each witness to $40 per day). Because no contract or other statute authorizes fees in excess of $40 in this case, we find no error. III. Conclusion For all the foregoing reasons, we affirm the district court’s entry of judgment in favor of Defendant in the amount of $21,070.10. AFFIRMED. 1 . Defendant argues that the specific rule at issue here, Rule 1.442(c)(2)(B), is procedural and therefore does not apply in federal court for purposes of Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 58 S.Ct. 817, 82 L.Ed. 1188 (1938). Because we conclude that Defendant would win even if the rule were substantive and applied, we do not decide this issue. In any case, we observe that Rule 1.442(c)(2)(B) is likely substantive. Cf. Horowitch v. Diamond Aircraft Indus., Inc., 645 F.3d 1254, 1258 (11th Cir. 2011) (<HOLDING>). 2 . The full text of Rule 1.442(c)(2)
holding that an offer to donate cannot be an offer to sell holding that when an appellant fails to offer an argument on an issue that issue is abandoned holding an unaccepted settlement offer or offer of judgment does not moot a plaintiffs case emphasis added holding that while rule 68 does not explicitly require that an offer of settlement under that rule be made in writing its requirement that the offer be served upon the adverse party implies as much holding that rule 1442c2fs requirement that the proposal state whether attorneys fees are included is substantive because it prescribes specific substantive terms that an offer of judgment must include and which are material to an offerees ability to evaluate an offer