Professional Employer Plans, Inc. v. Hobbs Group, No. 05-14686 (11th Cir. 2006)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT Nos. 05-14686 & 06-12082 ________________________ NOVEMBER 3, 2006 THOMAS K. KAHN CLERK D. C. Docket No. 03-00896-CV-T-24-TGW PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYER PLANS, INC., Plaintiff Counter-Defendant Appellee, versus LEADING EDGE INSURANCE GROUP, INC., DefendantCounter-Claimant Cross-Claimant Appellant. _______________________ Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida _________________________ (November 3, 2006) Before BLACK and HULL, Circuit Judges, and RYSKAMP,* District Judge. PER CURIAM: Appellant, Leading Edge Insurance Group, Inc., appeals the district court s denial of its motion for judgment as a matter of law following a jury verdict holding Leading Edge liable for fraud and violating the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (NJCFA). Leading Edge also appeals the district court s award of attorneys fees to Appellee, Professional Employer Plans, Inc. (PEP), the denial of its request for attorneys fees for the civil theft claim, and the denial of its motion for remittitur. In its opinion dated August 2, 2005, the district court considered the evidence in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff and denied Leading Edge s motion for judgment as a matter of law for the fraud claim and NJCFA claim and motion for remittitur. The district court awarded PEP attorneys fees and costs under the NJCFA because the jury found Leading Edge committed an unconscionable commercial practice. The court also found that Professional Employer Plans presented substantial support for its civil theft claim and therefore refused to award attorneys fees or costs to Leading Edge for that claim. We have heard oral argument, thoroughly reviewed the Record, and * Honorable Kenneth L. Ryskamp, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Florida, sitting by designation. 2 concluded the district court committed no error. AFFIRMED. 3

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.