Court Opinion

ID: 9961828
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-19 21:00:57.432157+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:59.948243
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-10170    Document: 52-1     Date Filed: 04/19/2024   Page: 1 of 2

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                   In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                          ____________________

                                No. 23-10170
                          ____________________

       PAYCARGO, LLC,
                                                      Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
       versus
       CARGOSPRINT LLC,
       JOSHUA WOLF,
       An individual,

                                                 Defendants-Appellants.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Southern District of Florida
                    D.C. Docket No. 1:19-cv-22995-LFL
USCA11 Case: 23-10170      Document: 52-1      Date Filed: 04/19/2024     Page: 2 of 2

       2                      Opinion of the Court                  23-10170

                            ____________________

       Before WILSON, LUCK, and LAGOA, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
             Defendants-Appellants CargoSprint, LLC and Joshua Wolf
       appeal the district court’s final judgment in favor of Plaintiff-Appel-
       lee PayCargo, LLC. Defendants-Appellants alleged the following
       on appeal:
             I.      The district court erred in granting summary judg-
                     ment in favor of PayCargo on its Lanham Act claims.
              II.    The district court erred in denying their motion for
                     summary judgment on the breach of contract claims.
              III.   When calculating damages, the district court abused
                     its discretion in declining to admit Defendants-Appel-
                     lants’ bank records and entire database concerning
                     costs and payments.
              IV.    The district court abused its discretion in awarding at-
                     torney’s fees to PayCargo under the Lanham Act,
                     finding that the case was exceptional.
              After careful review and consideration of the briefs and the
       record, and having the benefit of oral argument, we find no reversi-
       ble error in the proceedings in the district court. Therefore, the
       judgment of the district court is
              AFFIRMED.