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 MAY 31, 2005 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO N OT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 04- 1210 9

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 1- 00 24 8- CV-KAM SHIP CONSTRUC TION AND FUND ING SERVICES (U.S.A.), INC., d.b .a. Co lb ert Grou p, JAC Q. PIEROT, JR. & SONS, INC ., Pl ai nt iff s- App el la nt s, ve rs us STAR CRUIS ES, PLC, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll ee.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 04- 1297 0

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 1- 00 24 8- CV-KAM SHIP CONSTRUC TION AND FUND ING SERVICES (U.S.A.), INC., d.b .a. Co lb ert Grou p,2

JAC Q PIEROT, JR. & SONS, INC., Pl ai nti ff s- Appe lle es , ve rs us STAR CRUIS ES PLC, D ef en da nt- Appe llant.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeals fr om

the United State s District Court fo r the S outhe rnD istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (M ay 31, 200 5) Be fo re D U BIN A , P RY O R and R O N E Y , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: Sh ip Co ns tru ct io n a nd Fu nd in g S erv ic es , USA, Inc., an d J acq . Pie ro t J r. & So ns, I nc . ( Sh ip C onstru ct ion ) ap pe al the gr an t of sum m ar y j udgm en t i n f

av or of Star C ruises PL C. Ship Constructio n contends that genuin e issues of m aterial f act ex ist ed r eg ar din g w he the r Sh ip C onstru ct ionw as apr oc ur ing c au se of the j oin t venture betwee n Star and Carnival Cruise L ines and whether Star intended to pay fo r the se rv ic es of

S hip Co nstru ct ion . I n ac onso lid at ed appe al , S tar ap pe al s th e3

denial of its m otion for attorney ’ s fees under Fla . S tat. sec tion 5 7.105. Star contends that the district court abused its discretion when it ref used to award attorney ’ s fees to Star . W e af firm both well-rea soned decisio ns of the district co urt. I. BACKG ROUND Sh ip C onstru ct ionbr ough t this a ct iona ga ins t S tar an d so ught c om pe nsa tio n for Ship Construction’s alleged role in consum m ating a j oint v enture betwe en Star an d C ar niv al to ac qui re j oin tly

N or w eg ian C ru ise L ine s ( N CL ). S hip Co nstru ct ion alleged that it conferre d a benefit on Star by rec omm ending the NC L j oint v enture and fostering an environ m ent in which Star and Carnival we re a ble to form

that j oint v enture, which w as ultim ately abandoned. Ship Construction also alleged tha t the j oin t ve ntu re low er ed the sto ck pr ic e of N CL by r em ovi ng C ar

niv al f ro m th e co m pe ti ti on , and th e lo wer s to ckpri ce s av edSta r m il li on s o f do ll ars . The district court granted summ ary j udgm ent to Star and found that there

“ [w as] not m ore than a scintilla of evidence that Plaintiffs’ eff orts brough t Star and [Car nival] together for a j oint v enture w orth over $1 bil lion.” T he district co urt de nie d S hip Co nstru ct ion ’ s m oti on t o r ec onsi de r an d he ld tha t the que sti on wa s whether S hip Cons truction conferred a benefit on Star, not sim ply whether St ar r ea liz ed abe ne fi t. S tar the n m ove d f or a tto rn ey ’ s f

ee s un de r Fl a. S ta t. se ct ion4

57. 105, but

the dis tr ic t c ourt de nie d th at m oti on. S hip Co nstru ct ionappe al ed the sum m ar y j udgm en t r

uli ng o f the dis tr ic t c ourt, a nd S tar ap pe al ed the de nia l of

it s m ot io n fo r at to rn ey ’s fees . II. ST AN DA RD OF RE VIEW W e re vie w de nov o agr an t of sum m ar y j udgm en t and v ie w the e vid en ce a nd all inference s in the ligh t m ost favorable to the party oppo sing th e m otion . Shaw v. Co nn. G en . L if

e In s. Co . , 353 F . 3d 1 276, 128 2 ( 11th C ir . 200 3) . W e re vie w f or ab use of dis cr et ionthe de ci sio n to a w ar d or de ny a tto rn ey ’ s f

ee s un de r Fl or ida la w. McMa ho n v . Tot o, 2 56 F.3d 11 20 , 11 29 (11 th Cir . 20 01 ). III. D ISCU SSION Ship Constructio n argues that the district court failed to recognize that ge nui ne iss ue s of

m at er ia l f

ac t e xis te d r eg ar din g w he the r St ar int en de d to pay

f or the se rv ic es of

S hip Co nstru ct iona nd w he the r Sh ip C onstru ct ionw as apr oc ur ing cause of the j oint v enture betwe en Star and Carnival to acquire j ointl y NC L. Star co nte nds tha t the dis tr ic t c ourt a buse d it s di sc re tio n w he n it de nie d S tar’ s m oti on fo r at to rn ey ’s fees . W e ad dr es s ea ch of t he se co nt en ti on s i n t ur n.

