F ILED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS EL EV EN TH C IRC UIT February 17 , 2 006 T HOMA S K. KA HN CLERK COR REC TED [DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HEEL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

N o. 04- 1620 3 D. C. Docket N o. 01-03130 CV -D MM RDP ROYAL PALM HOTEL, L.P., a Fl or ida li mite d part ne rs hip , bya nd through its general partner, PA DC Hospitality Corporation I, Pl ai nti ff -C ount er -D ef

en da ntA ppe lla nt Cross-Appellee, ve rs us CLARK CONSTRUCTION GROUP, INC., a fo re ign c orpor at ion , D ef en da nt- Co unt er -D ef

en da ntCo unt er -C la im an t- T hir d- Party Plaintiff-A ppellee Cr oss -A ppe lla nt, ve rs us ARQUITECTONICA INTERNATIONAL CORPOR ATION, COR NE RST ON E E NG IN EE RIN G P ART NE RSH IP, f.k.a . Riv a Kle in & Timm on s, In c., T hir d- Party D ef en da nts -2 Co unt er -C la im an tsA ppe lle es , MCHUGH CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION, T hir d- Party D ef

en da ntThird-P artyPlaintiffAppellee.

_____________ N o. 05- 1171 3

_____________ D.C. Dock etNo. 0 1- 03 13 0 C V-TEB RDP ROYAL PALM HOTEL, L.P., a Fl or ida li mite d part ne rs hip , bya nd thr ough its ge ne ra l part ne r, P A D C H ospi ta lity Corporation I, Pl ai nti ff -C ount er -D ef

en da ntAppellee, ve rs us CLARK CONSTRUCTION GROUP, INC., a fo re ign c orpor at ion , D ef en da nt- Co unt er -D ef

en da ntC o u n t e r - C l a i man t - Th i r d P ar t yPl ai nti ff -A ppe lla nt, ve rs us ARQUITECTONICA INTERNATIONAL CORPOR ATION,3

COR NE RST ON E E NG IN EE RIN G P ART NE RSH IP, f.k.a . Riv a Kle in & Timm on s, In c., T hir d- Party -D ef en da nts Co unt er -C la im an tsA ppe lle es , MCHUGH CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION, T hir d- Party D ef en da ntThird-P artyPlaintiffAppellee. Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the S outhe rn D istri ct

of F lorida (F eb ru ar y 17 , 200 6) Before DU BIN A a nd KRA VI TC H, Circuit Judges, and ST ROM *, D istrict Judg e. PE R CU RIA M: RD P Ro y al P al m

H ote l, L . P. , ( “ RD P” ) ap pe al s a n a dve rs e j udgmen t i n f av or of Cl ark C onstru ction G ro up, I nc . ( “ Cl ark” ) on R D P’ s su it fo r br ea ch of the construction contract betw een the parties. RD P seeks re versal of the district court’ s judgm ent deny ing its claim s against Clark and granting th e claim s asserted byCl ark in it s c ount er cl ai m . R D P al so appe al s th e dis tr ic t c ourt’ s or de r aw ar din g

_________________ *Honora ble Ly le E. Strom, United States District J udg e for the District of Nebraska , sitti ng by desig nation.Although the se appe als havenot been f ormally consolidated, for

g ood cause shown, we sua 1 sp on te c on so lid ate the m. 4 Cl ark da m ag es , a tto rn ey ’ s f ee s, c ost s, a nd l iti ga tio n e xpe nse s. C lark c ro ss- ap pe al s the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s j udgmen t de ny ing it s c la im f or e xte nde d ge ne ra l c ondi tio ns co sts . I n a ddi tio n, Cl ark appe al s th e dis tr ic t c ourt’ s or de r de ny ing it s m oti on seeking m odification of the awar d of prej udgm ent interest. A fter c aref ul review 1 of th e rec or d, re ad in g t he pa rti es ’ br ie fs , and aft er h eari ng ora l ar gu m en t, we af fi rm a nd r em an d th e dis tr ic t c ourt’ s j udgmen t. I. BACKG ROUND T he se c as es ari se f

