FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T AUGUST 25, 2010 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 10 89 5 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 2 :0 8- CV-0 06 06 -PAM- SPC VINCENT ANGIOLILL O, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us COLLIER COUNTY, KEVIN RAMBOSK, etal., 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 fo r th e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Au gu st25 , 20 10 ) Befo re BARKETT, HULL andANDERSON, Circu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: Vin cen t D. Ang io li ll o fi le d t hi s § 19 83 an d s ta te law ac ti on ag ai ns t Co ll ie r Co un ty, it s Sh eri ff, an d fi ve em pl oyees o f th e Co ll ie r Co un ty Sheri ff’s Dep art m en t(“ Defen da nt s” ), al le gi ng cla im s o f fal se arre st , m al ic io us pro se cu ti on , con sp ira cy ,

an d s tate law m al ic io us pro se cu ti on . The d is tri ctco urt ei th er d is m is se d o r gr an te d su m m ary jud gm en t t o Def

en da nt s o n a ll cla im s. An gi ol il lo no w app eal s, ra is in g th ree i ss ue s fo r ou r rev ie w. Firs t, An gi ol il lo arg ue s tha t the di st ric t co urt ab us ed it s d is cret io n i n d en y in g h is m ot io n t o fi le a se co ndam en de d c om pl ai nt . Seco nd , he arg ue s tha t the co urt erredingra nt in g s umm ary jud gm en t t o Def en da nt s B at es , Cel ib ert i, an d Hu rle y . Andth irdhe arg ue s tha t the di st ric t co urt erredinaward in g at to rn ey ’s fees to Defen da nt s. Aft er tho ro ug h re vi ew of th e p art ie s’ bri efs an d t he reco rdon ap pe al , we affi rm on all gro un ds . I. Den ia l o f Mo ti on to Am en d

“ [W] e wil l o nl y

rev ers e a d is tri ctco urt’s d en ia l o f a m ot io n t o a m en d i n in st an ces inwhi chth e d is tri ctco urt h as cle arl y ab us edit s d is cret io n.” Sm ith v . Sch . Bd. o f Oran ge Co un ty, 48 7 F .3d13 61 , 13 66 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ) (i nt ern al ci ta ti on an d quo ta ti on om it te d) . “ Purs ua ntto Fed . R. Civ . P. 15 (a), a p arty see ki ng to am en d i ts co m

pl ai ntaft er i t p rev io us ly has am en de d t he co m pl ai nt , or a fte r a res po ns iv e p le ad in g h as be enfil ed , m ay am en d t he co m

pl ai nt‘ on ly by

lea ve of co urt o r by writt enco ns en t o f th e adve rs e p arty ; an d l eav e sh al l b e fre el y gi ve n whe n ju st ic e so requi res .’ ” Id . (ci ti ng Fed . R. Civ . P. 15 (a)) . “ Howev er, wh ere a pa rty’ s m ot io n t o a m en d i s fi le d a fte r th e d ead li ne forsu chm ot io ns , as d el in eat ed 2in th e co urt’s s ch edul in g o rd er, the pa rty m us t s ho w go odcau se why le av e to am en d t he co m

pl ai ntsh ou ldbe gra nt ed .” Id . See al so So sav. Ai rp rin t Sys., 13 3 F.3 d 1 41 7, 1 41 8 n .2 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 8) (“ [W] he n am ot io n t o a m en d i s fi le d a fte r a sc he du li ng ord er d ead li ne , Rul e 1 6 i s the pro pe r gu id e fo r de te rm in in g wh ethe r a pa rty’ s d el ay

m ay be ex cu se d.” ); F ed . R. Civ . P. 16 (b )(4 ) (“ A sch edul e m ay be m od ifi edon ly for g oo d c au se an d wi th th e jud ge ’s con se nt .”). The di stric t co urt’s d ead li ne to am en d p le ad in gs ex pi redon Feb ru ary 20 , 20 09 , as d el in eat edinit s C as e Mana ge m en t an d S ch edul in g Ord er. Ang io li ll o fil edhi s m ot io n fo r le av e to am en d o n J un e 1 1, 2 00 9, n earl y fou r m on th s af

