ot
carr ie d t he ir b ur de n o f de m on st rat in g a n abu se of d is cret io n b y th e d is tri ctco urt,
an d we a ffi rm

th e d is tri ctco urt’s § 19 27 awardof $ 82 ,34 1 i n a tt orne y s’ fees in fav orof Lu ka si k a ndLecky an d a ga in stTeda rd s an d Week s. AFFIRMED.

The dissent ar gues that af ter the de fault orde r, the district cour t stil l should have had a 1 2 hearing a nd made f

indings on “ the proprie ty

of sanc tions and the amount.” This ig nores that Plaintiff’s Counsel not only defa ulted as to Def

endants’ a lleg ations of vexatious conduct throug hout the entire post-r emand pha se and e ntitlement under § 1927, but also lodg ed no objections to the number of hours or the hour ly

rate s char g ed. And the district c ourt made finding s that the number of hours claimed f

or the post-re mand phase and the r ates c harg ed we re rea sonable. The dissent’s analogy to liabilit y

and dama g es fa ils because (1) the de fault as to liability here was broa d in scope, i.e, a n admission that all post-remand proc eeding s involved the pursuit of a ba seless cla im without any evidenc e and in ba d faith, and ( 2) then subseque ntly there was no objec tion to the amount of hours expended and the rate s charg ed duringthose post-rema nd proce eding s. 36 Case: 11-15618 Date Filed: 01/07/2013 Page: 36 of 45W HITTEMORE, Dis tri ctJu dg e, di ss en ti ng :

I res pe ct fu ll y

di sa gr ee wi th th e m ajor ity an d c on cl ud e th atth e d is tri ctco urt ab us edit s d is cret io n wh en itsan ct io ne d P la in ti ff’s at to rn ey s u nd er 2 8 U.S.C. §1 92 7 wi th ou t fi nd in g t ha t t he y un reas on ab ly andve xa ti ou sl y m ul ti pl ie d t he pr oc eed in gs an d wi th ou t fi nd in g t ha t t he am ou ntof t he san ct io n re pr es en ts th e
ex ces s fe es in cu rredby D efen da nt s. W it ho utfin di ng s fr om th e d is tri ctco urt, a 1
m ean in gf ul rev ie w of i ts de ci si on to im po se san ct io ns can no t b e co nduc te d. Fo r th is reas on , I wou ldrev ers e an d re m an d t o t he di st ric t co urt. Pl ai nt iff’s att orne y s, Will ia m P. Teda rd s an d M ic ha el A. W eek s, ch al le ng e th e $ 82 ,34 1 fe e sa nc ti on im po se d a ga in stth em

by the di st ric t co urt u nd er § 19 27
. Ted ard s an d Week s co rrec tl y po in t o utth atth e d is tri ctco urt fa il edto m ak e an y fin di ng s re ga rd in g t he ir c on du ctor h ow i t m ul ti pl ie d t he pro ceed in gs . Andth ey
m ak e a co m

pe ll in g a rg um en t t ha t t he y di d n otun reas on ab ly andve xa ti ou sl y
m ul ti pl y th e p ro ceed in gs an d t ha t t he san ct io n a m ou ntex ceed s an y m ul ti pl ic at io n of th e p ro ceed in gs th ey

m ay ha ve cau se d. Es se nt ia ll y , th ey co nt en d t he y

di d n ot actin ba d fa ith a ndth ere was no ba si s fo r th e sa nc ti on award
. Se e Peer v. Lewis , 60 6 F .3d13 05 , 13 14 (11 th Cir . 20 10 )(“ An at to rn ey m ul ti pl ie s t he pro ceed in gs
un reas on ab ly andve xa ti ou sl y ‘ on ly whe n t he att orne y 's c on du ctis so eg reg io us
The district cour

t's de cision to impose sanctions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1927 is 1 revie wed f

or abuse of discre tion. Amlong &Amlong, P.A. v. D enny’ s, Inc.; et al. , 500 F.3d 1230, 1237 (11th Cir. 2007).