ro m am ult i- mill ion dol lar co ntr ac t di sput e ove r the co ns tru ct io n o f th e Ro y al Pal m s C ro wne Pla za Re so rt ( “ Res or t” ) on Mi ami Be ach . In Ma y 199 8, RD P, the de ve lop er a nd h ote l ow ne r, e nte re d in to a c ontra ct w ith Clark, the general contrac tor, f or the construction of the Resort. A rquitectonica In t er n at i o n al , I n c. (“ARQ ”) , t h e l ea d ar ch i t ec t , wa s d es i g n at ed as RD P’s au tho ri ze d a ge nt i n th e co ntr ac t a nd w as r eq uir edto pr ep ar e de sig n de ve lop m en t and constructio n docum ents. A ccording to th e contract, Clark a greed to construct the Re sort f

or a n a m ount

not to ex ce edaG uara nte edMa xim um P ri ce ( “ G MP ”) of ap pr oxi m at el y $30 . 4 mill ion . T he de ad lin e fo r subs ta nti al c om ple tio n of the Re sort w as 518 da y s f

ro m the da te of

c omm en ce m en t. R D P w as pe rm itt edto re qui re a ddi tio na l w ork f ro m Cl ark w ith in the ge ne ra l sc ope of the c ontra ct

by5

iss uin g ac ha nge or de r or c onstru ct ion c ha nge dir ec tiv e. U nde r the c ontra ct , the G MPa nd s ubst an tia l c om ple tio n de ad lin e w er e to b e ad j ust eda cc or din glyin lig ht of c ha nge or de rs a nd c onstru ct ion c ha nge dir ec tiv es . A ddi tio na lly , in the e ve nt that Clark fa iled to com

plete its work on or before the substantial com pletion date, RDP h ad a ri gh t t o re co ve r li qu id at ed da m ag es . O n S ep te m

be r 28, 199 8, RD P iss ue d af or m al not ic e to p ro ce edto Cl ark, establishi ng the date for substanti al com pletion as February28, 2000. Clark comm enced w ork but faced m any setbacks during the construction . For exam ple, Clark discovered a buried sea w all and contaminated soil which delay ed ex ca va tio n a nd s he et

pil ing ope ratio ns; RD P de te rm ine d th at the e xis tin g ho te l, which w as scheduled to be renovated, wa s too deteriorated for re novatio n and had to b e de m oli she d a nd r ec onstru ct edin its e nti re ty ; a nd d ile mm as de ve lop edf ro m the c onstru ct ion dr aw ing s. C onse que ntl y , hun dr ed s of c ha nge or de rs a nd co nstru ct ion c ha nge dir ec tiv es w er e iss ue d byRD P an d A RQ , r eq uiring Cl ark a nd its sub co ntr ac tor s to pe rf or m a ddi tio na l a nd d if

fe re nt w ork f

ro m that sh ow n on the co nt ractco ns tru ct io n d oc um en ts . Fa ce d w ith the c onstru ct ion c ha nge s, Cl ar k r eq ue ste d nu m er ous ex te nsi ons of the sub sta nti al c om

ple tio n de ad lin e an d in cr ea se s to the G MP . R D P re pe at ed ly assured Clark that the substanti al com pletion deadline would be extended ap pr opria te ly . D es pit e the se a ssu ra nc es , RD P an d C lark ne ve r re sol ve d th e6

extension requests, incre ased the GMPnor established a new substantial co m pl et io n d ead li ne . E ve ntu al ly , the sub sta nti al c om ple tio n de ad lin e of

F eb ru ary 28, 200 0, passed and cons truction conti nued. RD P and A RQ unin terruptedly issued hund reds of change orders a nd const ruction change directives. I n turn, Clark co nti nue d to c onstru ct

the Re sort i n a cc or da nc e w ith tho se m odi fi catio ns, a nd RD P ac ce pte d C lark ’ s c ont inu edpe rf or m an ce . H ow ev er , the c onst an t co nstru ct ion m odi fi catio ns d isrupt edCl ark’ s c onstru ct ion sc he dul e, r es ult ing in co or din at ion pr obl em s w ith vari ous subc ontra ct or s, f urthe r de la y s to c onstru ct ion , an d in cr ea se d c onstru ct ion c ost s. C onse que ntl y , on M ar ch 1, 200 2, Cl ark f ile d a m ec ha nic ’ s li en in the a m ount of $8 m ill ion f or w ork pe rf

