F ILED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS EL EV EN TH C IRC UIT Sep tember 1 9, 2008 T HOMA S K. KA HN CLERK [DO NO T PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

N o. 07- 1421 4 D. C. Docket N o. 06-00714 - CV -O DE -1 MAID OF THE MIST CORP ORATION, MAID OF THE MIST STEAMBOAT COMP ANY, LT D., Pl ai nti ff s- Co unt er -D ef

en dants Appe lle es , ve rs us AL CAT RAZ ME DI A, LL C, ALCATRAZ MEDIA, INC., D ef en dants -C ount er -C la im an ts- Appe llants , W IL LI AM M . W IN DS OR, D ef en dant.

____ ____ ____ ___ N o. 07- 1423 5

____ ____ ____ ___ D. C . Docket N o. 06-00714 -CV -12

MAID OF THE MIST CORP ORATION, MAID OF THE MIST STEAMBOAT COMP ANY, LT D., Pl ai nti ff s- Co unt er -D ef

en dants Appe lle es , ve rs us AL CAT RAZ ME DI A, LL C, ALCATRAZ MEDIA, INC., D ef en dants -C ount er -C la im an ts, W IL LI AM M . W IN DS OR, D ef en dant- Co unt er -C la im an tAppe llant.

____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 07- 1520 0

____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 06-00714 CV -O DE -1 MAID OF THE MIST CORP ORATION, MAID OF THE MIST STEAMBOAT COMP ANY, LT D., Pl ai nti ff s- Co unt er -D ef

en dants Appe lle es , ve rs us AL CAT RAZ ME DI A, LL C, ALCATRAZ MEDIA, INC., W IL LI AM M . W IN DS OR, D ef en dants -C ount er -C la im an ts- Appe llants .3 ____ ____ ____ ___ N o. 07- 1586 5

____ ____ ____ ____ _ D. C. Docket N o. 06-00714 CV -O DE -1 MAID OF THE MIST CORP ORATION, MAID OF THE MIST STEAMBOAT COMP ANY, LT D., Pl ai nti ff s- Co unt er -C la im an tsD ef en dants -Appe lle es , ve rs us AL CAT RAZ ME DI A, LL C, ALCATRAZ MEDIA, INC., W IL LI AM M . W IN DS OR, D ef en dants -C ount er -C la im an tsAppe llants . Appeals fr om

the United State s District Court fo r the N orthe rnD istri ct

of G eo rg ia (S ep te m be r 19, 200 8) Be fo re D U BIN A , H U L L a nd F A Y , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: Appe llants A lc atra z Me dia , L L C, A lc atra z Me dia , I nc . ( co lle ct ive ly

“ Alcatraz” ), and W illiam W indso r appeal the district court’ s grant of Appellee M a i do f t h e M i s t ’s ( “Ma i d ” ) mo t i o n f o r s u mm a ry ju d g men t . Ad d i t i o n a l l y,4

A lc atra z an d W ind sor

appe al the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s or de r gr an tin g pe rm an en t injunctive relief

against them . Alcatraz and W indso r also appeal the district co urt’ s or de r gr an tin g M ai d a tto rn ey ’ s f ee s and c ost s. W e re vie wadis tr ic t c ourt’ s or de r gr an tin g su m m ar y j udgm en t de nov o, re vie w ing the e vid en ce in the li ght m ost f av or ab le to the party

opp osi ng the m otion . See Pa t ri ckv . F l o yd M ed . C t r, 2 0 1 F. 3 d1 3 1 3 , 1 3 1 5 (1 1 t h Ci r. 2 0 0 0 ). We re vie wthe sc ope of

adis tr ic t c ourt’ s or de r gr an tin g pe rm an en t i nj unc tiv e re lie f fo r abuse of discretion. Se e Pa lm er & Cay , I nc . v. Marc h & Mc L en nan C os. I nc . , 404 F. 3d 12 97, 1308 (11t h Cir. 2005 ). A ft er r ev ie w ing the r ec or d, r ea din g th e part ie s’ br ie fs , a nd h av ing the benefit of oral ar gum ent, w e conclude the district court properly granted summ ary j udgm en t t o M ai d onit s c la im f or tor tio us i nte rf

er en ce w ithbus ine ss o pe ratio ns an d pr ope rl y

iss ue d ape rm an en t i nj unc tio n a ga ins t A lc atra z an d W ind sor . T he re co rd de m onstrate s th at

A lc atra z an d W ind sor : ( 1) a ct ed im pr ope rl y a nd w ith out pr ivi le ge ; ( 2) a ct ed

pur pose ly a nd m al ic iou sly

w iththe int en t t o in

j ur e Ma id; ( 3) ind uc ed thi rd part ie s no t t o e nte r int o or c ont inu e a busi ne ss r el at ion shi p w ith Maid; and (4) caused Maid financial inj ury . Thus, the per m anent injunction was pr ope rl y gr an te d be ca

use Ma id d em onstrate d su cc es s onthe m er its , c ont inu ing irr ep arab le in

jury, an d t he lac k o f an ad eq ua te rem ed y at l aw.5

W e also conclude from

the rec ord that the dist rict court properly granted sum m ar y j udgm en t i n M ai d’ s f

av or on A lc atra z’ s c ount er cl ai m s f or br ea chof co ntr ac t, pr om iss or

y e sto ppe l, a nd s lande r, in vio la tio n of the G eo rg iaF ai r Business Practices A ct. Alc atraz ’ s counterclaim s wer e m eritless, and Alcatra z as se rte d t he se cla im s t o c au se Mai d u nn eces sa ry fin an ci al ha rd sh ip . Becau se we se e n o m eri t t o a ny of th e arg um en ts Alca tra z o r W in ds orm ak e in th is ap pe al , we af fi rm the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s or de r gr an tin g su m m ar y j udgm en t and i ts o rd er

gr an tin g perm anent injunctive relief . Si m ilarl y , w e co nc lud e that the dis tr ic t c ourt pr ope rl y de te rm ine d th at