A . Shi p C onst ruc tio n F ail ed to P rov e a Co ntr ac t I

m pli ed -i n- F ac t w ith Sta r Ship Constructio n alleged in its “ quantu m m eruit” claim

that a contract5

im pli ed -i n- fa ct

e xis te d w ithS tar. U nde r Fl or ida law , ac ontra ct

im pli ed -i n- fa ct

“ is one f orm of a n e nf or ce ab le c ontra ct ; i t i s ba se d onata ci t pr om ise , one that i s inferre d in whole or in part from the parties’ conduct, not solelyfrom their w ords.” Com m erce P’ ship v . E quityContracting Co., Inc. , 695 So. 2d 38 3, 385-86 (Fla. D ist . Ct . App. 199 7) ( enbanc ) (c itatio ns and quot at ionm ar ks o m itt ed ). T o pr ev ai l on a c ontra ct im pli ed -i n- fa ct

the or y , S hip Co nstru ct ionw as r equir ed to pr es en t ev ide nc e tha t S tar ei the r re que ste d br oke ra ge se rv ic es f ro m S hip Co nstru ct ion re ga rd ing the j oin t ve ntu re or that S tar kne w that se rv ic es w er e be ing r en de re d and bo th si de s i nt en de d fo r co m pe ns at io n t o b e p ai d. Se e id . Ship Constructio n failed to establish eith er that it re ndered services or that St ar r eque ste d or

a gr ee d to a cc ep t br oke ra ge se rv ic es pe rt ai nin g to the N CL j oin t venture. S hip Cons truction asserts that Colin Au F uk-y u (Au), a principal of Star , told th e brokers that if they “ we re to present viable ideas for a business allian ce with [Carnival] , S tar w ould have no problem pay ing for them .” A car eful review of the r ec or d sh ow s th at

thi s st at em en t r ef

er re d on ly to the Jun e 1998 a gr ee m en t betwee n Ship Const ruction and Star in which Ship Construction agreed to secure a ch art er fo r th e Supe rs ta r Virg o, a c ru is e sh ip th en be in g b ui lt forSta r. The 1998 agreem ent did no t authorize or request Ship Construction to seek a busi ne ss arr an ge m en t be tw ee n S tar an d C ar niv al oth er

than th e sa le or

c ha rt er of6

the V ir go o r an oth er

S tar ve sse l. A lth oughA u st at ed that he w oul d have no pr obl em pay ing S hip Co nstru ct ionif it c am e up w ith“ oth er

sim ilar ide as f

ro m Carnival, ” he also stated that “ to expect a blanket agreem ent for anything betwee n the two com

panies was bey ond h im

. . . .” A u’ s statem ent establishes m erely that St ar w as w ill ing to pa y

f or se rv ic es r en de re d inc onne ct ionw ithpla ci ng the V ir go or a nothe r ve sse l w ithCarn iva l, not that S tar w an te d S hip Co nstru ct ionto ar range a j oin t ve ntu re be tw ee n it se lf a nd C ar niv al . B ec au se ac ontra ct im pli ed -i n- fa ct

is a le ga l c ontra ct

ba se d ona n un spok ena gr ee m en t, id. a t 38 5, a nd S hip Co nstru ct ion presented no evidence from which a r easonable j ury

could find th at an unspo ken agreem ent existed between the parties to provide brokerage services f or the NC L j oin t ve ntu re , the dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t e rr w he n it gr an te d su m

m ar y j udgm en t t o St ar on this c ount . B. Ship Cons truction Failed to Prove

Th at i t C onf erre d a B en ef

it on Star Sh ip C onstru ct iona sse rt ed in its “ unj ust

e nr ic hm en t” c la im

that the j oin t v en tu re t o ac qu i re NC L n ev erwo u l dh av e h ap p en ed wi t h o u tSh i p Co n s t ru ct i o n ’s assistance, and the joint venture enabled Star to “ reap the benef it of a m ult i- m ill iondol lar ac qui sit ionc ost sa vin gs. ” T o pr ev ai l un de r a the or y of unj ust en ri ch m en t, or

c ontra ct im pli ed -i n- law , S hip Co nstru ct ionha d to pr ove that ( 1)7

Sh ip C onstru ct ionc onf

er re d abe ne fi t onS tar; ( 2) S tar ha d kn ow le dge of the be ne fi t; (3 ) St ar

a cc ep te d or

r et ai ne d th e be ne fi t c onf er re d; and ( 4) the ci rc um stanc es a re suc h th at it w oul d be ine qui ta

ble f or S tar to r et ai n th e be ne fi t without pay ing fair value for it. See id. at 386. Although Florida lawallows for a br oke r to r ec ove r unde r a the or y of unj ust e nr ic hm en t i f the br oke r w as the procuring factor in a transaction, Media Ser vs. G roup, Inc. v. Bay

Cities Co m m uni ca tio ns, I nc . , 237 F . 3d 1 326, 132 9 ( 11th C ir . 200 1) , S hip Co nstru ct ion fai le d t o e st ab li sh th atit was t he pro cu rin g c au se of t he NCL join t v en tu re. Sh ip C onstru ct ionr el ie s he av ily upo n ac om

m uni ca tio n af

ewm onths be fo re the j oin t ve ntu re . I n D ec em be r 1999 , Ch ri s O hls on o f H SB C S hip br oke rs , a non- pa rty , se nt a

w ri tte n m es sa ge to Co linA u and s ta te d th at “ Carn iva l w oul d be interested in discus sing with y ou an idea for both Star and [Carnival] to enter an agreem ent with N CL .” T hat m essage also included th e phone num ber for How ard Frank, then-Chief O perating Off icer of Carnival. It is fr om those two facts that Sh ip C onstru ct ionw oul d have us i nf er that ( 1) S hip Co nstru ct iona ct ua lly re co m m en de d th at

S tar an d C ar

niv al j oin tly

a cquir e N CL , a nd ( 2) S hip Construction wa s the procuring cause of the NC L j oint v enture. T he inf er en ce s r eg ar din g th at

c om m uni ca tio n th at

S hip Co nstru ct ionw oul d ha ve us draw a re unr ea sona ble . W e ar e not

c onvi nc ed

that the m es sa ge f

ro m8

Ohlson to Au recom

m ended that Star and Car nival form

a j oint v enture to acquire N CL . O hls on s ta te d th at Carn iva l w as int er es te d ina n un spe ci fi ed a gr ee m en t w ith N CL , but O hls on d id n ot m en tio n aj oin t ve ntu re to ac qui re N CL . E ve n if S hip Construction suggest ed a j oint v enture, we conclude that a vague sugg estion byan int er m ed iary r eg ar din g aj oin t ve ntu re w as ins uf fi ci en t a s am at te r of

law to show tha t S hip Co nstru ct ionw as the pr oc ur ing c au se of the j oin t ve ntu re . C f. E ar ne st & St ew ar t, I nc . v. Co din a, 732 S o. 2d 3 64, 365 -6 6 ( Fl a. D ist . Ct . App. 199 9) . S hip Co nstru ct ionc an not

r ea sona bly c ont en d th at

S tar, w hic h is asop his tic at ed e nti ty in the cruise ship in dustry , ow es Ship Constructio n m illion s of dollars, under a the or y of unj ust e nr ic hm en t, be ca

use H SB C, w hic h a lle ge dly w as w orkin g w ith Sh ip C onstru ct ion , c om

m uni ca te d to S tar one a m

big uous state m en t a

bout Carn iva l’ s in te re st i n an a gr ee m en t and p ro vid ed A u w ithF rank’ s te le phon e num be r. B ec au se S hip Co nstru ct ionf ai le d to pr ove that i t c onf er re d abe ne fi t on St ar , the dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t e rr w he n it gr an te d su m

m ar y j udgm en t t o S tar on th is co un t. Cf. Co m

m erce P’shi p, 6 95 So . 2dat 3 86 . C. T he D istric t C

ourt D id N ot A buse it

s D isc re tio n W

he n it De nied Sta r’s Motion for Attorn ey’s F ees St ar c ont en ds tha t the dis tr ic t c ourt a buse d it s di sc re tio n w he n it r ef use d to aw ar d a tto rn ey ’ s f

ee s to S tar. F lor ida

law r equir es that a

c ourt “ sha ll aw ar d a9

re as ona ble a tto rn ey ’ s f

ee to be pa id t o th e pr ev ai lin g party [ in] ac ivi l pr oc ee din g or a ct ionin w hic h th e co ur t f ind s th at [ a cl ai m pr es en te d by

the los ing party

w as ] not su pported bythe m aterial f acts necessar

y to establish the claim

. . . .” Fla. Stat § 57 . 105. F lor ida

c ourts h av e int er

pr et ed thi s st at ute to re qui re that a

c la im be fr ivo lou s be fo re a tto rn ey ’ s f ee s m ay be a w ar de d. W en dy ’ s of N . E . F la . , I nc . v. Vandergriff, 865 So. 2d 520 , 523 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003 ). Ship Constructio n’ s com

plaint failed, but it was not frivolous. A fter ex te nsi ve dis co ve ry , S hip Co nstru ct ionpr es en te d so m e ev ide nc e tha t i t w orke d on be ha lf of S tar, a lth oughnot

e noug h e vid en ce to pr ove the e xis te nc e of age nui ne iss ue of m at er ia l f

ac t. T he dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t a buse it s di sc re tio n w he n it refu se d t o a wardatt or ne y ’s fees to Sta r. IV. C ONC LUS ION Sh ip C onstru ct ionf

ai le d to sho w that S tar ag re ed that S hip Co nstru ct ion w oul d pr ovi de br oke ra ge se rv ic es f or the j oin t ve ntu re w ithN CL , a nd S hip Co ns tru ct io n fa il edto sh ow t ha t i t was th e p ro cu rin g c au se of t he joi nt ve nt ur e. The district court also did not abu se its discretion when it refused to aw ard attorney ’ s fees to Star . Both judgm ents of the district court are AFFIRMED.