Final Order of Dismissal, Defendant moved for attorneys’ fees under Florida Statutes § 675.111(5). That provision states that “[reasonable attorney’s fees and other expenses of litigation must be awarded to the prevailing party in an action in which a remedy is sought under this chapter,” which includes the claim for wrongful dishonor of a letter of credit asserted by Plaintiff. Fla. Stat. § 675.111(5) (Supp.2013). Under Florida law, the prevailing party for purposes of attorneys’ fees is the party that prevailed on any significant issue in the litigation. Moritz v. Hoyt Enters., Inc., 604 So.2d 807, 809-10 (Fla.1992) (adopting the prevailing-party test outlined by the Supreme court in Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 103 S.Ct. 1933, 76 d, 943 So.2d 316, 318 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.2006) (<HOLDING>). Thus, the district court correctly determined
holding that plaintiff was not the prevailing party for purposes of awarding attorneys fees even where the court retained jurisdiction to enforce the terms of a settlement agreement because there was insufficient judicial sanctioning of the alteration of the parties legal relationship holding that where the plaintiff voluntarily dismisses an alleged slapp suit while a special motion to strike is pending the trial court has discretion to determine whether the defendant is the prevailing party for purposes of attorneys fees under code of civil procedure section 42516 subdivision c 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 prevailing party has no standing to appeal holding that a defendant is the prevailing party within the meaning of statutory provisions awarding attorneys fees to the prevailing party even when the plaintiff voluntarily dismisses the action