Case: 14-14259 Date Filed: 06/29/2015 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 14-14259
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:11-cv-02812-MHS
LEXON INSURANCE COMPANY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
COMMUNITY & SOUTHERN BANK,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
________________________
(June 29, 2015)
Before HULL, ROSENBAUM, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Lexon Insurance Company (“Lexon”) appeals the district court’s order
denying reconsideration of Lexon’s request for attorney’s fees pursuant to Rule 11
Case: 14-14259 Date Filed: 06/29/2015 Page: 2 of 3
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. We review the district court’s denial of
reconsideration for an abuse of discretion. Fla. Ass’n of Rehab. Facilities, Inc. v.
State of Fla. Dep’t of Health & Rehab. Servs., 225 F.3d 1208, 1216 (11th Cir.
2000). Upon review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm.
Pursuant to Local Rule 7.2(E), “[m]otions for reconsideration shall not be
filed as a matter of routine practice.” Rather, such motions are only appropriate
when “absolutely necessary” to present: (1) newly discovered evidence; (2) an
intervening development or change in controlling law; or (3) a need to correct a
clear error of law or fact. Bryant v. Murphy, 246 F. Supp. 2d 1256, 1258-59 (N.D.
Ga. 2003). Lexon did not advance any of the foregoing grounds for
reconsideration either in this Court or the district court, and as such, Lexon’s
appeal is meritless.
Even assuming, arguendo, that Lexon is asserting clear error under Rule
7.2(E), we are not persuaded. As the district court observed, Lexon seeks
reimbursement of over $10,000 in attorney’s fees for more than 50 hours spent
researching and drafting a 7-page response to Community & Southern Bank’s
motion. Lexon’s response merely pointed out the Bank’s obvious failure to
comply with Rule 11’s requirements. The district court denied this request as
“grossly excessive.” Although we have not decided the issue, several other circuits
have held that district courts do not abuse their discretion by wholly denying
2
Case: 14-14259 Date Filed: 06/29/2015 Page: 3 of 3
exorbitant fee applications when an award of fees is permissive, as in the instant
case. Andrews v. United States, 122 F.3d 1367, 1375 (11th Cir. 1997); see Budget
Rent-A-Car Sys., Inc. v. Consolidated Equity LLC, 428 F.3d 717, 718 (7th Cir.
2005); Fair Housing Council of Greater Wash. v. Landow, 999 F.2d 92, 96-97 (4th
Cir. 1993); Lewis v. Kendrick, 944 F.2d 949, 956 (1st Cir. 1991). Because it is at
“at least arguable” that the district court was entitled to deny Lexon’s request
outright, the court did not abuse its discretion. See United States v. Battle, 272 F.
Supp. 2d 1354, 1358 (N.D. Ga. 2003) (“An error is not clear and obvious if the
legal issues are at least arguable.”) (internal quotation omitted).
AFFIRMED.
3