te r th e co urt’s d ead li ne . There fo re, Ru le 16 (b )’s go odcau se requi rem en t g ov ern edth e co urt’s d eci si on whet he r to grantAng io li ll o’s m ot io n fo r le av e to am en d. We ag ree wi th th e d is tri ctco urt tha t An gi ol il lo fai le d t o d em on st rat e g oo d c au se . Ang io li ll o’s m ot io n fo r le av e to fil e a Sec on d Am en de d C om pl ai ntm erel y st at edth at“ si nc e th e fi li ng of h is pre vi ou s co m pl ai nt , he h a[d ] di sc ov ered in fo rm at io n” th at“ warrant [ed ] th e rei ns ta te m en t o f Pl ai nt iff ’s cla im s ag ai ns t Defen da nt s Hu nt er, Ram

bo skan d S pi na .” Ang io li ll o fa il edto gi ve th e co urt an y id ea, ei th er g en eral or p art ic ul ari zed , as t o wh atev id en ce was di sc ov eredan d h ow su chev id en ce m ig htres urrectth e cl ai m s ag ai ns t Def en da nt s Hu nt er, Ram

bo sk , an d S pi nath atth e d is tri ctco urt h adpre vi ou sl y di sm is se d wi th pre

jud ic e. See 3Sm ith, 4 87 F.3dat 1 36 7 (“ Care fu l re vi ew of Sm ith's m ot io n t o a m en d h is co m pl ai ntrev eal s tha t Sm ith d idno t i nd ic at e with a ny spe ci fic ity th e g oo d c au se he ha d fo r un ti m el y

m ov in g t o a m en d h is co m pl ai nt . Sm ith a ll eg edth atdi sc ov ery ha d ‘pro du cedne w vi ol at io ns of t he [l]aw th atm us t b e ad dr es se d wi th inth e co un ts of t he co m

pl ai nt ,’ bu t h e fai le d t o fu rth er i nd ic at e wha t tho se ne w vi ol at io ns were, wh atfact s s up po rte d t he m , andwhy th os e fac ts pre vi ou sl y were un di sc ov erab le .”) (al te rat io n i n o rig in al ). Mo reo ve r, Ang io li ll o e rro ne ou sl y cit edinhi s m ot io n t ha t Ru le 15 , as op po se d t o 1 6( b) , go ve rn edth e co urt’s d eci si on whet he r to gra nthi m lea ve to am en d, an d t hu s fa il edto ev enin cl ud e an y subs ta nt iv e m em or an du m on go od cau se insupp ort o f hi s m ot io n. Fi na ll y , our own in de pe nd en t co m pa ris on of the co nt en t o f Ang io li ll o’s Am en de d C om pl ai ntan d S eco ndAm en de d C om pl ai nt rev eal s o nl y

m in orrev is io ns to Ang io li ll o’s fa ctua l al le ga ti on s, n on e o f whi ch ap pe ar t o a ddan y

m at eri al ev id en ce t o h is cla im s ag ai ns t Hunt er, Ram bo sk , or Sp in a. Acco rd in gl y , we ho ldth atth e d is tri ctco urt d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n i n de nyin g An gi ol il lo ’s m ot io n fo r le av e to am en d. 1

Ang iolill o attempts to make a g ood-ca use argument befor e our Court on a ppeal, 1 arguing that the district court er red in dismissing his claims ag ainst Hunter, Rambosk, and Spina with prejudice in response to a motion by

Def endants not labe led as dispositive in violation of L ocal Rule 3.01(h) ’s re quirement that “ [a] ll disposi tive motions must be so designated in the caption of the motion.” This is the same argument he ra ised befor e the district cour t in his motion to reconsider the district court’s de nial of his motion to amend. On appea l, Ang iolill o 4II. Su m

m ary Ju dg m en t i n F av orof De fen da nt s B at es , Cel ib ert i, Hurle y The di stric t co urt g ran te d s umm ary jud gm en t t o Def en da nt s B at es , Cel ib ert i, an d Hu rle y , con cl ud in g tha t Def en da nt s wer e en ti tl edto qu al ifi edimm un ity on Ang io li ll o’s fa ls e arr es t cl ai m an d t ha t An gi ol il lo fai le d t o ra is e a g enui ne is su e o f m at eri al facton hi s § 19 83 m al ic io us pro se cu ti on cla im . “ W e rev ie w th e d is tri ct co urt’s g ran t o f su m

