Case ID: f-appx_302/html/0870-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

SEB S.A., Plaintiff, v. 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.
    No. 07-12992.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
    Dec. 10, 2008.
    
      William Dunnegan, Perkins & Dunnegan, New York, NY, Jill A. Pryor, Bondurant, Mixson & Elmore, Atlanta, GA, for Defendant-Third-Party-Defendant-Counter-Claimant-Appellant.
    Elliot H. Scherker, Julissa Rodriguez, Greenberg Traurig, P.A., Miami, FL, Lorie M. Gleim, Padma G.'Hinrichs, Mark F. Bideau, Greenberg Traurig P.A., West Palm Bch, FL, for Defendant-Third-Party-Plaintiff-Cross-Claimant>-Appellee.
    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 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.