Filed: Jan. 24, 2007
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT _ FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 06-10003 January 24, 2007 _ THOMAS K. KAHN CLERK D. C. Docket No. 03-00596-CV-ORL-31DAB HOME DESIGN SERVICES, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, versus SCHWAB DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, a Florida Corporation, d.b.a. Schwab Custom Homes, WILLIAM D. KLEIN, MICHAEL P. SCHWAB, Defendants-Appellees. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida _
Summary: [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT _ FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 06-10003 January 24, 2007 _ THOMAS K. KAHN CLERK D. C. Docket No. 03-00596-CV-ORL-31DAB HOME DESIGN SERVICES, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, versus SCHWAB DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, a Florida Corporation, d.b.a. Schwab Custom Homes, WILLIAM D. KLEIN, MICHAEL P. SCHWAB, Defendants-Appellees. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida _ ..
More
[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 06-10003 January 24, 2007 ________________________ THOMAS K. KAHN CLERK D. C. Docket No. 03-00596-CV-ORL-31DAB HOME DESIGN SERVICES, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, versus SCHWAB DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, a Florida Corporation, d.b.a. Schwab Custom Homes, WILLIAM D. KLEIN, MICHAEL P. SCHWAB, Defendants-Appellees. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida _________________________ (January 24, 2007) Before ANDERSON, MARCUS and HILL, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: After oral argument and careful consideration, and for the reasons fully discussed at oral argument, we conclude that the district court’s findings of fact are not clearly erroneous, and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that there were no satisfactory lesser sanctions. We conclude that there has been no abuse of discretion, and that the judgment of the district court dismissing this case with prejudice is due to be affirmed. AFFIRMED 2
