Bart Fanelli v. BMC Software, Inc., No. 15-14431 (11th Cir. 2017)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 15-14431 Date Filed: 04/20/2017 Page: 1 of 2 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 15-14431 & 16-12339 ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 1:11-cv-00436-LMM BART FANELLI, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus BMC SOFTWARE, INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________ Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia ________________________ (April 20, 2017) Before WILSON, and JULIE CARNES Circuit Judges, and TREADWELL, * District Judge * Honorable Marc T. Treadwell, United States District Judge, for the Middle District of Georgia, sitting by designation. Case: 15-14431 Date Filed: 04/20/2017 Page: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: We have considered all of BMC’s specifications of error. We have reviewed the following under an abuse of discretion standard: 1. Whether the district court erred in allowing the jury to find that BMC owed a duty to Fanelli? 2. Whether the district court erred in allowing the jury to find that BMC was the proximate cause of harm to Fanelli? 3. Whether the district court erred by not setting aside the award for damages to reputation? 4. Whether the district court erred by excluding evidence as to Fanelli’s post-BMC earnings? 5. Whether the district court erred in declining to overrule the jury’s finding that BMC acted in bad faith under O.C.G.A. § 13-6-11? 6. Whether the district court erred in granting Fanelli’s motion for attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 9-11-68? We have reviewed de novo the following specification of error: 7. Whether the district court erred in denying BMC’s Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law on Fanelli’s claim for fraudulent nondisclosure? After careful review of the briefs and the record, and having the benefit of oral argument, we find no reversible error. The decision of the district court is AFFIRMED. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.