or m edbyf

our subc ontra ct or s. O n M ar c h 1 2 , 2 0 0 2 , R D P r e c e i v e d at e mp o r ar y c e r t i f i c a t e o f o c c u p a n c y, al lo win g R DP to st aff a nd oc cu py the Res or t i n p rep arat io n fo r th e o pe ni ng . Ar ound this tim e, Clark c eased its work on the Resort because RDPdisconti nued pay ing Clark for w ork com pleted in the change orders. I n turn, RD P hired another co ntr ac tor

to co m ple te the Re sort a nd u lti m at el y ope ne d th e Re sort f or bus ine ss o n Ma y 15, 200 2. In July 2001 , R DPsued Clark for bre ach of contrac t, intentional misr ep re se ntatio n/f

raud i n th e ind uc emen t, ne gli ge nt m isr ep re se ntatio n, vio la tio nTh e pa rtie s c onsen te d to thejurisd ic tio n o f theUn ite d St ate s Ma g ist rate Judg e fo r all 2 purposes including trial and e ntry of final judg ment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). Prior to trial, the district court dismissed most of RDP’s claims; onlythe bre ach of contra ct 3 and fr audulent lien cl ai ms survived. On appe al, RDP does not challeng e the district court’s dismiss al of those c laims, and there fore , it has abandone d any arg ument on those claims. See, e .g., Gree nbriar, Ltd. v. City of Alabaster , 881 F.2d 1570, 1573 n.6 ( 11th Cir. 1989). 7 of the F lorida

D ec ep tiv e an d U nf

ai r T ra de P ra ct ic es A ct , f raudul en t a nd w ro ngf

ul lie n, a nd t ortio us i nte rf

er en ce w ith ac ontra ct . R D P as se rt edthat C lark c au se d th e tw o y ear de la y in the Re sort’ s c om ple tio n date . C lark

f ile d ac ount er cl ai m

a ga ins t RDP fo r frau du le ntin du cem en t, quan tumm er uit a nd b re ac h of

c ontra ct , a lle gin g that R D P cause d th e de la y bypr ovi din g in co m ple te a nd e rr one ous co nstru ct ion dr aw ing s a nd s ubmitt ing numer ous de sig n c ha nge s. C lark a lso f ile d athi rd -p arty com plaint presentin g pass-throug h claim s of three subcontractors for dam ages cause d byRD P’ s br ea ch of c ontra ct a nd c onstru ct ion de la y s. I n a nothe r thi rd

party com

plaint, Clark sued A RQ and Cornerstone Engineering (“ Cornerstone”), A RQ ’ s stru ctur al e ngi ne ering c onsu lta nt, f or ne gli ge nc e, ind em

nit y a nd co nt rib ut io n. Following a bench trial, the district court entered detailed f indin gs of fact 2 and conclusi ons of law deny ing all of RDP ’ s claim s against Clark. T he district 3 co urt f oundthat R D P fa ile d to e stabli sh a br ea chof

the c ontra ct

ba se d on unt imel y pe rf or m an ce be cause it

w ai ve d th e Fe bruary28, 200 0, sub sta nti al c om ple tio n date bya cc ep tin g C lark ’ s c ont inu edpe rf or m an ce . T he dis tr ic t c ourt a lso f oundthat, inRDP appeale d, and Clark c ross-appe aled, the final judg ment. This court dismissed that 4 appeal because the final judgment wa s not a final appe alable order. 8 the abse nc e of

ac ontra ctua l c om

ple tio n date , RD P w as not e nti tle d to r ec ove r an y dam ages, liquidated or otherwise, from Clark a nd failed to prove that Clark’ s lien wa s fraudulent. I n relation to Clark’ s counterclaim , the district court found that Cl ark w ai ve d a nybr ea ch of the c ontra ct

r es ult ing f

ro m the c onstru ct ion dr aw ing s, but was entitled to fair and re asonable pay m ent for the construction work co m ple te d. T he dis tr ic t c ourt a w ar de d C lark the c ontra ct

ba la nc e, da m ag es f

or the pe ndi ng c ha nge or de rs , a ddi tio na l ge ne ra l c ondi tio ns c ost s, a nd a 3. 75% m ark- up on those c ost s. N otw ith sta ndi ng the se a w ar ds, the c ourt de nie d C lark ’ s r eq ue sts fo r ex te nd ed ge ne ral co nd it io ns co st s an d e xt en de d h om e o ffi ce o ve rh ead . Mor eo ve r, the dis tr ic t c ourt f oundthat C lark