m ary jud gm en t d e n ov o, v ie win g a ll ev id en ce an d any reas on ab le in fere nc es th atm ig htbe dra wn the refr om inth e li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to th e n on -m ov in g p arty .” Rin e v . Im ag it as , Inc ., 59 0 F .3d12 15 , 12 22 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ). Upo n re vi ew, we affi rm . A. Fal se Arres t
faults the district cour

t with “completely

ignor [i ng ]” his L ocal Rule 3.01(h) argument and denying his motion for re consideration on this ground. “A district cour

t has sound discretion whe ther to alter or ame nd a judgment pursuant to a motion for rec onsideration, and its dec ision will only be re verse d if it abused that discre tion.” Wil chombe v. Te eVe e Toons, Inc., 555 F .3d 949, 957 (11th Cir. 2009). Where a party g ives no rea son for not pre viously

raisingan issue, denia l of a motion for re consideration is “especia lly soundly exercised.” I d. (citingO' Nea l v. Kenname r, 958 F .2d 1044, 1047 (11th Cir. 1992)). In light of Ang iolill o’s fa ilure to raisethis argument, or any g ood-ca use argument for that matter , in his init ial untimely

motion to amend—arguments that were rea dily availableto him at the time—the district court did not abuse its discre tion in denying his motion for re consideration. See Wilchombe, 555 F.3d at 957 (“A motion for r econside ration ca nnot be used to re litigate old matters, ra ise argument or pre sent evidenc e that could have bee n raised prior to the entry of judgme nt[ , which includes] new a rguments that were previously available , but not pressed.” ) (interna l citations and quotations omitt ed). To the extent that Ang iolill o seeks to ra ise his argument rela ted to L ocal Rule 3.01(h) as a distinct lega l issue on appea l, he has fa iled to do so. This argument only appea rs as a sub-issue under his primar

y argument that the district court a bused its discretion in denying his motion to amend. We thus consider this argument only

as a be lated attempt to establish the g ood-ca use showingthat was lac king in his initial moti on to amend. 5“ Law en fo rcem en t v io late s a p ers on ’s Fou rth Am en dm en t ri gh ts when it

arre st s h im

or h er wi th ou t p ro babl e cau se , anda cl ai m ari se s und er § 19 83 .” Ru sh in g v . Park er, 5 99 F.3d12 63 , 12 65 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ). “ Pro babl e cau se ex is ts whe re the fact s wi th in th e co ll ect iv e kno wled ge of l aw en fo rcem en t o ffi ci al s, de riv edfro m

reas on ab ly trus two rth y

in fo rm at io n, ar e su ffi ci en t t o c au se a pe rs on of reas on ab le cau ti on to be li ev e th ata cri m in al off en se ha s b eenor i s b ei ng co m m it te d.” Bro wn v . Cit y

of Hu nt sv il le , Ala., 6 08 F.3d72 4, 7 34 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ). Howev er, t o re cei ve qu al ifi edimm un ity fro m a fal se -arr es t cl ai m , an of fic er n eedno t h av e actua l p ro babl e cau se bu t o nl y “ arg uabl e” p ro babl e cau se . Id . “ Arg uabl e p ro babl e cau se ex is ts wher e rea so nabl e o ffi cers inth e sa m e ci rcu m st an ces an d p os se ss in g t he same kn owl ed ge as t he Defen da nt s co ul d h av e be li ev edth atpro babl e cau se ex is te d t o a rres t Pl ai nt iff .” Id . (in te rn al qu ot at io n a nd ci ta ti on s o m itte d) . Ang io li ll o was arre st edforvi ol at in g t he term s o f a Tem po rary Injun ct io n fo r Pro te ct io n Ag ai ns t Dat in g Vi ol en ce, wh ic h p ro hi bi te d h im fro m co nt act in g a wom anwho se ful l l eg al na m e is “ Crystal ” ei th er i n p ers on or b y ph on e, fro m

us in g an ot he r pe rs onto co nt acthe r, orfro m freque nt in g abar cal le d J D Jag s. An gi ol il lo rece iv eda si m il ar t em

po rary inju nc ti onag ai ns t Cry st al . The ev id en ce s ub m it te d to th e St at e Att orne y ’s off ic e, whi chledto it s i ss ua nc e o f th e cap ia s warran t fo r

