Maiden Specialty Insurance Company v. Three Chefs and a Chicken, Inc.

Case: 14-11574 Date Filed: 05/28/2015 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 14-11574
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:12-cv-22724-JAL
MAIDEN SPECIALITY INSURANCE COMPANY,
Plaintiff - Counter Defendant
Appellant
Cross Appellee,
versus
THREE CHEFS AND A CHICKEN, INC.,
a Florida profit corporation,
RUDYARD A. MCDONNOUGH,
an individual,
RUDYARD MCDONNOUGH, JR.,
an individual,
RICHARD MCDONNOUGH,
an individual,
Defendants - Counter Claimants -
Appellees
Cross Appellants,
CHICKEN KITCHEN USA, LLC,
a Florida profit corporation,
Case: 14-11574 Date Filed: 05/28/2015 Page: 2 of 3
Defendant - Appellee.
________________________
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(May 28, 2015)
Before MARCUS and WILSON, Circuit Judges, and SCHLESINGER, * District
Judge.
PER CURIAM:
Maiden Specialty Insurance Company (Maiden) filed a declaratory action in
the district court seeking to disclaim coverage under a general commercial liability
policy (Policy) issued by Maiden to Three Chefs and a Chicken, Inc. (Three
Chefs), for an underlying trade dress infringement action filed against Three Chefs.
In an omnibus order, the district court denied Maiden’s motion to amend its
complaint, filed after the scheduling order deadline, and granted summary
judgment in favor of Three Chefs. In a separate order, it also granted Three
Chefs’s subsequent motion for attorney’s fees. Maiden appeals the denial of its
motion to amend, the grant of summary judgment, and the award of attorney’s
fees. Three Chefs cross-appeals the amount of attorney’s fees awarded to it.
*
Honorable Harvey E. Schlesinger, United States District Judge for the Middle District
of Florida, sitting by designation.
2
Case: 14-11574 Date Filed: 05/28/2015 Page: 3 of 3
We review a denial of a motion to amend for abuse of discretion. See Hall
v. United Ins. Co. of Am., 367 F.3d 1255, 1262 (11th Cir. 2004). Likewise, we
review attorney’s fees grants, including the amount, for abuse of discretion. See
Villano v. City of Boynton Beach, 254 F.3d 1302, 1304–05 (11th Cir. 2001). After
consideration of the parties’ arguments and review of the district court’s thorough
reasoning, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion in denying the
motion to amend, in granting attorney’s fees, or in setting the attorney’s fees award
amount.
We review the grant of summary judgment de novo. See Stephens v. Mid-
Continent Cas. Co., 749 F.3d 1318, 1321 (11th Cir. 2014). Because our precedent
mandates coverage here, see Hyman v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 304 F.3d
1179, 1188–89 (11th Cir. 2002), and because Maiden admitted during discovery
that the Policy provided coverage for the trade dress infringement action, summary
judgment was properly granted.
AFFIRMED.
3