Case: 11-15618 Date Filed: 01/07/2013 Page: 37 of 45th atitis ‘ ta nt am ou ntto ba d fa it h.’” (quo ti ng Amlo ng & Amlo ng

, P.A. v. Denn

y's , In c. , 50 0 F .3dat 1 23 9) ). Summ ar y o f pro ceed in gs The pro ceed in gs lea di ng to im po si ti on of t he san ct io n a ga in stth e at to rn ey s are d es cri be d i n t he m ajor it y ’s op in io n. In su m m ary, th e d is tri ctco urt, i n
acco rd an ce wi th it s Lo cal Ru le s, i ni ti al ly awarde d a tt orne y ’s fees “by defaul t” ag ai ns t Pl ai nt iff

in fav orof De fen da nt s af te r Pl ai nt iff

fai le d t o re sp on d t o Defen da nt s’ in it ia l m ot io n fo r at to rn ey ’s fees
. Thatfee awa rdis no t ch al le ng ed
. 2 Ult im at el y , ho wev er, t he di st ric t co urt m od ifi edit s o rd er an d i m po se d ajoi ntan d
se ve ral fee awa rdag ai ns t Pl ai nt iff’s att orne y s as a sa nc ti on (“ The ord er i s
m od ifi edforcla rif

ic at io n o nl y

wit h re sp ectto th e p orti on of the fees award ed pu rs ua ntto 28 U.S.C. § 1 92 7 . . . The p orti on of t he to ta l at to rn ey ’s fees whi ch is at tri bu tabl e to th e 2 34 .7 h ou rs ex pe nd edon rem an d . . . sh al l b e rec ov erab le fro m Pl ai nt iff an d i ts co un se l o f rec or d, jo in tl y an d s ev eral ly.”). The di stric t co urt’s i ni ti al fee awa rdwas o nl y ag ai ns t Pl ai nt iff

You ng Apa rtments . Ind eed , in it s Oct ob er 1 2, 2 01 1 o rd er, t he di stric t ex pr es sl y de cl in ed

SeeS.D. Fla. L .R. 7.1.C (2008)(providingthat the fa ilure to file an opposing 2 memorandum of la

w within the permitted time “may be dee med suffic ient cause for grantingthe motion by

defa ult.”) 38 Case: 11-15618 Date Filed: 01/07/2013 Page: 38 of 45to awardfees ag ai ns t Ted ard s an d Week s. In res po ns e, Defen da nt s s ou gh t

cl ari fic at io n, s eek in g ajoi ntan d s ev eral awardof apo rti on of the fees ag ai ns t b ot h at to rn ey s u nd er § 19 27 . Not wit hs ta nd in g t ha t t he ti m e to res po ndto th e m ot io n ha d n otex pi red , th e d is tri ctco urt es se nt ia ll y rev ers edit se lf, m od ifi edit s o rd er,
an d i m po se d t he ch al le ng edsan ct io n a ga in stth e at to rn ey s. Cou ns el ’s ti m el y 3
res po ns e in op po si ti on to th e m ot io n was th eref or e ren de redm oo t. The ir m ot io n to am en d/ co rrec t the ord er was de ni edby the di st ric t co urt o n t he ba si s o f th e

“pr io r de fau lt .” Sa ncti on s un der § 19 27 Befo re s an ct io ns m ay

be im po se d u nd er § 19 27 , th ree r equi rem en ts m us t b e
m et : Fi rs t, t he att orne y

m us t en ga ge in ‘ un reas on ab le an d v ex at io us ’ co nduc t. Sec on d, t ha t ‘un reas on ab le an d v ex at io us ’ co nduc t m us t b e co nduc t tha t 'm

ul ti pl ie s the pro ceed in gs .’ Fin al ly, th e d ol la r am ou nt of th e sa nc ti on m

us t b ear afin an ci al ne xu s t o the ex ces s p ro ceed in gs , i.e., t he san ct io n m ay

no t ex ceedth e ‘cos ts , exp en se s, an d a tt orne y s' fees reas on ab ly inc urredbe cau se of s uc h c on du ct .’

Enteringthe orde r bef

ore the time for a r esponse e x pired is troublesome. See D onaldson 3 v. Clark, 819 F.2d 1551, 1555 ( 11th Cir. 1987) (B eca use we have he ld that the district court failed to g ive plaintiff' s counsel the f ull ten-day

period to submit material in opposition to the conver ted summary

judgme nt motions , the district court should wait until counsel has ha d such an opportunity

befor e dec iding whe ther to impose Rule 11 sanctions.) 39 Case: 11-15618 Date Filed: 01/07/2013 Page: 39 of 45Amlo ng

& Amlo ng

, P.A. v. Denn

y's , Inc
. , 50 0 F .3dat 1 23 9 (q uo ti ng Pete rs on v. BMI Refr ac to ri es , 12 4 F .3d13 86 , 13 96 (11 th Cir . 19 97 )). An at to rn ey m ul ti pl ie s pr oc eed in gs “ un reas on ab ly andve xa ti ou sl y ” “ on ly whe n t he att orne y 's c on du ctis
so eg reg io us th atitis ‘ ta nt am ou ntto ba d fa it h,’” whi ch tu rn s o n t he ob jecti ve
co nduc t o f th e at to rn ey

an d re qu ire s a c om

pa ris on of t he att orne y ’s con du ct ag ai ns t t he co nduc t o f a “ reas on ab le ” at to rn ey . Id