Ma id is e nti tle d to r ec ove r attor ne y ’ s f ee s and e xpe nse s f

or it s su cc es sf

ul t ortio us i n t er fe re n ce cl ai m

u n d erO.C .G. A. § 1 3 -6 -1 1 b as ed o n Al ca t ra z a n dWin d s o r’s stu bbor nly li tig iou s pr e- sui t c ondu ct that gave r ise to thi s li tig at ion . S ee P au l v. D es tit o, 250 G a. App. 631 , 642 , 550 S . E . 2d 7 39, 749 -7 50 ( G a. Ct . App. 200 1) (s ta tin g th at

apla int if f can r ec ove r fe es a nd e xpe nse s f or suc ce ssf ul c la im s and cannot r ec ove r fe es a nd e xpe nse s f or uns uc ce ssf

ul c la im s, abandon ed

c la im s, or counterclaim

defenses). W e have concer

ns, however , a

bout the district court’ s lack of explanation as to the am ount of fee s and expenses it awarded. A lthou gh the dis trict court has co nsi de ra ble la tit ude in fo rm

ulatin g a tto rn ey ’ s f

ee a w ar ds, it

m ust de sc ri be it s ca lc ulatio n of

a tto rn ey ’ s f

ee s and e xpe nse s to pr ovi de thi s c ourt an a de qua te a nd6

inf orm ed ba sis f or r ev ie w . G ilm er e v. Ci ty

of A tlanta , 931 F . 2d 8 11, 814 ( 11th Cir. 1991 ). Conclusory

statem ents about th e appropriateness of fee s and expenses aw ar de d do not

a llo wf or m eanin gf

ul r ev ie w . S ee N orm anv. H ous. A uth . of Mon tgo m er

y , 836 F . 2d 1 292, 130 4 ( 11th C ir . 198 8) ( “ T he c ourt’ s or de r on attor ne y ’ s f ee s m ust a llo wf or m eanin gf

ul r ev ie w–th e dis tr ic t c ourt m ust a rt ic ulate the de ci sio ns i t m ad e, giv e pr inc ipl ed r ea sons f or tho se de ci sio ns, a nd s howit s cal cu la ti on .”). He re, the district court’ s lim ited explanation of its aw ard of attorney ’ s fees an d e xpe nse s pr ec lud es m eanin gf ul r ev ie w . T he dis tr ic t c ourt st at ed the a m ount

of fe es a nd e xpe nse s it

a w ar de d and d es cr ibe d th em a s “ re as ona

ble ” co nsi de ri ng Alcatraz and W indso r’ s conduct and“ the billin g judgm ent exercised in sim ilar cases in the Atlanta m arket for com parable legal ser

vices.” On a

ppeal, A lcatraz an d W ind sor

a rg ue that c er

ta in s pe ci fi c tim e an d e xpe nse e ntr ie s are not recovera ble because m any

do not relate to Maid’ s successful tortiou s interfere nce claim and because those that do are excessive. Beca use the district court provi ded suc h ali m ite d e xpl an at ionof it s c al cu la tio ns, w e cannot a ddr es s th es e ar gum en ts ad eq ua te ly on app eal . Although the district court properly found that th e hourly

rates w ere reasonable, it did n ot delineate which hours and entries wer e excluded or reduced as r el at ing to (1 ) the uns uc ce ssf ul c la im s, ( 2) the de fe nse of c ount er cl ai m s, a nd ( 3)7

th e n um ero us ho ur s t ha t Al cat raz a ll eg es were ex ces si ve forth e ta sk s p erfo rm ed . A blanket tw enty -five per cent reduction, w ithou t explanation as to why such re duc tio n w as appr opr ia te und er the c ir cu m stanc es a nd wha t ho ur s inthe above categories w ere excluded, does not resolve ou r concer ns. Further , the district court failed to address the appropriateness of certain expense entries that Alcatr az an d W ind sor

c la im a re ina ppr opr ia te or

e xc es siv e, inc lud ing , a m ong oth er thi ngs, ap pr oxi m at el y

$19 , 000 fo r pr ivate j et

f lig hts , $25 , 000 fo r phot oc opy ing , a nd b ill s fro m Bro ok s B ro th ers . Nothing herein sho uld im ply that the total am ount s awarded we re unr ea sona

ble . R athe r, w e sim

ply c an not c ondu ct m eanin gf

ul r ev ie wof

w he the r or not th ey we re. A ccordingly , w e vacate the aw ard of attorney ’ s fees and expens es an d r em an d to the dis tr ic t c ourt f or r ec onsi de ratio n of

the a w ar d w ithaf

ull , ex pli ci t e xpl an at ionof

the r ea sons f

or the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s de te rm inatio n of the se am ount s. AF FIRMED , IN PA RT; VA CA TED AN D REMA ND ED, IN P AR T.