6Ang io lo ll o’s arres t, i nc lu de d the fol lo win g i te m s: (1) anin ve st ig at iv e rep ort

st at in g t ha t o n M ay

12 , 20 07 , Cry st al (who is a real to r) rec ei ve d fo urph on e cal ls fro m so m eo ne nam ed“ Lis a” p ur po rti ng to ex pr es s i nt eres t i n api ece o f rea l es ta te bu t tha t wh enCry st al returne d t he cal l s he he ardAng io li ll o’s v oi ce s ta ti ng , “ GOT HER!,” acc om

pa ni edby cheer in g a ndlau gh in g; (2) a reco rd in g o f th e May 12 , 20 07 , ph on e cal l b y

Cry st al , whi chcap turedth e b ack gr ou ndno is e o n t he op enli ne an d An gi ol ol lo ’s vo ic e st at in g “ SHE’ S FUCKED . . . SHE CAN’ HEAR NOTHING . . . SHE’ S LEAVING A MESSAGE . . .”; (3 ) anin ve st ig at iv e rep ort st at in g t ha t An gi ol il lo ha d c on ta ct edth e Sh eri ff’s o ffi ce t o re po rt tha t Cry st al ha d vi ol at edth e in

jun ct io n o rd er b y

cal li ng hi s p ho ne an d l eav in g am es sa ge an d a no ta ti on th atno su chm es sa ge was re co rd edon Ang io li ll o’s p ho ne ; (4 ) an in ve st ig at iv e rep ort s ta ti ng th aton May 27, 2 00 7, Cry st al rep orte d t ha t two o f he r fri en ds , Ju di th Sim on an d R eube n Th om ps on , saw An gi ol il lo dri ve withi n 5 0- 60 feetof the fro ntdo orof J D Jag s; an d (5 ) st at em en ts by Sim onan d Th om ps on as t o th e sa m e. Bas edon th is ev id en ce, the di st ric t co urt co nc lu de d t ha t ar gu ab le pr ob ab le cau se ex is te d t o a rres t An gi ol il lo , andthus Defen da nt s B at es , Cel ib ert i, an d Hu rle y

—the ag en ts res po ns ib le forth e in ve st ig at io n a ndpro vi di ng th e ev id en ce t o t he Sta te Att orne y ’s Offic e—we re en ti tl edto qu al ifi edimm un ity fro m

7li ab il ity

for Ang io li ll o’s al le ge d fa ls e arre st . 2 Ang io li ll o d oe s n otm ak e an y sp eci fic leg al arg um en ts rel at edto arg uabl e pr ob ab le cau se inhi s b rie fs . In fa ct , itis di ffi cu ltto di sc ernwhet he r he rai se s an y arg um en ts res po nd in g t o t he di st ric t co urt’s g ran t o f su m m ary jud gm en t o n h is fal se arre stcla im . He m erel y st at es th e fo ll owi ng : tha t s om eo ne inth e Sh eri ff’s Dep artm en t h eardth atCel ib ert i was to ldto “pu sh th e cas e th ro ug h andge t a warrantan d a rres t M r. Ang io li ll o b ecau se he di d n otde se rv e to be sh eri ff”; th at Bat es fai le d t o c on firm

Ang io li ll o’s al le ge d a li bi as t o h is wher eab ou ts on th e ni gh t h e was si gh te d o ut si de of J D Jag s; th atCel ib ert i fa il edto co nf irm th e true id en ti ty of th e o wne r of

th e p ho ne nu m

be r le ft b y

“ Lis a,” wh ic h was inactua li ty th e num be r fo r th e res id en ce o f Crysta l’s fri en ds who pro vi de d s tate m en ts ab ou t Ang io li ll o’s p res en ce atJD J ag s; an d t ha t Ba te s m is rep res en te d t o the Sta te Att orne y th atth e st at em en ts pro vi de d b y th es e fri en ds , Sim on an d Th om ps on , were s worn, wh eninfactth ey were u ns worn. No ne of t he se all eg at io ns vi ti at e th e In concludingthat there was a rguable pr obable c ause f

or Ang iolill o’s ar

rest, the 2 district court also re lied on Ang iolill o’s and Cry stal’s ce ll phone rec ords, which de monstrated that on May

