[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
Sept. 4, 2009
No. 09-10808 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 04-01015-CV-JOF-1
EAGLE HOSPITAL PHYSICIANS, LLC.,
Plaintiff-Counter-
Defendant-Appellee,
versus
SRG CONSULTING, INC.,
HOSPITALIST PHYSICIANS, INC.,
STEVEN R. GERST,
Defendants-Counter-
Claimants-Appellants.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
_________________________
(September 4, 2009)
Before BLACK, BARKETT and HILL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
We have previously described the defendants’, SRG Consulting, Inc.,
Hospitalist Physicians, Inc., and Steven R. Gerst, “egregious misconduct” in this
case and affirmed the district court’s entry of sanctions against them (including a
default judgment) and the award of attorneys’ fees to plaintiff, Eagle Hospital
Physicians, LLC. Eagle Hospital Physicians, LLC. v. SRG Consulting, Inc.,
Hospitalist Physicians, Inc., Steven R. Gerst, 561 F.3d 1298, 1306-07 (11 th Cir.
2009). While this case was before us, defendants filed a motion pursuant to Rule
60(b)(1), Fed. R. Civ. P., seeking relief from the default judgment and the
sanctions order, asserting that the district court had made a “mistake.” The district
court denied the motion, and defendants filed this appeal. Additionally, defendants
appeal the amount of the district court’s subsequent attorneys’ fee award, arguing
that the district court incorrectly awarded fees for time spent on failed motions.
We have reviewed the briefs and the record in this case and find no merit in
either of defendants’ assertions of error. The district court correctly denied the
Rule 60(b)(1) motion, noting that it was nothing more than a repackaging of
arguments it had already rejected in its prior order sanctioning defendants’
misconduct.
Additionally, the law in this circuit is that a prevailing party entitled to
2
attorneys’ fees is not to be penalized for failed motions. See Columbus Mills, Inc.
v. Freeland, 918 F.2d 1575, 1580 (11th Cir. 1990) (affirming district court’s refusal
to cut any time from a successful party’s fee application for two “completely
unsuccessful . . . motions during the pretrial hearings”). Nor do we agree with
defendants that the district court inadequately explained its attorneys’ fee award.
On the contrary, plaintiff’s motion for fees was well-documented and the district
court’s award based upon that motion was both thorough and specific.
For the foregoing reasons, the district court did not abuse its discretion in
denying defendants’ post-judgment motion for relief from the sanctions order and
the default judgment or in its award of attorneys’ fees.
AFFIRMED.
3