judge to determine from the record which party in fact prevailed on the significant issues tried before the court.” Green Cos., Inc. v. Kendall Racquetball Inv., Ltd., 658 So.2d 1119, 1121 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1995). Florida law looks for “(1) a situation where a party has been awarded by the court at least some relief on the merits of his claim, or (2) a judicial imprimatur on the change in the legal relationship between the parties.” Smalbein ex rel. Estate of Smalbein v. City of Daytona Beach, 353 F.3d 901, 905 (11th Cir.2003). Here, Defendant is the prevailing party under Florida law, as the district court dismissed Plaintiffs action against Defendant, despite the fact that the dismissal was without prejudice. See Valcarcel v. Chase Bank USA NA, 54 So.3d 989, 991 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.2010) (<HOLDING>); Henn v. Ultrasmith Racing, LLC, 67 So.3d 444,
holding that the party prevailing on the significant issues in the litigation is the party that should be considered the prevailing party for attorneys fees holding that the defendant became the prevailing party and thus properly claimed attorneys fees when the plaintiffs claim was involuntarily dismissed for failure to prosecute holding that the plaintiff had established an entitlement to relief on the merits of the claim  and was therefore entitled to fees even though it was remanded to the agency for further action holding that even though the complaint was dismissed without prejudice as a sanction for misconduct and even though the order of dismissal was therefore not an adjudication on the merits the defendants were nevertheless properly considered the prevailing party for purposes of attorneys fees holding that a plaintiff is not required to file an amended complaint when his complaint is involuntarily dismissed without prejudice and that for the purposes of appeal such a dismissal is a rule 41b adjudication on the merits