Case Name: LEGENDS GYM, INC., Jeffery Rosin and Vinetta Rosin, Plaintiffs-Counter Defendants-Appellants v. ABCO LEASING, INC., et al, Defendants Abco Leasing, Inc., Defendant-Counter Claimant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-02-23
Citations: 122 F. App'x 167
Docket Number: No. 04-50773
Parties: LEGENDS GYM, INC., Jeffery Rosin and Vinetta Rosin, Plaintiffs-Counter Defendants-Appellants v. ABCO LEASING, INC., et al, Defendants Abco Leasing, Inc., Defendant-Counter Claimant-Appellee.
Judges: Before DAVIS, SMITH, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 122
Pages: 167–168

Head Matter:
LEGENDS GYM, INC., Jeffery Rosin and Vinetta Rosin, Plaintiffs-Counter Defendants-Appellants v. ABCO LEASING, INC., et al, Defendants Abco Leasing, Inc., Defendant-Counter Claimant-Appellee.
No. 04-50773.
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided Feb. 23, 2005.
Ted Robert Cackowski, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Counter Defendant-Appellant.
Michael L. Dinnin, Trida Robinson DeLeon, Bracewell & Patterson, Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Counter Claimant-Appellee.
Before DAVIS, SMITH, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
In this dispute over a contract for the lease of gym equipment, Plaintiff-Counter Defendant Legends Gym appeals the district court's ruling granting summary judgment for ABCO Leasing ("ABCO") and awarding ABCO's counsel attorney's fees in the amount of $21,290.44, after ABCO requested $82,093.31. We review the district court's grant of a motion for summary judgment de novo, Reliance Nat'l Ins. Co. v. Tomlinson, 171 F.3d 1033, 1035 (5th Cir.1999), and the grant of attorney's fees for abuse of discretion. Communication Workers of America v. Ector County Hosp. Dist., 392 F.3d 733 (5th Cir.2004). After a review of the record, we affirm the district court's order granting summary judgment for ABCO and separate order granting ABCO's attorney's fees for essentially the reasons as well stated in the district court's memorandum opinions and orders.
AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.