w as e nti tle d to r ea sonable subcon tractor c osts for its pass-th rough claim s against RDP. Further, the district co ur t d is mis se d C la rk ’s th ird -p art y cla im s ag ai ns t ARQ an d C or ne rs to ne . O n A ugus t 4, 200 4, the dis tr ic t c ourt e nte re d af ina l j udgmen t de ny ing RDP ’ s claim s against Clark in their entirety , deny ing Clark’ s claim s against ARQ an d C or ne rs ton e in the ir

e nti re ty , gr an tin g C lark ’ s c la im s a ga ins t R D P in the amount of $5. 5 mill ion , a nd g ra nti ng C lark ’ s pa ss- thr ough c la im s a ga ins t R D P in the a m ount

of $5. 9 mill ion . H av ing r es er ve d j ur isd ic tio n f or the pur pose of 4 aw ar din g in te re st, a tto rn ey ’ s f ee s, a nd e xpe nse s, the dis tr ic t c ourt su bse que ntl y9

entered an order

on Novem

ber 4, 2004 , a warding Clark and its sub contractors over $2 .4 mil li on in att or ne y ’s fees an d $ 1.5 mil li on in co st s an d e xp en se s. On N ove m be r 17, 200 4, the dis tr ic t c ourt i ssu edasup ple m en ta l j udgmen t a w ar din g Cl arka to ta l ju dg m en t o f ap pr ox im at el y $1 6.7 mil li on wit h p os tju dg m en t i nt eres t. In case num

ber 04-16203 , R DPand Clark pursue their re spective appeal an d c ro ss- ap pe al of

the sup ple m en ta l j udgmen t. C lark m ove d f or r el ie f fr om

the supp le m en ta l j udgmen t un de r Fe d. R. Ci v. P . 60( b) , se eking m odi fi catio n of the pr ej udgmen t i nte re st a w ar d. T he dis tr ic t c ourt de nie d C lark ’ s R ule 60( b) m oti on, an d, in ca se num

be r 05- 1171 3, Cl ark appe al s th at de nia l. II. D ISCU SSION RDP ch al le ng es th e d is tri ctco ur t’s fi nd in gs of f actan d c on cl us io ns of l aw, co nte ndi ng tha t the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr edin fi ndi ng tha t ( 1) RD P w ai ve d it s righ t t o liq uid at edda m ag es ; ( 2) RD P w as li ab le to Cl ark on the pa ss- thr ough c la im s; a nd, (3 ) Cl arkwas e nt it le d t o re co ve r fro m RDP an ex ces si ve am ou ntof d am ag es . RD P al so c ha lle nge s th e dis tr ic t c ourt’ s or de r on atto rn ey ’ s f ee s, c ost s, a nd lit igatio n e xpe nse s. O n c ro ss- ap pe al , Cl ark c ha lle nge s th e dis tr ic t c ourt’ s f ind ing s of f ac t a nd c onc lus ion s of

la w , arg uin g th at

the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr one ousl y f ai le d to aw ard dam ages for e xtended general conditi ons cost s. I n the second appeal, Clark ch al le nge s th e dis tr ic t c ourt’ s or de r de ny ing it s R ule 60( b) m oti on t o m odi fythe pr ej udgmen t i nte re st a w ar d. W e ad dr es s th es e iss ue s in turn.10

A. Liability and D am ages RD P ar gue s th at

the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr one ousl y f oundthat R D P w ai ve d it s cl ai m f or li qui da te d da m ag es a nd a sse rt s th at Cl ark sh oul d be he ld l iable f or the delay s caused by its sub contractors. RD P also argues that the district court err ed in a w ar din g C lark

a nd i ts s ubc ontra ct or s e xc es siv e amount s of da m ag es byf

ai lin g to apportio n r es pons ibi lity f or the tot al de la y . R D P fu rthe r ar gue s th at , in ca lc ulatin g da m ag es , the dis tr ic t c ourt f ai le d to appl y the c ontra ct ’ s pr ovi sio n al low ing Cl ark to r ec ove r de la y -r el at edda m ag es f or r ea sonable sub co ntr ac tor co sts a ttribu table to RD P m or e tha n th irtyda y s a ft er the c ontra ctua l date f

or subs ta nti al c om

ple tio n. F ina lly , RD P ar gue s th at the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s f

ind ing a s to the sub sta nti al c om

ple tio n date is inc orre ct , r es ult ing in an e rr one ous ca lc ulatio n of pre jud gm en t i nt eres t. W e rev ie w de novo the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s c onc lus ion s of la w a nd i ts appl ic at ion of th e la w to th e fac ts . Merrill Stevens Dry Dock Co. v . M /V Yeocomico II