. Sim il arl y , whet he r an at to rn ey ’s con du ctis “ ve xa ti ou s” “ requi res anev al ua ti on of t he att orne y ’s ob jecti ve co nduc t.” Id

. Not wit hs ta nd in g, “ th e at to rn ey 's s ub jecti ve st at e o f m in d is freque nt ly an im

po rta ntpi ece o f th e cal cu lu s, b ecau se a gi ve n a ctis m or e li ke ly to fal l o ut si de th e b ou nd s o f acc ep tabl e co nduc t an d t he refo re b e ‘un reas on ab l[e ]
an d v ex at io us [ ]’ if i t i s d on e wit h am al ic io us pu rp os e o r in te nt .” Amlo ng & Amlo ng , P.A. , 50 0 F .3dat 1 24 1. Co ns id eri ng th es e st atut ory pre -req ui si te s fo r im

po si ti on of s an ct io ns un de r § 1 92 7, an d t he nu an ces of e va lu at in g t he ob jecti ve reas on ab le ne ss of a n at to rn ey ’s li ti ga ti on co nduc t, i t i s u ns ur pr is in g t ha t Ci rcu itpre ced en t m an da te s th atanatt orne y

faci ng § 1 92 7 s an ct io ns be affo rd eda he ari ng an d re qu ire s t he di st ric t co urt t o m ak e a fi nd in g o f ba d fa it h b efo re s an ct io ns can be im po se d. Amlo ng & Amlo ng

, P.A. , 50 0 F .3dat 1 24 2 (“ Pl ai nl y , an a tt orne y th reat en edwit h

40 Case: 11-15618 Date Filed: 01/07/2013 Page: 40 of 45sa nc ti on s u nd er § 19 27 is en ti tl edto a he ari ng .”) (ci ti ng Reyn olds v. Rob er ts , 20 7

F.3 d 1 28 8, 1 30 2 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 0) ); se e In re Mr oz , 65 F.3d15 67 , 15 76 (11 th Cir
. 19 95 ) (wh ere s an ct io ns im po se d b as edon in he ren t au th or it y of c ou rt, re m an d
ne ces sa ry to de te rm in e if

pa rti es act edin ba d fa it h a ndto affo rddu e p ro ces s)
. Abse nce o f fi ndi ng s The pl ai n l an gu ag e o f § 1 92 7, as well as C irc ui t p rece de nt , requi redth e di st ric t co urt t o m ak e fi nd in gs be fo re i m po si ng san ct io ns ag ai ns t Pl ai nt iff’s
co un se l, s pe ci fic al ly tha t t he y act edin ba d fa it h b y

un reas on ab ly andve xa ti ou sl y
m ul ti pl y in g t he pro ceed in gs . Hud so n v . Int erna ti on al

Co mpu te r N

eg ot ia ti on s, In c. , 49 9 F .3d12 52 , 12 62 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ) (p la in lan gu ag e o f § 1 92 7 re qu ire s fin di ng s o f un reas on ab le an d v ex at io us co nduc t, m ul ti pl ic at io n o f pr oc eed in gs , an d t ha t t he do ll ar am ou ntof t he san ct io n b ears a fi na nc ia l n ex us to th e ex ces s pr oc eed in gs ); Amlo ng

& Amlo ng

, P.A. v. Denn

y’s . Inc ., et a l. , 50 0 F .3dat 1 25 1- 52 (“ . . . w e h av e h el d t ha t b efo re a co urt ca n i m po se san ct io ns on anatt orne y un de r it s i nh eren t p owe r, itm

us t m ak e a fi nd in g o f ba d fa it h . . .”). Alt ho ug h t he di st ric t
co urt h adam

pl e o pp ortu ni ty to d o s o, i t n ev er m ad e an y fin di ng s t o s up po rt t he §1 92 7 s an ct io n. 4

In denying the attorney s’ motion for re consideration of the sanction orde r, the district 4 court did addr ess attorne y Weeks’ conte ntion that he was not involved in the substantive dec ision

