
    MAIDEN SPECIALITY INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Counter Defendant Appellant Cross Appellee, v. THREE CHEFS AND A CHICKEN, INC., a Florida profit corporation, Rudyard A. McDonnough, an individual, Rudyard McDonnough, Jr., an individual, Richard McDonnough, an individual, Defendants-Counter Claimants-Appellees Cross Appellants, Chicken Kitchen USA, LLC, a Florida profit corporation, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 14-11574.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
    May 28, 2015.
    Billy Richard Young, Adam Duke, Megan Marie Hall, Courtney F. Smith, Young Bill Roumbos Boles, Pensacola, FL, Katina M. Hardee, Young Bill Roumbos & Boles, PA, Miami, FL, for Plaintiff-Counter Defendant Appellant Cross Appellee.
    Richard Stuart Ross, Law Office of Richard S. Ross, Fort Lauderdale, FL, Eric Lowell Berger, Koppel & Associates, PA, Plantation, FL, for Defendants-Counter Claimants-Appellees Cross Appellants.
    Alejandro Britó, Gabriel Eric Estadella, Alaina Brooke Siminovsky, Zarco Einhorn Salkowski & Brito, PA, Miami, FL, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before MARCUS and WILSON, Circuit Judges, and SCHLESINGER, District Judge.
    
      
       Honorable Harvey E. Schlesinger, United States District Judge for the Middle District of Florida, sitting by designation.
    
   PER CURIAM:

Maiden Specialty Insurance Company (Maiden) filed a declaratory action in the district court seeking to disclaim coverage under a general commercial liability policy (Policy) issued by Maiden to Three Chefs and a Chicken, Inc. (Three Chefs), for an underlying trade dress infringement action .filed against Three Chefs. In an omnibus order, the district court denied Maiden’s motion to amend its complaint, filed after the scheduling order deadline, and granted summary judgment in favor of Three Chefs. In a separate order, it also granted Three Chefs’s subsequent motion for attorney’s fees. Maiden appeals the denial of its motion to amend, the grant of summary judgment, and the award of attorney’s fees. Three Chefs cross-appeals the amount of attorney’s fees awarded to it.

We review a denial of a motion to amend for abuse of discretion. See Hall v. United Ins. Co. of Am., 367 F.3d 1255, 1262 (11th Cir.2004). Likewise, we review attorney’s fees grants, including the amount, for abuse of discretion. See Villano v. City of Boynton Beach, 254 F.3d 1302, 1304-05 (11th Cir.2001). After consideration of the parties’ arguments and review of the district court’s thorough reasoning, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion in denying the motion to amend, in granting attorney’s fees, or in setting the attorney’s fees award amount.

We review the grant of summary judgment de novo. See Stephens v. Mid-Continent Cas. Co., 749 F.3d 1318, 1321 (11th Cir.2014). Because our precedent mandates coverage here, see Hyman v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 304 F.3d 1179, 1188-89 (11th Cir.2002), and because Maiden admitted during discovery that the Policy provided coverage for. the trade dress infringement action, summary judgment was properly granted.

AFFIRMED.  