, 329 F. 3d 80 9, 813 (11th Cir. 2003). How ever, “ [w ] e re view the district court’ s factual finding s for clear er

ror. ” Co m m odi ty Futu re s T radi ng Com m ’n v . Sid

oti , 178 F . 3d 1132 , 1135 (11th Cir. 1999). “ If the dis tr ic t c ourt' s a cc ount of the e vid en ce is plausib le in lightof the rec ord viewed in its entirety , w e m ust up hold the fac tual finding s even if w e w ould have we ighed th e evidence diffe rently .” Id. (internal11

quot at ion s a nd c itatio n om itt ed ). “ T he dis tr ic t c ourt' s f ind ing s ne edonl y be plausib le.” Id. (in te rn al qu ot at io ns an d c it at io n o mit te d) . A ft er r ev ie w ing the r ec or d, w e co nc lud e that the dis tr ic t c ourt w as c orre ct in its c onc lus ion that R D P w ai ve d it s righ t t o e nf or ce the sub sta nti al c om

ple tio n date an d “ time is o f the e sse nc e” pr ovi sio n of the c ontra ct . A cc or din g to the r ec or d, RD P al low edthe sub sta nti al c om ple tio n date of

F eb ru ary 28, 200 0, to pa ss w ith out se tti ng a ne w de ad lin e an d c ont inu ediss uin g c ha nge or de rs a nd construction change directives requiring Clark to perform addition al w ork. [ R. V ol. 22 at 12 8. ] R D P’ s c ondu ct in iss uin g hu ndr ed s of

c ha nge or de rs a nd co nstru ct ion c ha nge dir ec tiv es a ft er e xpi ratio n of

the sub sta nti al c om

ple tio n date of F eb ru ary 28, 200 0, c onst itu te d w ai ve r of the “ time is o f the e sse nc e” pr ovi sio n of th e co nt ract . Se e Hor ov it z v. Le vi ne , 755 So . 2d 6 87, 688 ( Fl a. D ist . Ct . A pp. 1999 ) (p urporte d “ time is o f the e sse nc e” pr ovi so i n th e ag re emen t w as w ai ve d by the conduct of the parties sub sequent to th e agre ed upon date of com pletion ). In ad dit ion , RD P fa ile d to se t a ne w sub sta nti al c om

ple tio n date , thu s it

f ai le d to reser ve its right to enforce the liquid ated dam ages provisio n for anydate af ter Feb ru ary 28 , 20 00 . Se e McNe alv. Mar co Bay As so cs ., 492 So.2d 778 , 781 (Fla. D ist . Ct . A pp. 198 6) ( “ W he n ti m e ha s no t be en m ad e es se nti al to the c ontra ct or ha s be en w ai ve d, the party e nti tle d to ins ist on p er fo rm an ce m

ust f ix a de fi nit e12

date in the future for per form ance . . . . ”). A ccordingly , w e agre e w ith the dis trict co urt’ s c onc lus ionthat R D P w ai ve d it s righ t t o li qui da te d da m ag es . In ad d i t i o n , t h e d i s tri ctco u rtd i d n o terr i n h o l d i n g RD P l i ab l e f o r C l ar k ’s p a s s - t h r o u g h c l a i ms a n d a w ar d i n g d a mag e s . Th e r e c o r d s h o w s th a ts o me d e l a ys w er e cause d byCl ark’ s su bc ontra ct or s, but tho se de la y s di d no t su bst an tia lly p o s tp o n e th e e v e n t u a l c o mp l e t i o n o f th e R e s o r t . R a t h e r , th e s u b s t a n t i a l d e l a ys w hic h se ve re lyim