12, 2007, Ang iolill o rec eived a phone ca ll from Cry stal but that at that same time Cry stal had plac ed a phone call to the number left by “L isa” in re fer enceto her re al estate inquiry . The purpor

ted explanation for this discrepa ncy is the purcha se of a

“B oost” phone, which ca n be used to tra

nsfer a phone c all to another numbe r without the ca ller’s knowle dg e. This evidence , howeve r, wa s not submit ted to the State Attorney ’s offic e until after Ang iolill o’s arr est pursuant to the c apias wa rra nt on October

15, 2007. There fore , we do not conside r this evidenc e in our e valuation of whe ther ther e wa s arguable pr obable c ause so a s to insulate Def endants fr om liability

under the doctrine of

qualified immunity . 8di st ric t co urt’s fi nd in g o f arg uabl e p ro babl e cau se .

Eve n a ccep ti ng all of An gi ol il lo ’s st at em en ts as t ru e, an d d is reg ard in g t he un swo rnst at em en ts of S im on an d Th om ps on th atAng io li ll o app ro ach edJD J ag s in hi s ca r, th e rem ai ni ng un di sp ut edev id en ce i n t he reco rdis su ffi ci en t t o e st ab li sh arg uabl e p ro babl e cau se th atAng io li ll o u se d ath irdpa rty, “ Lis a,” t o c on ta ct Crystal —co nduc t tha t ex pr es sl y vi ol at es th e te rm s o f th e te m po rary inju nc ti on . Fi rs t, Cry st al ’s vi ct im

st at em en t re po rte d t ha t wh ensh e returne d “ Lis a’s” p ho ne cal l, s he he ardAng io li ll o’s v oi ce s ay in g, “ W e g othe r!” Se co nd , Defen da nt s ob ta in edfro m

Cry st al a reco rd in g o f th e o pe n l in e, whi chcap tu res Ang io li ll o’s vo ic e m ak in g s ta te m en ts su gg es ti ng he in te nd edto cap tu re a m es sa ge fro m Cry st al on th e p ho ne li ne vi a th e u se of a“ Bo os t” ph on e, a fac t wh ic h was ev en tu al ly co rro bo rat edby exam in in g An gi ol il lo ’s andCry st al ’s ph on e rec or ds . Fin al ly, Ang io li ll o s ub se qu en tl y

co nt act edth e Sh eri ff’s Offi ce cl ai m in g t ha t Cry st al ha d vi ol at edhe r te m

po rary inju nc ti on by call in g h is ph on e num be r an d l eav in g a m es sa ge bu t tha t n o s uc h m es sa ge was fo un d. Insu m , we con cl ud e th ata reas on ab le off

ic er i n t he same po si ti on of t he Ass is ta ntSta te Att orne y is su in g t he cap ia s warran t fo r Ang io li ll o’s arres t “ co ul d h av e b el ie ve d t ha t p ro babl e cau se ex is te d t o a rres t Pl ai nt iff

.” Bro wn, 6 08 F.3dat 7 34 . Accor di ng ly, we affi rm th e di st ric t co urt’s g ran t o f su m m ary jud gm en t t o Def

en da nt s B at es , Cel ib ert i, an d 9Hur le y

on Ang io li ll o’s fa ls e-arres t cl ai m . B. Mal ic io us Pro se cu ti on

“ To es tabl is h afed eral m al ic io us pro se cu ti on cla im un de r § 1 98 3, a p la in ti ff m us t p ro ve (1) th e el em en ts of t he co m m on law t ort o f m al ic io us pro se cu ti on , and (2 ) a v io la ti on of h er Fo urth Am en dm en t ri gh t t o b e fre e fro m un reas on ab le se iz ur es .” Kin gs la ndv. Ci ty of Mi am i, 3 82 F.3d12 20 , 12 34 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ).

