Bart Fanelli v. BMC Software, Inc.

Filing

Opinion issued by court as to Appellant BMC Software, Inc. in 15-14431, 16-12339. Decision: Affirmed. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam. The opinion is also available through the Court's Opinions page at this link http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions. [15-14431, 16-12339]

Case: 15-14431

Date Filed: 04/20/2017

Page: 1 of 2

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 15-14431 & 16-12339
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:11-cv-00436-LMM

BART FANELLI,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
BMC SOFTWARE, INC.,
a Delaware corporation,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
________________________
(April 20, 2017)
Before WILSON, and JULIE CARNES Circuit Judges, and TREADWELL, *
District Judge
*

Honorable Marc T. Treadwell, United States District Judge, for the Middle District of Georgia,
sitting by designation.

Case: 15-14431

Date Filed: 04/20/2017

Page: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
We have considered all of BMC’s specifications of error. We have reviewed
the following under an abuse of discretion standard:
1. Whether the district court erred in allowing the jury to find that BMC
owed a duty to Fanelli?
2. Whether the district court erred in allowing the jury to find that BMC
was the proximate cause of harm to Fanelli?
3. Whether the district court erred by not setting aside the award for
damages to reputation?
4. Whether the district court erred by excluding evidence as to Fanelli’s
post-BMC earnings?
5. Whether the district court erred in declining to overrule the jury’s
finding that BMC acted in bad faith under O.C.G.A. § 13-6-11?
6. Whether the district court erred in granting Fanelli’s motion for
attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 9-11-68?
We have reviewed de novo the following specification of error:
7. Whether the district court erred in denying BMC’s Motion for Judgment
as a Matter of Law on Fanelli’s claim for fraudulent nondisclosure?
After careful review of the briefs and the record, and having the benefit of
oral argument, we find no reversible error. The decision of the district court is
AFFIRMED.

2