Metheney v. Brinker International Payroll Co., L.P.

Eleventh Circuit

Metheney v. Brinker International Payroll Co., L.P.

171 F. App'x 331

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

DecidedApril 3, 2006

DocketNo. 05-15941; D.C. Docket No. 04-01667-CV-T-26MAP

StatusPublished

This text of 171 F. App'x 331 (Metheney v. Brinker International Payroll Co., L.P.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Metheney v. Brinker International Payroll Co., L.P., 171 F. App'x 331 (11th Cir. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The Defendant Brinker International Payroll Company, L.P. (“Brinker”), appeals following a verdict and judgment in favor of the Plaintiff William Metheney in this Fair Labor Standards Act case. Brink-er argues: (1) that the trial court erred in denying Brinker’s motion for judgment as a matter of law; or, alternatively, that the trial court abused its discretion in denying Brinker’s motion for a new trial; (2) that the trial court abused its discretion in ex-[332]*332eluding evidence of bias on the part of Metheney and Smith, Metheney’s principal witness; (3) that the trial court erred in formulating the verdict form submitted to the jury; and (4) that the trial court abused its discretion in determining the amount of attorneys’ fees awarded. We have carefully considered Brinker’s arguments and conclude that no reversible ror has been shown.

AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

The Defendant Brinker International Payroll Company, L.P. (“Brinker”), appeals following a verdict and judgment in favor of the Plaintiff William Metheney in this Fair Labor Standards Act case. Brink-er argues: (1) that the trial court erred in denying Brinker’s motion for judgment as a matter of law; or, alternatively, that the trial court abused its discretion in denying Brinker’s motion for a new trial; (2) that the trial court abused its discretion in ex-[332]*332eluding evidence of bias on the part of Metheney and Smith, Metheney’s principal witness; (3) that the trial court erred in formulating the verdict form submitted to the jury; and (4) that the trial court abused its discretion in determining the amount of attorneys’ fees awarded. We have carefully considered Brinker’s arguments and conclude that no reversible ror has been shown.

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

171 F. App'x 331, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/metheney-v-brinker-international-payroll-co-lp-ca11-2006.