41 Case: 11-15618 Date Filed: 01/07/2013 Page: 41 of 45The m ajor it y no te s t ha t Def

en da nt s’ ren ewedm ot io n fo r at to rn ey s’ fees

“ ex pl ai ne d h ow co un se l fo r You ng Apartm en ts en ga ge d i n ‘un reas on ab le an d
ve xa ti ou s co nduc t,’ whic h ‘m ul ti pl ie d t he pro ceed in gs ,’ co ns ti tu te d ‘ba d fa it h,’
an d ju st ifi edanawardof a tt orne y s’ fees as asan ct io n u nd er § 19 27 .” The
m ajor it y co nc lu de s t ha t “ by the ir d efau lt ,” Ted ard s an d Week s “ ad m it te d t he factua l al le ga ti on s o f ve xa ti ou s co nduc t an d m ul ti pl ic it y of p ro ceed in gs ” in th at
m ot io n. I fi ndno supp ort fo r th is co nc lu si on . Mor e im po rta nt ly, Defen da nt s’
ex pl an at io n o f ho w Teda rd s an d Week s en ga ge d i n “ un reas on ab le an d v ex at io us
co nduc t" whi ch “ m

ul ti pl ie d the pro ceed in gs ” is no t a s ub st itut e fo r th e req ui red jud ic ia l fi nd in gs un de r § 1 92 7. Pro cedu ra l er ro r Aut ho rit y in th is Cir cu itrequi res a di st ric t co urt t o a ffo rdanatt orne y th e rig htto be he ardbe fo re s an ct io ns are i m po se d. Amlo ng

& Amlo ng

, P.A. , su pr a . In
m y vi ew, th is pre ced en t re qu ire d t he di st ric t co urt t o a ffo rdTeda rd s an d Week s a
m or e m ean in gf

ul op po rtu ni ty to b e h eardbe fo re i t m od ifi edit s o rd er an d i m po se d makingin the case duringthe time for whic h sanctions wer e sought. The district court f ound that “Mr. Weeks ha s participate d as counse l for Plaintiff in this action as ea rly as De cembe r 18, 2008,” and he “ther efor e had a mple opportunity

to assert a

ny arguments with respec t to Def endants’ e ntitlement to attorney s’ fe es under section 1927 by

filing a timely response to the motion.” 42

Case: 11-15618 Date Filed: 01/07/2013 Page: 42 of 45a joi ntan d s ev eral awardag ai ns t ea ch of t he m . The m ajor it y co rrec tl y no te s, ho wev er, t ha t Ap pe ll an ts ’ br ie f do es no t l is t l ackof o pp ortu ni ty to b e h eardas a n is su e o n app eal . Andth ere i s au th or it y su gg es ti ng th atanop po rtu ni ty to b e h eard , as op po se d t o ahe ari ng , sat is fie s due pro ces s co nc ern s wh en anatt orne y is faci ng
sa nc ti on s. Roa dw ay Exp., In c. v. Pip er , 44 7 U.S. 7 52 , 76 7, 1 00 S.Ct . 24 55 , 24 64 (1 98 0) ; Ko rn ha us er

v. Co mmis si on er

of So ci al Se cu ri ty , 68 5 F .3d12 54 , 12 57 (1 1t h C ir. 2 01 2) ; Reyn olds v. Rob er ts , su pr a. I ag ree wi th th e m ajor it y

th atTeda rd s an d Week s wer e o n n ot ic e th atth ey face d p ot en ti al li ab il it y

un de r § 1 92 7. Defe nd an ts ’ in it ia l m ot io n fo r at to rn ey ’s fees cit ed28 U.S.C. § 1 92 7 a ndex pr es sl y so ug hta joi ntan d s ev eral awardag ai ns t th e at to rn ey s. The d is tri ctco urt, wi th whi ch th e m ajor it y ag rees , ess en ti al ly 5
co nc lu de d t ha t b y

fai li ng to res po ndto th e in it ia l m ot io n s eek in g a tt orne y 's fe es , th e at to rn ey s d efau lt edon th e is su e o f en ti tl em en t an d wai ve d t he rig htto be he ard . Whi le th e te rm

“ de fau lt ” m ay

accu rat el y

de sc rib e th e p os tu re Ted ard s an d W eek s p utth em se lv es in in it ia ll y , I do no t b el ie ve th atun de r th e ci rcu m st an ces