“ Und er Fl or id a la w, a pl ai nt iff m us t es tabl is h e ach of s ix ele m en ts to supp ort a cl ai m of m al ic io us pro se cu ti on : (1 ) anori gi na l ju di ci al pro ceed in g a ga in stth e pr es en t p la in ti ff was co m m en cedor c on ti nu ed ; (2 ) th e p res en t d efen da ntwas the le ga l caus e o f th e o rig in al pro ceed in g; (3) th e te rm in at io n o f th e o rig in al pr oc eed in g c on st itut eda bo nafid e te rm in at io n o f th atpro ceed in g i n favo r of th e pr es en t p la in ti ff; (4) th ere was anab se nc e o f pr ob ab le cau se forth e o rig in al pr oc eed in g; (5) th ere was m al ic e o n t he pa rt o f th e p res en t d efen da nt ; an d (6 ) th e pl ai nt iff su ffer edda m ag es as ares ul t o f th e o rig in al pro ceed in g.” Id. Be cau se we ag ree wi th th e d is tri ctco urt tha t the re was pro babl e cau se for Ang io li ll o’s arres t, he is un ab le to est ab li sh th e fo urth ele m en t o f a co m m on law cl ai m

form al ic io us pr os ecu ti on un de r Fl or id a la w. Accor di ng ly, Defen da nt s wer e en ti tl edto su m m ary jud gm en t o n An gi ol il lo ’s § 1 98 3 m al ic io us pro se cu ti on cla im . III. Att orne y ’s Fees 10A cou rt m ay awardatt orne y ’s fees un de r § 1 98 8 t o apre va il in g d efen da nt whe re the co urt fi nd s tha t “ th e p la in ti ff's act io n was fri vo lo us , un reas on ab le , or witho utfou nd at io n, ev enth ou ghno t b ro ug htinsubjec ti ve ba d fa ith.” Hug he s v . Ro we, 44 9 U.S. 5 , 14 , 10 1 S . Ct. 1 73 , 17 8 (1 98 0) (qu ot in g C hr is ti an sb ur g Garm en t Co . v. EEOC, 43 4 U.S. 4 12 , 42 1, 9 8 S . Ct. 6 94 , 70 0 (1 97 8) ). Our ci rcu it co ns id ers th e fo ll owi ng fact or s i n d et erm in in g wh ethe r a cl ai m is fri vo lo us : “ (1 ) whe th er the pl ai nt iff

est ab li sh eda pr im a fac ie cas e; (2) whet he r th e d efen dant of fere d t o s et tl e; an d (3 ) whe th er the tri al co urt d is m is se d t he cas e p rio r to tri al or he lda fu ll -b lo wn tria l o n t he m eri ts .” Su ll iv anv. Sc h. Bd . of Pi ne ll as Co un ty, 77 3 F.2 d 1 18 2, 1 18 9 (1 1t h C ir. 1 98 5) . W e rev ie w an a wardof a tt orne y ’s fees an d co st s fo r ab us e o f di sc ret io n. Gray ex rel . Alex an de r v. B os ti c, 57 0 F .3d13 21 , 13 24 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ). Abu se -o f-d is cret io n re vi ew requi res us to “ affi rm un le ss we fi ndth atth e d is tri ctco urt h as m ad e a cl ear e rro r of jud gm en t, o r ha s ap pl ie d th e wro ng leg al st an da rd .” Uni te d S ta te s v . Frazi er, 3 87 F.3d12 44 , 12 59 (11 th Ci r. 20 04 ) (enba nc ). The di stric t co urt, ad op ti ng th e Ma gi strat e Ju dg e’s rep ort an d reco m m en da ti on , m ad e th e u lt im at e d et erm in at io n t ha t An gi ol il lo ’s laws ui t was fri vo lo us an d a ward edDefen da nt s’ att orne y ’s fees . The co urt s pe ci fic al ly co nc lu de d t ha t An gi ol il lo fai le d t o e st ab li sh a pr im a fac ie cas e; Defen da nt s d idno t 11of

fer t o s et tl e; an d t he di st ric t co urt d is m is se d t he m ajor ity of An gi ol il lo ’s cla im s with p reju di ce early in t he li ti ga ti on up on th e fi li ng of v ari ou s m ot io ns to di sm is s an d An gi ol il lo ’s few rem ai ni ng cla im s wi thpre jud ic e o n s umm ary jud gm en t. Thu s, the di st ric t co urt d idno t ap pl y “ th e wro ng leg al st an dard .” Id . On ap pe al , Ang io li ll o re ne ws the same two o bjec ti on s t o t he Mag is tra te Ju dg e’s rep ort as he rai se d b efo re the di st ric t co urt. Nei th er o f th es e o bjec ti on s p ers ua de us th atth e di st ric t co urt “ m ad e a cl ear e rro r of jud gm en t.” Id . Fi rs t, An gi ol il lo arg ue s tha t the Mag is tra te Ju dg e v io la te d t he “ sa nc ti ty of th e m ed iati on pro ces s” by det erm in in g t ha t Def en da nt s d idno t o fferto set tl e be cau se lo cal rul es requi re tha t an y in fo rm at io n d eri ve d fr om a m ed ia ti on m ay