pa ct edthe Re sort’ s c onstru ct ion ( i. e. , c ont am inate d so il, inc om ple te a nd i na cc ur at e co nstru ct ion doc umen ts, m ult ipl e de sig n c ha nge s by RD P, a nd d el ay s in pla n appr ova ls) w er e al l a ttribu table to RD P an d no t the f au lt of Clark’ s subcon tractors. A lthou gh RDP asserts that the district court erro ne ou sl y fai le d t o a pp or ti on th e to ta l d el ay am on g t he co nt rib ut in g p art ie s, we find no error because RDPhas not establis hed a rea sonable basis for such ap po rti on m en t n orsh own th atap po rti on m en t was req ui red . See G esco, I nc. v . Edw ard L . Nez el ek, In c., 414 So. 2d 535 , 538 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982 ) (e vidence m ust establis h a rea sonable basis for apportioning responsibi lity for the total de la y ); Tu ttl e/

W hit e Co nst ruc tor

s, I nc . v . M ont gom er y E le va tor

Co . , 385 S o. 2d 9 8, 100 (F la . D ist . Ct . A pp. 198 0) ( los s r es ulting f ro m br ea ch of

c ontra ct ne ednot be segregated proportion ately am ong th e contributing fac tors causing th e inj ury ).13

Further, since the district court’ s factual f indin gs relating to th e substanti al com pletion date of Mar ch 12, 2002, and thirty -daydam ages grace period are plausi ble , w e af

fi rm thec ourt’ s f

ind ing s. Se e Sidoti , 178 F . 3d at 11 35. B. At torney’s F ees, Costs, and Expe nses RD P ar gue s th at

the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr edin co m put ing a nd a w ar din g attorney ’ s fees, costs, and litigation expenses. W e re view a district court’ s award of att or ne y ’s fees an d c os ts forab us e o f di sc ret io n. Ti re Ki ngdo m , I nc . v . M orga n Tire & Auto, Inc. , 253 F . 3d 1 332, 133 5 ( 11th C ir . 200 1) . I n th is c as e, w e fi nd n o basis for concludin g that the dist rict court abused its discretion. First, there w as no e rr or in re la tio n to the a tto rn ey ’ s f ee s f or the sub co ntr ac tor s’ s c la im s a ga ins t A R Q a n d C o r n e r s t o n e b e c a u s e th e s u b c o n tr a c t o r s d i d n o ta l l e g e a n y c l a i ms a g a i n s tA R Q a n d C o r n e r s t o n e . C l arkb r o u g h ti t s f r a u d a n d n e g l i g e n c e c l a i ms ag ai ns t ARQ an d C or ne rs to ne so le ly on i ts own be ha lf, n otas p as s- th ro ug h c la im s. [R . V ol. 3, T ab 99. ] S ec ond, the re w as no e rr or in the a w ar d of

f ee s pe rt ai nin g to the la w f ir m of Je nki ns & G ilc hr ist . A lth ough Je nki ns & G ilc hr ist dis co unt edit s hour lyr at es , the dis tr ic t c ourt f oundthat the usu al bil lin g r at e w as r ea sonable a nd ap pr ove d th at

r at e ab se nt a nydis co unt . A cc or din gly , the dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t ab use it s di sc re tio n in it s a w ar d of a tto rn ey ’ s f

ee s, c ost s, a nd l iti gatio n e xpe nse s. Notw ithstand ing, the above discuss ion, both p arties agre e that the district co urt e rr edin its c om

put at ion of

the a w ar d of

a tto rn ey ’ s f

ee s, c ost s, a nd l iti ga tio n14

ex pe nse s. S pe ci fi ca lly , the part ie s a gr ee to the f oll ow ing e rr or s: ( 1) a“ doub le co unt ing ” er

ro r of $58 , 954. 14 i n c ost s on the pa ss- thr ough c la im of sub co ntr ac tor Mc H ugh Co nc re te Co nstru ct ion ; a nd ( 2) a n ov er sig ht o f $20, 239. 69 i n th e at to rn ey ’s fee awar d fo r th e p as s- th ro ug h c la im of s ub co nt ract orTalm ac, In c. Be cause the part ie s a gr ee to the se e rr or s, thi s c ourt r em an ds the j udgmen t t o th e di st ric t co ur t fo r th e min is te ria l ac t o f co rrec ti ng th es e cl eri cal mis ta ke s. See F ed . R. Ci v. P. 6 0( a). C. Extend ed Ge neral C onditions C osts O n c ro ss- ap pe al , Cl ark arg ue s th at the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr edin de ny ing it s re que st f or e xte nde d ge ne ra l c ondi tio ns c ost s be cause the e vid en ce a s to that i ssu e w as suf fi ci en t a s am atte r of