There is some question whether D efe ndants’ initial motion s oug ht fee s from Weeks, 5 who serve d only

as loca l counsel. Appe llant’s Brief at pp. 25-27. 43 Case: 11-15618 Date Filed: 01/07/2013 Page: 43 of 45th ey

waiv edth e ri gh t t o b e h eardon joi ntan d s ev eral li ab il it y or, ju stas im po rta nt ly, on th e am ou ntof t he san ct io n. 6 Bas edon th e b rie fin g, t he re ce rta in ly app ear t o b e fac tu al di sp ut es wit h
res pe ctto whet he r Ted ard s, an d p art ic ul arl y W eek s, s ho ul d h av e b een san ct io ne d
un de r § 1 92 7 a ndif s o, t o wh atex te nt . Fin di ng s b y th e d is tri ctco urt wo ul d h av e
res ol ve d t ho se di sp ut es . Howev er, en ti tl em en t was de te rm in edby defau lt , ex pl ai ni ng th e ab se nc e o f fi nd in gs . I bel ie ve th is was p ro cedur al erro r an d t ha t o n
rem an d, the di st ric t co urt s ho ul d b e in st ru ct edto co nduc t an ap pr op ria te jud ic ia l in qu iry andaffo rdth e at to rn ey s an op po rtu ni ty to ad dr es s t he pro pr ie ty of
sa nc ti on s an d t he am ou nt .

Whil e a de fenda

nt ag ainst whom defa

ult is entered f

or fa ilure to respond to a

complaint 6 is deemed to have admitted the f actua l alleg ations in the complaint ( SeeRule 8 (b)(6) Fe d.R.Civ.P .), the de faulted de fenda nt is nonetheless entitled to a hea ringon the amount of unliquidated damag es. Id .; Rule 55 (a), F ed.R.Civ.P.; S.E.C. v. Smyth , 420 F.3d 1225, 1231 ( 11th Cir. 2005)(“. . . c ase la

w is clea r that a judgment by

defa ult may not be enter ed without a hea ring unless the amount claimed is a liquidated sum or one ca pable of mathematica l calculation.”); United Artists Corp. v. Free man , 605 F.2d 854, 857 ( 5th Cir.1979). Indeed, e ven whe n a par ty is defa ulted as a sa

nction, a hea

ringon damag es is require d unless the amount claimed is liquidated or ca pable of mathematica l calculation. Adolph Coors Co. v. Mov eme nt Against Racism and the Klan , 777 F.2d 1538, 1543 ( 11th Cir. 1985). It follows that even if the majority is corre ct that the attorne y s waived the rig ht to be hear d on entitlement by

failingto respond to the initial motion for fee s, they wer e nonethe less entitled to be hea

rd on the amount of the sanction, that is, the amount of e x cess f ees c aused by their conduc t. 44

Case: 11-15618 Date Filed: 01/07/2013 Page: 44 of 45Con cl us io n

Ted ard s an d Week s s eeka rem an d “
. . . fo r a s etof f in di ng s as to what You ng Apartm en ts di d t ha t was wron g i n t he sec on d p ha se of t he cas e an d wh at
ex ces s fe es or c os ts were at tri bu tabl e to th atwron gd oi ng .” Repl y Bri ef of App el la nt s , p. 7 . In fa irn es s t o t he se att orne y s, t he y are en ti tl edto kn ow wh atitis th ey di d wro ng fro m

th e p ers pe ct iv e o f th e d is tri ctco urt, as op po se d t o t he pe rs pe ct iv e o f th ei r ad ve rs ari es . I con cl ud e th atth e at to rn ey s’ fai lu re t o a va il th em se lv es of t he op po rtu ni ty to re sp on d t o Def en da nt s’ in it ia l m ot io n fo r fee s d id
no t re li ev e th e d is tri ctco urt o f it s re sp on si bi li ty to m ak e a co ns id ered de te rm in at io n o f whe th er o r no t t he ir c on du ctwas s uf fic ie nt ly egreg io us to jus ti fy
sa nc ti on s u nd er § 19 27 . Defau lt in g t he att orne y s an d s umm ari ly im po si ng
sa nc ti on s wi th ou t co nduc ti ng anap pr op ria te in qu iry is i nc on si st en t wi th th e pr oc edur e co nt em

pl at edby Circu itpre ced en t. In de ed , th e ab se nc e o f fi nd in gs pr ev en ts m ean in gf

ul rev ie w of t he ord er i m po si ng san ct io ns . A rem an d i s 7 th eref or e n eces sa ry .

See Santhuff v. Se itz , 385 Fe d. Appx. 939, 947 (11th C ir. 2010)(where district court does 7 not make finding s on the requir ements of § 1927, ther e is an insuffic ient rec ord for revie w of imposit ion of sanction and a limit ed re mand is nece ssary ), reh. en bancdenied, 408 Fe d. Appx. 346, cert. de nied, 131 S.Ct . 1021 (2011). 45

Case: 11-15618 Date Filed: 01/07/2013 Page: 45 of 45