law claims against defendant Hunt were dismissed on March 31, 1999. In 2001, the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment and for dismissal for failure to prosecute and the motion was granted in July 2002. Two weeks later, the plaintiffs filed motions to vacate the dismissal, and these motions were denied on November 13 and 14, 2002. On February 14, 2003, Hunt filed a “Motion for Attorney Fees/Costs Under 18 USC 1964(c) and for Rule 11 Sanctions.” The district court denied this motion and Hunt now appeals. II. Discussion Hunt argues that the district court abused its discretion by refusing to grant Hunt fees and costs pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. We disagree. First, 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c) does not apply to prevailing defendants. ir.1997) (<HOLDING>). Hunt is not a person injured in his business
holding award of attorneys fees to party prevailing on contract claim is mandatory under section 38001 if there is proof of the reasonableness of the fees 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 holding that successful rico defendants may receive attorneys fees under federal rule of civil procedure 11 recognizing that a school district must be a prevailing party in order to be entitled to attorneys fees under the idea holding that a prevailing rico defendant may receive attorneys fees under federal rule of civil procedure 54d