no t be m ad e kno wn t o t he Co urt. See Ru le M.D. Fla . L. R. 9.07 (b ). As the di st ric t co urt s ta te d i n i ts res po ns e to th is arg um en t b el ow, the Mag is tra te Ju dg e d idno t vi ol at e Ru le 9.0 7( b) by det erm in in g t ha t Def en da nt s d idno t o ffer

to set tl e. Ru le 9.0 7( b) pro te ct s p art ie s p art ic ip at in g i n m ed ia ti onfro m th e u se of a ny sta te m en t m ad e dur in g m ed ia ti onpro ceed in gs as a n a dm is si on ag ai ns t the ir i nt eres t. The 3 Rule 9.07(b) re ads in full: 3 Restr ictions on the Use of In form ation Derive d During th e Me diation Conf ere nce: All proce eding s of the mediation conf ere nce, inc luding state ments made by any party , attorney , or other pa rticipant, ar e privileg ed in all re spects. The proc eeding s may

not be re ported, re corde d, place d into evidence , made known to the trial cour

t or jury , or construe d for a ny purpose a s an admission ag ainst interest. A pa

rty is not bound by

any thing sa id or done at the confe renc e, unless a settlement is re ache d. 12Mag is tra te Ju dg e d idno t u se any st at em en t m ad e b y

Ang io li ll o dur in g m ed ia ti on as anadm is si on ag ai ns t h is in te res t i n v io la ti on of Rul e 9 .07 (b ). Seco nd , Ang io li ll o d is pu te s the Mag is tra te Ju dg e’s de te rm in at io n t ha t h e fai le d t o e st ab li sh a pr im a fac ie cas e b y arg ui ng th atcert ai n s ta te m en ts m ad e b y th e Ma gi st rat e Ju dg e are un supp orte d b y th e rec or d. An gi ol il lo arg ue s tha t i f th e Mag is tra te Ju dg e h adco rrec tl y st at edth e rec or d, wh ic h a ll eg ed ly dem on st rat es th athe co nt es te d the all eg at io n t ha t h e v io la te d t he tem po rary inju nc ti on by dr iv in g b y

JD J ag s an d t ha t h e am en de d h is co m pl ai nton ly onc e, as op po se d t o twi ce, upo n c on se ntof t he di stric t co urt, Defe nd an ts wou ldhave fai le d t o s at is fy Su ll iv an ’s firs t p ro ng . W e ag ree wi th th e d is tri ctco urt; th es e d is cret e fac tu al di sp ut es do no t u nd erm in e th e d is tri ctco urt’s u lt im at e d et erm in at io n t ha t Ang io li ll o fa il edto est ab li sha pr im a fac ie cas e. To the co nt rary, ourin de pe nd en t re vi ew of th e rec or d d em on strat es th atth e di st ric t co urt was co m

pl et el y warran te d i n c on cl ud in g t ha t “ Ang io li ll o [d id ] no t ev enatt em

ptto sh ou ld er h is bu rd ento est ab li shth atge nu in e is su es of f actrem ai n on hi s [m al ic io us pro se cu ti on ] cl ai m .” Inhi s re sp on se to Defen da nt s’ Mo ti on for Su m m ary Ju dg m en t, An gi ol il lo reci te s the ele m en ts fora pr im a fac ie cas e o f m al ic io us pro se cu ti on an d, i n aco nc lu so ry fas hi on , con te nd s tha t the se ele m en ts ha ve be ensat is fie d. He en ga ge s i n n o d is cu ss io n d em on st rat in g h ow the ev id en ce 13supp orts hi s s at is fact io n o f th os e el em en ts . W ith re sp ectto hi s fa ls e arr es t cl ai m ,

