Seb S.A. v. Sunbeam Corporation ( 2008 )


Menu:
  •                                            [DO NOT PUBLISH]
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
    FILED
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
    December 10, 2008
    No. 07-12992
    THOMAS K. KAHN
    CLERK
    D. C. Docket No. 02-80527 CV-KLR
    SEB S.A.,
    Plaintiff,
    versus
    SUNBEAM CORPORATION,
    Defendant-Third Party-
    Plaintiff-Cross-Claimant-
    Appellee,
    SUNBEAM PRODUCTS, INC.,
    Defendant-Third-Party-
    Plaintiff-Cross-Claimant-
    Appellee,
    WING SHING INTERNATIONAL, LTD.,
    (BVI),
    Defendant-Third Party-
    Defendant-Counter-Claimant,
    PENTALPHA ENTERPRISES, LTD.,
    Defendant-Third-Party-
    Defendant-Counter-Claimant-
    Appellant,
    GLOBAL-TECH APPLIANCE, INC.,
    Third Party-Defendant-
    Counter-Claimant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Southern District of Florida
    (December 10, 2008)
    Before DUBINA, BLACK and FAY, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:
    Appellant, Pentalpha Enterprises, Ltd., appeals the district court’s third
    amended judgment entered on June 4, 2007, following this court’s mandate issued
    on March 16, 2007. The third amended judgment awarded appellee, Sunbeam
    Products, Inc., additional prejudgment interest on its judgment against Pentalpha
    in an underlying indemnification and breach of contract action.
    After reviewing the record, reading the parties’ briefs, and having the
    benefit of oral argument, we conclude that the district court erred as a matter of
    law in granting Sunbeam additional prejudgment interest on its claim against
    2
    Pentalpha because the mandate did not authorize the district court to grant that
    relief. Clearly, the mandate only directly applied to Pentalpha and not to
    Sunbeam. Moreover, because there was no intervening change in the controlling
    law that would justify the district court’s deviation from the mandate, see Wheeler
    v. City of Pleasant Grove, 
    746 F.2d 1437
    , 1441 (11th Cir. 1984) (noting
    exceptions to mandate and law of the case doctrine), we must once again remand
    this case to the district court with instructions to vacate its most recent award of
    prejudgment interest to Sunbeam for lack of jurisdiction.
    REMANDED with directions.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 07-12992

Judges: Dubina, Black, Fay

Filed Date: 12/10/2008

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024