Pharma Supply, Inc. v. Mitchell A. Stein, et al, No. 15-13477 (11th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 15-13477 Date Filed: 12/16/2016 Page: 1 of 4 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 15-13477 ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 9:14-cv-80374-JIC PHARMA SUPPLY, INC., a Florida corporation, Plaintiff - Counter Defendant - Appellant Cross Appellee, versus MITCHELL A. STEIN, Defendant - Counter Claimant - Third Party Plaintiff - Third Party Counter Defendant - Appellee Cross Appellant, STEIN LAW P.C., Defendant - Counter Claimant Third Party Plaintiff - Appellee Cross Appellant, versus FRANK SUESS, et al., Case: 15-13477 Date Filed: 12/16/2016 Page: 2 of 4 Third Party Defendants - Appellees, JAMES P. SCHOOLEY, Third Party Defendant - Third Party Counter Claimant - Appellant Cross Appellee. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida ________________________ (December 16, 2016) Before JORDAN and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges, and COOGLER, * District Judge. PER CURIAM: Following oral argument and a review of the record, we reject the arguments advanced by the parties and affirm in all respects. Because we write for the parties, we set out only what is necessary to explain our decision. 1 1. The Pharma parties argue that the district court erred in striking their expert witness due to late disclosure of his report, but they did not include all the trial transcripts in the record and they do not explain in their brief what the expert’s testimony would have been or why the exclusion was prejudicial. As a result, no * Honorable L. Scott Coogler, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Alabama, sitting by designation. 1 As to issues not specifically addressed, we affirm without discussion. 2 Case: 15-13477 Date Filed: 12/16/2016 Page: 3 of 4 reversible error has been shown. See Palmer v. Hoffman, 318 U.S. 109, 116 (1943); 28 U.S.C. § 2111; Fed. R. Civ. P. 61. 2. The Pharma parties assert that the district court erred in refusing to disqualify Slenn, one of the attorneys for Stein. They fail, though, to address the district court’s reliance on Farrington v. Sessions, Fishman, Boisfontaine, Nathan, Winn, Butler & Barkley, 687 So.2d 997, 1000–02 (La. 1997), and as a result, they have abandoned any challenge to that basis for the ruling. See Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678, 680–81 (11th Cir. 2014). 3. Schooley contends that the jury verdict in his favor on the breach of contract claim against Stein was inconsistent with its failure to award any damages. Schooley, however, did not object to the verdict being inconsistent before the jury retired, so his claim is forfeited and cannot be reviewed on appeal. See, e.g., Reider v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., 793 F.3d 1254, 1259 (11th Cir. 2015) (citing cases). 4. The Stein parties argue that the jury’s rejection of their breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims was against the weight of the evidence. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, see, e.g., Bergeron v. Cent. Freight Lines, Inc., 504 F.2d 889, 890 (5th Cir. 1974), we find no reversible error in the district court’s denial of the motion for a new trial. The Stein parties did not include all of the trial transcripts in the record, and without all of the testimony presented at trial we 3 Case: 15-13477 Date Filed: 12/16/2016 Page: 4 of 4 cannot engage in a review of the evidence. See Borden, Inc. v. Florida E. Coast Ry. Co., 772 F.2d 750, 758 (11th Cir. 1985); Fed. R. App. P. 10(b)(2). 5. The Stein parties say that the jury’s malpractice and breach of contract verdicts were the result of an impermissible compromise. But they failed to properly raise a compromise verdict objection in their post-trial motion and therefore forfeited it. See Reider, 793 F.3d at 1260–61. AFFIRMED. 2 2 We commend the district court for its handling of the case, particularly given the challenges posed by the number of issues and how the parties and their counsel chose to litigate them. 4
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.
