Flogrown, LLC v. Dixie Heritage, LLC, 6:17-cv-00983

Plaintiff Flogrown filed a Rule 11 Amended Motion for Sanctions in February 2019 against Defendants (Dixie Heritage, Asher Torgeman, Albert Torgeman);
The Court previously issued a Report & Recommendation finding Plaintiff’s Rule 11 motion was untimely and that Defendants’ positions were not frivolous; the District Judge adopted that Report and Recommendation on April 29, 2019;
Defendants sought attorney’s fees and taxable costs as the prevailing parties under Rule 11 after the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions;
Defendants filed a Supplemental Motion requesting fees, arguing Plaintiff’s Rule 11 motion lacked a reasonable factual basis and was filed for an improper purpose;
The Magistrate Judge evaluated whether the denied Rule 11 motion was objectively frivolous or filed for an improper purpose such that fee-shifting was warranted;
The Magistrate Judge recommended denial of Defendants’ Supplemental Motion because Defendants failed to show the Rule 11 motion was objectively frivolous or filed for an improper purpose.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether defendants are entitled to attorney’s fees and costs as the prevailing parties on Plaintiff’s denied Rule 11 motion	Plaintiff argued the Rule 11 motion was properly filed (procedural posture noted earlier)	Defendants argued the Rule 11 motion was untimely, lacked a reasonable factual basis, and was filed for an improper purpose, entitling them to fees	Denied — the Court found the motion was not shown to be objectively frivolous or filed for an improper purpose; Defendants failed to meet their burden

Smith v. Psychiatric Solutions, Inc., 750 F.3d 1253 (11th Cir. 2014) (affirming that courts may award fees to a prevailing party on a Rule 11 motion when the motion is filed to harass or for an improper purpose)
Baker v. Alderman, 158 F.3d 516 (11th Cir. 1998) (setting out that Rule 11 violations require objective frivolousness or improper purpose)