Jenny Martin v. Eli Lilly & Co., et al

Filing

Opinion issued by court as to Appellant Jenny Martin. Decision: Dismissed. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Signed. The opinion is also available through the Court's Opinions page at this link http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions.

Case: 16-13043

Date Filed: 07/21/2017

Page: 1 of 3

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 16-13043
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:12-cv-01623-CAP
JENNY MARTIN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
ELI LILLY & CO.,
LILLY USA, LLC,
Defendants - Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
________________________
(July 21, 2017)
Before WILLIAM PRYOR, JORDAN, and BALDOCK, * Circuit Judges.
BALDOCK, Circuit Judge:

*

The Honorable Bobby R. Baldock, United States Circuit Judge for the Tenth Circuit,
sitting by designation.

Case: 16-13043

Date Filed: 07/21/2017

Page: 2 of 3

Plaintiff Jenny Martin obtained a jury verdict in her favor on a claim that her
former employer, Defendant Eli Lilly & Company (“Lilly”), discriminated against
her on the basis of her disability in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act
(“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12112. In a separate appeal, Lilly challenged the district
court’s denial of its motion for judgment as a matter of law. We reversed and
directed the district court to enter judgment in Lilly’s favor. See Martin v. Eli Lilly
& Co., No. 16-11537 (11th Cir. 2017). In this appeal, Martin argues the district
court incorrectly calculated the attorney’s fees it awarded her as the prevailing
party. Because Martin is no longer the prevailing party, her appeal is moot. We
DISMISS the appeal.

2

Case: 16-13043

Date Filed: 07/21/2017

Page: 3 of 3

JORDAN, Circuit Judge, concurring:
As noted in my dissent in Case No. 16-11537, I disagree with the majority
about the merits. But, because of the majority’s ruling, Ms. Martin is no longer a
prevailing party, and I agree that her appeal about attorney’s fees is necessarily
moot.

3