F I L ED U. S
. C OUR T OF AP PE ALS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT J UNE 8 , 2006 THOM A S K. KA HN CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T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- 1592 7

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 4- 00 72 5 C V-ORL-J A-JGG STEPHEN H. G OLDMAN, Pl ai nti ff -Appe llant,
ve rs us BRACEWELL & GIULIANI, L.L.P., a T ex as li m ite d li ab ili ty

pa rtne rs hip , NANCY A. W ODKA, et al ., D ef en da nts -Appe lle es .

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

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (J un e 8, 200 6) Be fo re BL A CK , P RY O R and C O X , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: St ep he n H
. G oldm ansue d B ra ce w el l & G iul ia ni, L L P, N an cy A
. W odka , a nd John R. Brantley (collectively , “ Brac ew ell & Giuliani ”) f or legal m alpractice , bre achI n an eff ort to muster some evidenc e of c ausation, Goldman a rgues that the district cour t 1 a bu se d it s dis c re tio n in str iki ng a pr ivi le g e log and e xpe rt te sti mony that he of fe re d in su pp or t of his cl ai m s . W e f

i n d n o ab u s e o f d i s cr et i o ni nei th er ev i d en t i ary

ru l i n g. 2 of fiduciary

duty , and negli gent m isrepresentation. Brac ew ell & Giuliani repre sented DP T, a com

pany in which Goldm an wa s the m aj ority shareholder, in a sale of D PT to A da pte c. T he dis tr ic t c ourt grante d sum m ar y j udgm en t for

Br ac ew el l & G iul ia ni, fi ndi ng tha t G o l d m a n f

a i l e dt o r a i s e ag e n u i n e i s s u e o f m a t e r i a l f

a c ta s t o t he
c au s a t i o n e l e me n to f

e a c h o f t h e a l l e g e dt o rt s . G o l d ma n ap p e a l s . We a f f i rm. T he r ec or d su

ppor ts the dis tr ic t cour

t’ s fin din g th at

G oldm anf

ai le d to pr es en t
co m pe te nt e vid en ce tha t B ra cewel l & G iul ia ni p ro xim at el y c au se d a ny

da m ag e to G oldm an . A ssu m ing a rg ue ndo tha t B ra ce w el l & G iul ia ni b re ac he d du tie s to G oldm an , G oldm ansti ll co uld not suc ce ed in re co ve ri ng o n hi s tort cl ai m s be ca use he presented no com

petent evidence that the sale of D PT would have gone forward at m or e than $1 84 m ill ion
. 1 On appeal, Goldm an m akes another ar g um ent that, even if the district court
were co rrec t wi th reg ard to th e cau sa ti on of d am ag es res ul ti ng fro m th e sa le of DPT, its grant of summ ary

j udgm ent is erroneous because it forecloses his recovery of over $4 m illion in a ttorney s’ fees and costs, causation of which is proven bythe fac t that he inc ur re d th es e fe es a nd c ost s inde fe nse of a n a rb itr at iona ri sin g out of the sa le of D PT
. A ft er

r ev ie w ing the r ec or d, w e fin d th at, de spi te the f ac ts tha t B ra ce w el l &3

G iul ia ni fi le d a“ D isp osi tiv e Mot ionf or S um m ar y Jud gm en t” in the dis tr ic t c ourt and
ar gue d th er ei n th at

a ll of G oldm an ’ s c la im s f

ai le d f or la ck of ca usa tio n an d dam ag es , Goldm an failed to respond by identify ing th e issues of cau s at i o n or dam ages
re ga rd ing a tto rn ey s’ f

ee s and c ost s. The re fo re , thi s ar gum en t is wa ive d; w e w ill not
co ns id er it on ap pe al
. Se e Sta vr opou los v . F iresto ne , 361 F. 3d 61 0, 616 n.6 (11th Cir. 2004 ). AFFIR MED.