[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
MAR 13, 2009
No. 08-13457 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 06-80928-CV-DTKH
FLORIDA AIRMOTIVE, INC.,
a Florida corporation,
Plaintiff-
Counter-Defendant-Appellant,
versus
DERYL PERRY,
d.b.a. Perry Enterprises,
Defendant-
Counter-Claimant-Third Party
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
OWEN H. GASSAWAY,
Third Party Defendant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
_________________________
(March 13, 2009)
Before CARNES, MARCUS and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
This case involves two contracts between Florida Airmotive, Inc. and Deryl
Perry for the manufacture and sale of fourteen mobile airplane hangers. Due to a
series of missteps, delays, and misunderstandings, the contracts were never
completed. Florida Airmotive, having paid Perry $225,000 and having no hangers
to show for it, sued. It lost. After a bench trial, the district court concluded that
Perry substantially performed under the contracts by tendering to Florida
Airmotive compliant drawings and specifications for the hangers, completing
(although not delivering) four of the fourteen hangers, and remaining ready,
willing, and able to complete and deliver the remaining ten hangers after the
building permits were granted.
We review factual findings made by a district court after a bench trial for
clear error and review de novo its conclusions of law. See Belize Telecom, Ltd. v.
Government of Belize, 528 F.3d 1298, 1303 (11th Cir. 2008). A district court’s
2
finding of fact is clearly erroneous if we are “left with the definite and firm
conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Holton v. City of Thomasville
Sch. Dist., 425 F.3d 1325, 1350 (11th Cir. 2005). By contrast, the district court
does not commit clear error if its “account of the evidence is plausible in light of
the record viewed in its entirety.” Id. at 1351.
Florida Airmotive contends that the district court clearly erred in finding that
Perry submitted code-compliant drawings and specifications. It argues that there is
no evidence in the record that the documents provided by Perry were compliant
with the Florida Business Code. We disagree. The documents and drawings are in
the record. They were stamped and signed by an engineering firm licensed in
Florida, in a manner that the district court reasonably could interpret as certifying
them as compliant with the 2001 Florida Building Code. Based on that evidence,
we are not left “left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been
committed.” Id. Therefore, the district court did not err in holding that Perry
substantially complied with the requirements of the contract.
AFFIRMED.
3