Case Name: Jimmy LEDFORD, Larry O'Dell, Bryan Walker, Dynavision Group, LLC, Signature Leasing, LLC, Plaintiffs-Appellants Cross-Appellees, v. Shelby PEEPLES, Jr., PFLC, LLC, Internal Management, Inc., Defendants-Appellees Cross-Appellants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-09-23
Citations: 657 F.3d 1249
Docket Number: No. 06-10715
Parties: Jimmy LEDFORD, Larry O’Dell, Bryan Walker, Dynavision Group, LLC, Signature Leasing, LLC, Plaintiffs-Appellants Cross-Appellees, v. Shelby PEEPLES, Jr., PFLC, LLC, Internal Management, Inc., Defendants-Appellees Cross-Appellants.
Judges: Before DUBINA, Chief Judge, and TJOFLAT, EDMONDSON, CARNES, BARKETT, HULL, MARCUS, WILSON, PRYOR and MARTIN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 3d Series
Volume: 657
Pages: 1249–1250

Head Matter:
Jimmy LEDFORD, Larry O’Dell, Bryan Walker, Dynavision Group, LLC, Signature Leasing, LLC, Plaintiffs-Appellants Cross-Appellees, v. Shelby PEEPLES, Jr., PFLC, LLC, Internal Management, Inc., Defendants-Appellees Cross-Appellants.
No. 06-10715.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
Sept. 23, 2011.
H. Lamar Mixson, David G.H. Brackett, Frank M. Lowrey, IV, Emmet J. Bondurant, Bondurant, Mixson & Elmore, LLP, Harold T. Daniel, Jr., Laurie Webb Daniel, Leland H. Kynes, Holland & Knight, LLP, Atlanta, GA, for Plaintiffs-Appellants Cross-Appellees.
Richard H. Sinkfield, Catherine M. Bennett, Kristina M. Jones, Rogers & Hardin, LLP, Atlanta, GA, for Defendants-Appellees Cross-Appellants.
Before DUBINA, Chief Judge, and TJOFLAT, EDMONDSON, CARNES, BARKETT, HULL, MARCUS, WILSON, PRYOR and MARTIN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
BY THE COURT:
Upon the majority vote of the judges in this Court in active service, on January 19, 2011, this Court vacated this panel's prior opinion and granted rehearing en banc. See Ledford v. Peeples, 630 F.3d 1345 (11th Cir.2011) (en banc); 605 F.3d 871 (11th Cir.2010), vacated and reh'g en banc granted, 630 F.3d 1345.
We granted rehearing en banc to consider only the district court's denial of Appellees' motion for sanctions.
After review and given that the Appellees' panel brief limited their cross appeal on sanctions to paragraphs 64 and 90 of the complaint, the en banc court cannot say that Appellees in their cross appeal have shown that the district court abused its discretion in denying sanctions.
The Court did not reconsider en banc the portions of the panel's May 6, 2010 opinion affirming the district court's grant of summary judgment to Appellees, and therefore the Court remands the case to the panel to reissue Parts I, II, IV, and V of the panel's May 6, 2010 opinion, which was previously reported as Ledford v. Peeples, 605 F.3d 871, 877-900, 903-19 (11th Cir.2010).
AFFIRMED AS TO CROSS APPEAL.