and maintenance of facilities. Third, Southern claims that GUA did not take the affirmative steps necessary to enter business. For example, the Eleventh Circuit has held that a plaintiff must make efforts to carry out construction of new facilities if such construction is required to enter a new business. Cable Holdings, supra, 825 F.2d at 1562. In Cable Holdings, a cable television company brought antitrust monopoly claims against a cable system operator, claiming that the operator had prevented its expansion. Plaintiff had failed to prepare detailed design maps, confer with utility representatives, and hire a contractor to install cable. The court determined that plaintiff was not prepared to begin service and enter the targeted market. Id. at 1562. See also Hayes, 597 F.2d at 974 (<HOLDING>) Southern argues that Tutcher and Levrier did
holding that defendant failed to meet second part of duren test when he did not even allege the proportion of jurors who were actually excused for economic hardship holding that plaintiff who needed to construct a shopping center failed to commission the timely drawing of a detailed engineering and architectural plan and did not meet the eleventh circuit test for preparedness holding that the plan administrator failed to meet its plan obligations when it chose to remain willfully blind to readily available medical information where the plan beneficiary had placed them on notice of the existence of such information holding district court order of restitution failed for lack of proof when government failed to meet burden holding the commissions order reversing an award and remanding the case to the single commissioner to take further testimony was not final and not appealable to the circuit court until the commissions final determination regarding the single commissioners award the court construed the language in a provision of the code that states appeals from the commission to the circuit court shall be under the same terms and conditions as govern appeals in ordinary civil actions  and stated an appeal to the circuit court will not lie from an interlocutory order of the commission unless it affects the merits citation omitted