Phoenician Imports, Inc. v. Federal Express Corp.

Eleventh Circuit

Phoenician Imports, Inc. v. Federal Express Corp.

134 F. App'x 418

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

DecidedJune 14, 2005

Docket04-14767; D.C. Docket 99-00600 CV-JAL

StatusUnpublished

This text of 134 F. App'x 418 (Phoenician Imports, Inc. v. Federal Express Corp.) 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

Phoenician Imports, Inc. v. Federal Express Corp., 134 F. App'x 418 (11th Cir. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a judgment entered on a jury verdict against Federal Express Corporation in an action under the Warsaw Convention in which Phoenician Imports, Inc., claimed damages resulting from Federal Express’s alleged delay in delivery of goods.

*419 The issues presented for appellate review are (1) whether the district court erred in denying FedEx’s motion in limine to exclude or rebut Phoenician’s damages expert thereby requiring a new trial; (2) whether a new trial is required because the district court admitted testimony of an oral agreement; (3) whether Phoenician presented sufficient evidence that it gave FedEx notice of its claim under Article 26 of the Warsaw Convention such that the district court properly denied FedEx’s Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law or New Trial; and (4) if a new trial is not required, whether the district court properly awarded prejudgment interest and whether the judgment should be reduced to the liability limit permitted by the Warsaw Convention.

This court reviews evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discretion and will reverse the district court where the ruling resulted in a “substantial prejudicial effect.” Cortes v. American Airlines, Inc., 177 F.3d 1272, 1305 (11th Cir.1999).

Moreover, this court reviews the district court’s disposition of a motion for new trial for an abuse of discretion. Davis v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 967 F.2d 1563, 1566 (11th Cir.1992). This court reviews de novo a district court’s calculation of prejudgment interest where such involves construction of state law. See Alphamed, Inc. v. B. Braun Medical, Inc., 367 F.3d 1280, 1285 (11th Cir.2004).

After reviewing the record, reading the parties’ briefs, and having the benefit of oral argument, we conclude there is no merit to the arguments presented by FedEx and, accordingly, we affirm the distriet court’s judgment entered on the jury’s verdict.

AFFIRMED.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a judgment entered on a jury verdict against Federal Express Corporation in an action under the Warsaw Convention in which Phoenician Imports, Inc., claimed damages resulting from Federal Express’s alleged delay in delivery of goods.

*419 The issues presented for appellate review are (1) whether the district court erred in denying FedEx’s motion in limine to exclude or rebut Phoenician’s damages expert thereby requiring a new trial; (2) whether a new trial is required because the district court admitted testimony of an oral agreement; (3) whether Phoenician presented sufficient evidence that it gave FedEx notice of its claim under Article 26 of the Warsaw Convention such that the district court properly denied FedEx’s Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law or New Trial; and (4) if a new trial is not required, whether the district court properly awarded prejudgment interest and whether the judgment should be reduced to the liability limit permitted by the Warsaw Convention.

This court reviews evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discretion and will reverse the district court where the ruling resulted in a “substantial prejudicial effect.” Cortes v. American Airlines, Inc., 177 F.3d 1272, 1305 (11th Cir.1999).

Moreover, this court reviews the district court’s disposition of a motion for new trial for an abuse of discretion. Davis v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 967 F.2d 1563, 1566 (11th Cir.1992). This court reviews de novo a district court’s calculation of prejudgment interest where such involves construction of state law. See Alphamed, Inc. v. B. Braun Medical, Inc., 367 F.3d 1280, 1285 (11th Cir.2004).

After reviewing the record, reading the parties’ briefs, and having the benefit of oral argument, we conclude there is no merit to the arguments presented by FedEx and, accordingly, we affirm the distriet court’s judgment entered on the jury’s verdict.

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

134 F. App'x 418, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/phoenician-imports-inc-v-federal-express-corp-ca11-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack