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 A P R IL 4 , 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N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T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- 1458 5 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 3- 00 18 0- CV-J -2 5TEM JERO LD EV AN S, Pl ai nti ff -Appe llant, ve rs us GEORGIA PACIFIC , INC., De fendant-Appellee.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the Mi ddl e D istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (A pr il 4. 200 6) Be fo re CA RN E S, P RY O R and R O N E Y , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: Plaintiff Jer old Evans appeals the district court’s grant of summ ary j udgm en t t o de fe ndant G eo rg iaP ac if ic , I nc . on h is c la im

f or m al ic iou s pr ose cu tio n unde r Fl or ida

law . G eo rg iaP ac if

ic m ove s f

or appe llate a tto rn ey s’ f

ee s and expenses, to which E vans has no t responded. W e: (1) a ffirm the grant of sum

m ary2

j udgm en t t o G eo rg iaP ac if ic ; ( 2) gr an t i n part

G eo rg iaP ac if

ic ’ s “ Mot ionf

or Jus t D am ag es and C ost s, ” re que sti ng a ppe llate atto rn ey s’ f

ee s and e xpe nse s; and ( 3) re m an d to the dis tr ic t c ourt f or ade te rm inatio n of

a n a ppr opr ia te a m ount . T his c as e ste m s f

ro m aJun e 2, 200 0 po lic e re port f ile d by atr uc kin g co m pany , statin g th at

one of it s tr ai le rs loa de d w ithlog s ha d be ensto le n f ro m it s H aw tho rn e, F lor ida

plant e ar lie r that day . Af ewday s late r, P utn am

Co unty Sh er if f’ s O ff ic e D et ec tiv e Mi ch ae l S ole s w en t t o G eo rg iaP ac if ic ’ s pl an t t o inv es tig at e the c ri m e, w he re he spo ke w ithJoh n A nde rs on, aG eo rg iaP ac if ic em plo y ee . D ur ing that c onve rs at ion , a s w el l a s inaw ri tte n st at em en t, A nde rs on identified plaint iff Jer old Evans, a truck driver, as the person who had delivered the stolen lo gs on J une 2. A fter an investi gation b y De tective Soles, Evans w as ar re ste d f or gr an d th ef

t. D ur ing int er

ro gatio n, E vans d en ie d be ing pr es en t a t the plant o n June 2, w hic h c ontra dic te d othe r w itn es se s w ho h ad state d th at

E vans de liv er ed aloa d of lum be r to the plant tha t day . A s ar es ult , G eo rg iaP ac if ic posted a pictu re of E vans at its plant , r esulting in Evans not receiving any truck de liv er y a ssi gnm en ts f

ro m that l oc at ion . E vans w as f

orm al ly c harg ed by inf orm at ionw ithgr an d th ef t by the S ta te A tto rn ey ’ s O ff

ic e on Augus t 28 , 200 0. O n M ar ch21, 200 1, how ev er , the S ta te A tto rn ey ’ s of

fi ce dr oppe d th e ch ar ge s a ft er de te rm ini ng tha t E vans d id n ot c om m it3

the charged grand theft, althoug h Detec tive Soles say s that he still b elieves that E vans w as the ind ivi dua l w ho c om m itt ed the gr an d th ef

t. E vans f ile d ade fam at ionlawsui t i n F lor ida state c ourt a ga ins t G eo rg ia Pa ci fi c on D ec em

be r 31, 200 2, w hic h w as r em ove d to f ed er al c ourt ondiv er sity gr ound s. T he dis tr ic t c ourt di sm iss ed the de fam at ionlaw sui t a s ti m e- barr ed on January 16, 2004, but granted leave for E vans to am end the com plaint to include a ma l i c i o u s p r o s e c u t i o n c l a i m. On June 16, 2004, E vans filed a second am ended com plaint allegin g that G eo rg iaP ac if

ic w as vic ar iou sly

li ab le f or the a ct s of

it s e m plo y ee , Joh n A nde rs on, w ho h ad ide nti fi ed

E vans a s th e dr ive r of

the tr uc k th at ha d de liv er ed

sto le n lo gs to i ts p lant. S pe ci fi ca lly , the c om pla int a sse rt ed that the “pr ose cu tio n [ ] r es ult ing fr om D ef en dant’ s f al se a lle ga tio n a ga ins t [ him ] w as c om m en ce d and c ont inu ed

by said Def endant from

m alice towards Plaintiff and to wr ong andinjure him and that De fendant we ll knew, or should have known, that the prosecution of Plaintiff w as fal se an d g ro un dl es s, an d wi th ou t p ro babl e cau se .” M ali ci ou s P ro se cu ti on O n January

26, 200 5, the dis tr ic t c ourt gr an te d su m m ar y j udgm en t t o Ge orgia Pacif

ic on the groun d that Evans had failed to set forth a prima facie ca se for m alicious prosecuti on un der Florida law . Af ter re viewing the convol uted4

procedural history

in this Cou rt, we hold th at w e have j urisdictio n to review Ev an s ’ Au g u s t1 6 , 2 0 0 5 n o t i ce o f ap p ea l re qu es t i n g re v i ew o f t h e d i s t ri ct co u rt ’s gr an t o f su m

m ary jud gm en t, as well it s d en ia l o f th e m ot io n fo r rec on si de rat io n. See W illiams v. B olger , 633 F . 2d 4 10, 413 ( 5thCi r. 198 0) ; se e als o Fe d. R. App. P. 4(a). In order to set forth a prima facie claim for m alicious prosecuti on in Florida, the plaintiff m

ust prov e: (1) the c omm encem ent or continu ance of an original cr im ina l or

c ivi l j udi ci al pr oc ee din g; ( 2) it s le ga l c au satio n by the pr es en t de fe ndant who w as the de fe ndant i n th e or igi na l pr oc ee din g; ( 3) it s bona fi de te rm inatio n inf

av or of the pr es en t pl ai nti ff

; ( 4) the abse nc e of

pr oba ble c au se f

or suc h pr oc ee din g; ( 5) the pr es en ce of m al ic e the re in; a nd ( 6) dam ag es c onf orm ing to leg al st an da rd s re su lt in g t o p la in ti ff. Se e Jo nes v . Sta te F arm M ut. A uto . I

ns. Co
. , 578 So. 2d 78 3, 785 (Fla. 1st DCA1991 ). E vans h as f

ai le d to sho wboth th e ab se nc e of pr oba ble c au se , a s w el l a s th e pr es en ce of

m al ic e on the part

of A nde rs on o r G eo rg iaP ac if ic . I n f ac t, E vans testified that he was unaw are of any rea son why

Anderson would falsely

identify him to D et ec tiv e So le s and g av e no r ea son fo r ly ing to D et ec tiv e So le s a bout be ing present on Jun e 2, 2000 at the G eorgia Pac ific plant, despite other w itnesses co rro bo rat in g t ha t h e in de edha d b een th ere t o d ro p o ff a s hi pm en t o f lo gs .5

In ste ad , A nde rs on r es pond ed to aninquir

y m ad e by D et ec tiv e So le s a

bout a sto le n tr uc k c ont ai nin g lo gs. A nde rs on s ta te d th at he ha d be lie ve d E vans w as the indiv idual who had delivered logs to the plant on June 2. D etective Soles subs equently

investig ated the claim , identify ing ot her w itnesses to corrobo rate that Ev an s h ad i n d ee db ee n at th e p l an to n J u n e 2 . Th i s s up p o rt ed th e d et ec t i v e’s be lie f that E vans h ad

be enuntru thf

ul a bout his w he re ab out s th at

day . A lth ough the S ta te A tto rn ey ’ s O ff

ic e ult im at el y

dr oppe d th e ch ar ge s a

ppr oxi m at el y

six
m onth s later, Evans has presented no evidence to raise a genuin e issue of m aterial fa ct that the re w as ala ck

of pr oba ble c au se to ini tia lly

m ove f or w ar d w iththi s c as e or that Anderson m aliciouslyset forth to falsely accuse him

of the charged of fen se . See B urger v. Tim e Ins. Co., Inc. , 162 F. 3d 11 11, 1112-13 (11th Cir. 1998 ) (a ff irm ing gr an tin g of

sum m ar y j udgm en t onF lor ida

m al ic iou s pr ose cu tio n claim for f ailure to set forth a prima facie ca se , not ing am al ic iou s pr ose cu tio n claim does not li e “ if the defendant m erely gives a statem ent to the proper au tho ri tie s, le av ing the de ci sio n to pr ose cu te e nti re ly to the unc ontro lle d di sc re tio n of the office r”). At torneys’ F ees and C osts in the Distr ict C ourt O n F eb ru ar

y 10, G eo rg iaP ac if

ic f ile d aBi ll of

Co sts f or $2, 517. 05 and a Mot ionf or A tto rn ey ’ s F ee s and R el at ed N on- T ax ab le E xpe nse s, pur suant t o6

Florida Statute § 768.79, in the am ount of $65,426.98. O n July26, the district court grantedin part G eo rg iaP ac if ic ’ s m oti on f

or a tto rn ey s’ f

ee s and e xpe nse s, aw ar din g G eo rg iaP ac if

ic $23 , 324. 94. T he dis tr ic t c ourt he ld tha t “ thi s c as e did not inv olv e ei the r a cl ose c al l r eg ar din g an in te rp re ta tio n of the lawor

f ac ts” but

“ that the num

ber of hours expended bythe legal professionals in th is case . . . w as ex ces si ve .” A lth oughE vans f

ai ls t o r ai se a ny

a rg um en t i n hi s in iti al br ie f as to the co rr ec tne ss o f the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s aw ar d of a tto rn ey s’ f

ee s and c ost s, w hic h w oul d
w ai ve the iss ue in thi s C ourt, se e A cc es s N ow , I nc . v . Sou thw es t A irl ines C o. , 385 F. 3d 1 324, 133 0 ( 11th C ir . 200 4) , w e not e that e ve n if the iss ue w as pr ope rl y ra ise d to thi s C ourt i t w oul d no ne the le ss b e due to be a ff irm ed . E vans d id n ot objec t to Georgia P acific’ s m otion for attorney s’ fee s and expenses in the district co urt, and the re is no r ec or d e vid en ce the dis tr ic t c ourt a buse d it s di sc re tio n in
m ak ing that aw ar d.

A pp el le e’ s P en di ng “M ot ion f or Ju stD am age s an d C ost s” A s to G eo rg iaP ac if

ic ’ s pe ndi ng “ Mot ionf

or Jus t D am ag es a nd C ost s” – t o which E vans has offered no response – we f irst note that the dis trict court suc ci nc tly

c hara ct er iz ed

thi s c as e as not a “ cl ose c al l r eg ar din g an in te rp re ta tio n of the lawor

f ac ts” in its or de r gr an tin g a tto rn ey s’ f ee s and e xpe nse s to G eo rg ia7

Pa ci fi c. I t l ike w ise is not ac los e ca ll he re on a

ppe al a nd i s f

ri vol ous . Se e A lls tat e In s. Co
. v . I

nt’ l Sh ipp ing

Co rp. , 703 F. 2d 49 7, 499 (11th Cir. 1983) (citing Fed. R . App. P. 38). W e the re fo re gr an t i n part G eo rg iaP ac if

ic ’ s m oti on f

or appe llate a tto rn ey s’ fe es a nd e xpe nse s. W e expr es s no opi nio n a s to the r ea sona ble ne ss o f the $20 , 561 in a ppe llate a tto rn ey s’ f

ee s and $ 384. 93 e xpe nse s r eque ste d by G eo rg iaP ac if

ic but in st eadlea ve itforth e d is tri ctco ur t’s d et erm in at io n o n re m an d. W e AFFIRM the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s gr an t of sum m ar y j udgm en t t o G eo rg ia Pa ci fi c a n dth e a wa rd o f a t t o rn eys ’ fe es an dco s t s i n th e d i s tri ct co u rt . We GRANT I N PART Appe lle e’ s N ove m be r 3, 200 5 “ Mot ionf

or Jus t C au se a nd D am ag es ” an d REMAND w ithins tr uc tio ns t o de te rm ine a n a ppr opr ia te a w ar d of ap pe ll at e at to rn ey s’ fees an d e xp en se s. REM AN DED to the dis tr ic t c ourt f or pr oc ee din gs c onsi ste nt w iththi s op ini on.