FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT MARCH 20, 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 05- 1629 4 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 01-03084 -CV -G ET -1 CAS CAD E C ROS SIN G I I, LL C, Plaintiff-Appellee, ve rs us RADIOSHACK CORP ORATION, f. k. a. T an dy

Co rp or at ion , D ef en dant- Appe llant.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the N orthe rnD istri ct

of G eo rg ia

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (M ar ch 20, 200 6) Be fo re D U BIN A , BL A CK and B A RKE T T , Ci rc uit

Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M:2

T his is the se co nd t im e w e ha ve c onsi de re d an a ppe al of thi s c as e. I n th e first appeal, Cascade Crossing II, L LC (“ Cascade C rossing ”) a ppealed the district co u rt ’s ru l i n g o n wa i v ero n l y. A p an el o f o u r c o u rt re v er s ed th e d i s t ri ct co u rt ’s ru lin g onw ai ve r, and d ec lare d th at Ca sc ad e Cr oss ing w as the onl y pr ev ai lin g party and was ther efore entitled to an awar d of attorney s’ fee s. T he case w as re m an de d to the dis tr ic t c ourt f or ade te rm inatio n of

the a m ount

of pa st d ue r en t and attorney s’ fee s to be paid byRadioshack Corporation (“ Radioshack”). O n r em an d, the part ie s a gr ee d onthe a m ount of pa st d ue r en t and i nte re st but coul d not agree on the am ount of attorney s’ fee s. C ascade Cr ossin g argued that the f ull a m ount

of a tto rn ey s’ f

ee s it sou ght sho uld be aw ar de d, but Radioshack argued that the fee aw ard shouldbe capped by the perce ntages set fo rth in O . C. G . A . § 13 -1 -1 1. T he dis tr ic t c ourt r ule d th at O . C. G . A . § 13 -1 -1 1 di d not appl y , and Cascade Cr ossin g was awarded the full am ount of attorney s’ fee s ($ 282, 924. 53) inc ur

re d inthi s li tig at ion . R ad ios ha ck the n pe rf ec te d th is a

ppe al . W e re view a district court’ s interpretation and appli cation of a statute de novo . United States v. O rtega-Torres , 174 F . 3d 1 199, 200 0 ( 11th C ir . 199 9) (citation om itted). A lth oughRa dio sha ck

doe s no t di sput e that an aw ar d of a tto rn ey s’ f

ee s to Cascade C rossing under Section 31 of the Radioshack lease wa s proper, it argues3

that the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed in aw ar din g C as ca de Cr oss ing the f ull a m ount

of it s attor ne y s’ f ee s a cc ru ed

dur ing the li tig at ion . Mo re spe ci fi ca lly , Ca sc ad e Cr oss ing ar gue s th at

the aw ar d of

a tto rn ey s’ f

ee s sh oul d have be enc al cu la te d purs uant t o O . C. G . A . § 13 -1 -1 1( a) (2 ), w hic h c ap s su cha tto rn ey f ee aw ar ds at 15 % of

the f ir st $500 . 00 o f pa st d

ue r en t and i nte re st o w ed , and 1 0% of the r em ai nin g pa st d

ue re nt and i nte re st. Fr om the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s br ie f m en tio n of thi s is sue , it

is im poss ibl e fo r us t o dis ce rnthe c or

re ctne ss o f the c ourt’ s r

uli ng. I n it s or de r of

A ugus t 12 , 200 5, the district court foundthat “ the lim its contained in O. C.G .A . § 13-1-11 are inappli cable to plaintiff’ s claim for attorney ’ s fees. ” (R . V ol. 5 D oc. 105 at 2.) T he c ourt gave no r ea son fo r thi s f ind ing . Mo re ove r, in ope n c ourt pr oc ee din gs, which occurr ed on August 10 , 2005, the court stated in a conclusory m anner:

“ [i] nsofar as the defe ndant relies on Georgia Code 13-1-11, I have concluded that that c ode se ct ionis not

appl ic ab le to the pla int if f’ s c la im and tha t the de fe ndant cannot a sse rt that by w ay of li m itatio n of

w ha t the pla int if

f ha s c la im ed . ” ( R. V ol. 7 Tr . A t 2.) Be ca use the c ourt di d no t st at e the ba sis of it s r uli ng tha t O . C. G . A . § 13 -1 - 11 d oe s no t a

ppl y , w e ar e una

ble to gr an t m eanin gf

ul r ev ie wto the part ie s inthi s ap pe al . W e can on ly spe cu la te as t o wh y th e d is tri ctco ur t m ad e su ch a ru li ng .4

A cc or din gly , w e va cate the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s or de r an d r em an d th is c as e to the di st ric t co ur t wi th di rect io ns th atth e co ur t s ta te wit h s pe ci fic it y why O.C.G.A. § 13-1-11 sh ouldnot applyto this case and sup port its rulin g with appropriate legal au t h o r i t y, i f

an y. VACATED an d REMANDED.