la w . W e re vie w the “ dis tr ic t c ourt’ s a cc ount of the ev i d en ce u n d era c l ea r e rr o r s t an d ar d , a n d m u s taf fi rm th e d i s tri ctco u rt ’s de te rm inatio n so lon g a s it

is plausi ble in lig ht o f the r ec or d vi ew edin its entirety .” Se e M

er ril l Stev en s , 329 F . 3d at 81 6 ( int erna l qu otatio ns a nd c itatio n omitt ed ). O ur

r ev ie w of

the r ec or d in dic at es that the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s f ind ing of insufficient evidence is plausi ble. T hus, we aff irm the denial of extended general co ndi tio ns c ost s. D . R ul e 60( b) M ot ion In the second appeal, Clark seeks rever sal of the district court’ s order de ny ing it s R ule 60( b) m oti on t o m odi fythe pr ej udgmen t i nte re st a w ar d, arg uin g15

that the dis tr ic t c ourt i m

pr ope rl y use d th e fi na l j udgmen t date of A ugus t 4, 200 4, rathe r tha n th e supp le m en ta l j udgmen t date of N ove m be r 17, 200 4, in ca lc ulatin g th e award .

“ An appeal of a ruling on a Rule 60(b) m otion . . . is narrow in scope, ad dr es sin g on lythe pr oprie tyof the de nia l or

gr an t of r el ie f an d do es not

r ai se issues in the underly ing judgm ent for re view. ” Am . B ankers Ins. Co. of Fla. v. Nw. Na t’lIns . Co., 198 F. 3d 1 332, 133 8 ( 11th C ir . 199 9) . “ Be cause of thi s li mitatio n, the law is clear that R ule 60(b) m ay not be used to challenge mistakes of law which could have been raised on direct appeal. ” I d. ; se e als o J

ac ks on v . Se aboa rd Co as t Li ne R.R. Co ., 678 F . 2d 9 92, 102 1 ( 11th C ir . 198 2) ( “ [A ] n appe al f ro m de ni al of R ul e 6 0( b) rel ie f do es no t b rin g u p t he un de rlyin g ju dg m en t fo r rev ie w . .

. . A n appe lla nt m aya tta ck the und er ly ing j udgmen t on lyon d ir ec t appe al f ro m th e jud gm en t i ts el f.”) (i nt ern al qu ot at io ns an d c it at io ns omit te d) . Mor eo ve r, a di st ric t co ur t's ord er u nd er Ru le 60 (b ) is rev ie wab le on ly for ab us e o f di sc ret io n. A m . B anker

s I ns ., 19 8 F .3d at 1 33 8. W e co nc lud e fr om

the r ec or d th at

the dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t abuse it s dis cr et ion . C lark

c ro ss- ap pe al edthe sup ple m en ta l j udgmen t, but didnot r ai se the pr ej udgmen t i nte re st i ssu e in i ts b ri ef s. G ive n th at

the dis tr ic t c ourt de ci de d th is iss ue in the sup ple m en ta l j udgmen t, Cl ark c an not now r ai se the iss ue in a su bs eq ue ntap pe al fro m

th e d is tri ctco ur t’s d en ia l o f rel ie f un de r Ru le 60 (b ). SeeWe also DENY the Motion for Review of D istrict Court Orders Requir ing Appeal B ond. 5 16 Am. Bank ers, 1 9 8 F. 3 dat1 3 3 8 . Th er ef o re , C l ar k ’s ch al l en g e t o th e d i s tri ctco u rt ’s pr ej udgmen t i nte re st c al cu la tio n is unt imel y a nd i nsuf fi ci en t t o e stabli sh a n abuse of di sc ret io n. III. C ONC LUS ION Fo r the f or eg oin g r ea sons , w e af

fi rm the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s j udgmen t bu t re m an d th e ca se f

or the dis tr ic t c ourt t o c orre ct the c le ri ca l mist ak es poi nte d ou t i n thi s op ini on. 5 AFFIRMED.