al th ou gh he di d p utforth so m e arg um en t i n an a tt em ptto un de rm in e th e co nc lu si on th atpro babl e cau se ex is te d fo r hi s arres t, h e d idno t p ro vi de an y ev id en ce t o t ha t ef

fect . Ang io li ll o m ay

ha ve arg ue d t ha t Def

en da nt s’ hypot he si s th at“ Lis a’s” p ho ne was a“ Bo os t” ph on e li nk edto Ang io ll io was“ un supp orte d,” bu t the reco rdde m on st rat es th e o pp os it e. Thi s h y po th es is was d eri ve d d ire ct ly fro m Cry st al ’s vi ct im

st at em en t, the au di o re co rd in g o f Ang io li ll o’s v oi ce, an d Ang io li ll o’s re po rt tha t Cry st al ha d v io la te d t he in jun ct io n b y

cal li ng hi s ce ll ph on e. Furth erm or e, th is “un supp orte d h y po th es is ” was ul ti m at el y

co nf irmed aft er An gi ol il lo ’s arres t. We hav e su st ai ne d fi nd in gs of f riv ol ity wher e a m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t h as be engra nt edinin st an ces inwhi chth e p la in ti ff d idno t in tro du ce an y

ev id en ce i n s up po rt o f hi s cl ai m . See Ro pe r v. Edward s, 8 15 F.2d 14 74 , 14 78 (11 th Cir . 19 87 ) (“ W ith t hi s t ot al ab se nc e o f cre di bl e ev id en ce t o supp ort the ir c la im s, the Ro pe rs ’ act io n was fri vo lo us , andth e co urt's awardof fees to Co ch ranwas c le arl y jus ti fie d.” ). Rathe r th anoff eri ng subs ta nt iv e ev id en ce in supp ort o f hi s cl ai m s, An gi ol il lo ’s subm is si on s t o t he di st ric t co urt ar e rep le te with e xc lam at ory

st at em en ts an d h y

pe rb ol ic accu sa ti on s, i n m an y cas es who ll y un supp orte d b y

subs ta nt iv e le ga l ar gu m en t. Mo reo ve r, th is cas e st an ds inst arkco nt ras t t o t he na rro w cir cu m st an ces in 14whi chwe ha ve rev ers edanawardof a tt orne y ’s fees to a pr ev ai li ng de fen da nt .

See, e.g ., W al ke r v. Nat io ns Ban k o f Fl or id a N.A., 53 F.3d15 48 , 15 59 (11 th Cir . 19 95 ) (h ol di ng th at“ a p la in ti ff's cla im sh ou ldno t b e co ns id eredgro un dl es s o r witho utfou nd at io n fo r th e p ur po se of a ward in g fe es to a pr ev ai li ng de fen da nt whe n the cla im s ar e m eri to rio us en ou gh to rece iv e car efu l at te nt io n a ndrev ie w”). InW al ke r, th e d is tri ctco urt o n t wo o ccas io ns de ni edth e d efen da nt s’ su m m ary jud gm en t m ot io ns an d t he cas e p ro ceed edto tri al . Here, al m os t al l o f Ang io li ll o’s cl ai m s wer e d is m is se d e arl y inth is li ti ga ti on onva rio us m ot io ns to di sm is s, an d i n it s s umm ary jud gm en t o rd er the di st ric t co urt co nc lu de d t ha t An gi ol il lo ’s arg um en ts were n oton ly unp ers ua si ve bu t al m os t n on ex is te nt . Ang io li ll o’s ca se di d n otpre se ntcla im s m eri to rio us en ou gh to rece iv e th e d is tri ctco urt’s “ care fu l at te nt io n a ndrev ie w.” Id. Insu m , we con cl ud e th atth e d is tri ctco urt d idno t cl earl y err i n fi nd in g Ang io li ll o’s cl ai m s “ fri vo lo us , un reas on ab le , or wi th ou t fo un da ti on .” Hug he s, 44 9 U.S. at14 , 10 1 S . Ct. at17 8 (quo ti ng Ch ris ti an sb ur g, 4 34 U.S. at 4 21 , 98 S. Ct . at 7 00 ). Acco rd in gl y , we up ho ldth e d is tri ctco urt’s awar d o f at to rn ey ’s fees to Defen da nt s p ur su an t t o § 19 88 . AFFIRMED. 4 Appellant’s r equest for

oral a rgument is denied. 4 15