Robert Barnhart v. The Lamar Company, LLC, 523 F. App'x 635

Lamar challenges district court’s denial of its attorney’s fees and costs under §1927 and §448.104 after Barnhart’s Florida Whistleblower Act claim.
Barnhart sued Lamar alleging retaliation for objecting to tree poisoning tied to Lamar’s billboard operations; he claimed termination in July 2011.
Barnhart had prior June 2011 back injury and pursued workers’ compensation claims, asserting disability and inability to return to his former job.
District court granted Lamar summary judgment on the whistleblower claim, denying Barnhart’s retaliation theory; Lamar later sought fees.
The district court denied fees, and Lamar appealed, arguing abuse of discretion in both §1927 sanctions and Florida fee statute §448.104.
This court reviews the fee-denial rulings for abuse of discretion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the §1927 denial was an abuse of discretion	Lamar contends Barnhart’s counsel acted vexatiously and multiplied proceedings.	Barnhart argues no bad faith or frivolity; grounds were reasonable.	No abuse; court properly found good grounds to pursue claim.
Whether the district court erred in denying §1927 sanctions on bad-faith standard	Lamar asserts bad-faith standard was met or clearly should have been.	Barnhart’s pursuit not frivolous; decision aligns with case law.	Not clearly erroneous; sanctions not warranted.
Whether the district court abused its discretion under Fla. Stat. § 448.104 to deny fees	Lamar argues the court failed to consider Blanco factors and misapplied standards.	Barnhart contends factors are non-mandatory; Christianburg standard assumed not required here.	No abuse; discretion properly exercised.

McMahan v. Toto, 256 F.3d 1120 (11th Cir. 2001) (frivolity threshold for §1927 sanctions requires more than weak merit)
Schwartz v. Millon Air, Inc., 341 F.3d 1220 (11th Cir. 2003) (bad faith requires conduct tantamount to bad faith; not mere negligence)
Cordoba v. Dillard's, Inc., 419 F.3d 1169 (11th Cir. 2005) (frivolity assessment; evidence must be not obviously deficient)
Amlong & Amlong, P.A. v. Denny's, Inc., 500 F.3d 1230 (11th Cir. 2007) (bad-faith inquiry; knowing or reckless frivolous pursuit)
Peer v. Lewis, 606 F.3d 1306 (11th Cir. 2010) (abuse of discretion standard and review framework)
Petersen v. BMI Refractories, 124 F.3d 1386 (11th Cir. 1997) (three conditions for §1927 sanctions: unreasonable conduct, multiplied proceedings, financial nexus)
Malautea v. Suzuki Motor Co., 987 F.2d 1536 (11th Cir. 1993) (bad-faith finding is a question of fact reviewed for clear error)
Cordoba v. Dillard's, Inc., 419 F.3d 1169 (11th Cir. 2005) (frivolity and lack of foundation considered case-by-case)
Ford ex rel. Estate of Ford v. Garcia, 289 F.3d 1283 (11th Cir. 2002) (innate discretionary review of fee rulings)
New World Commc’ns of Tampa, Inc. v. Akre, 866 So.2d 1231 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003) (Florida discretionary authority on § 448.104 awards)
Christianburg Garment Co. v. EEOC, 434 U.S. 412 (Supreme Court 1978) (frivolous-litigation standard governs fee shifting)