[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 15-13477

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 9:14-cv-80374-JIC

PHARMA SUPPLY, INC., 

a Florida corporation, 

 Plaintiff - Counter Defendant - Appellant 

 Cross Appellee,

versus

MITCHELL A. STEIN, 

 Defendant - Counter Claimant - Third 

 Party Plaintiff - Third Party Counter 

 Defendant - Appellee 

 Cross Appellant,

STEIN LAW P.C., 

 Defendant - Counter Claimant -

 Third Party Plaintiff - Appellee

 Cross Appellant,

versus

FRANK SUESS, et al.,

Case: 15-13477 Date Filed: 12/16/2016 Page: 1 of 4 
2

 Third Party Defendants - Appellees,

JAMES P. SCHOOLEY, 

 Third Party Defendant - Third Party

 Counter Claimant - Appellant 

 Cross Appellee.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(December 16, 2016)

Before JORDAN and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges, and COOGLER,

* District 

Judge.

PER CURIAM: 

Following oral argument and a review of the record, we reject the arguments 

advanced by the parties and affirm in all respects. Because we write for the 

parties, we set out only what is necessary to explain our decision.1

1. The Pharma parties argue that the district court erred in striking their 

expert witness due to late disclosure of his report, but they did not include all the 

trial transcripts in the record and they do not explain in their brief what the expert’s 

testimony would have been or why the exclusion was prejudicial. As a result, no 

 * Honorable L. Scott Coogler, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Alabama, 

sitting by designation.

1 As to issues not specifically addressed, we affirm without discussion.

Case: 15-13477 Date Filed: 12/16/2016 Page: 2 of 4 
3

reversible error has been shown. See Palmer v. Hoffman, 318 U.S. 109, 116 

(1943); 28 U.S.C. § 2111; Fed. R. Civ. P. 61. 

2. The Pharma parties assert that the district court erred in refusing to 

disqualify Slenn, one of the attorneys for Stein. They fail, though, to address the 

district court’s reliance on Farrington v. Sessions, Fishman, Boisfontaine, Nathan, 

Winn, Butler & Barkley, 687 So.2d 997, 1000–02 (La. 1997), and as a result, they 

have abandoned any challenge to that basis for the ruling. See Sapuppo v. Allstate 

Floridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678, 680–81 (11th Cir. 2014).

3. Schooley contends that the jury verdict in his favor on the breach of 

contract claim against Stein was inconsistent with its failure to award any damages. 

Schooley, however, did not object to the verdict being inconsistent before the jury 

retired, so his claim is forfeited and cannot be reviewed on appeal. See, e.g., 

Reider v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., 793 F.3d 1254, 1259 (11th Cir. 2015) (citing 

cases).

4. The Stein parties argue that the jury’s rejection of their breach of 

contract and unjust enrichment claims was against the weight of the evidence. 

Reviewing for abuse of discretion, see, e.g., Bergeron v. Cent. Freight Lines, Inc., 

504 F.2d 889, 890 (5th Cir. 1974), we find no reversible error in the district court’s 

denial of the motion for a new trial. The Stein parties did not include all of the trial 

transcripts in the record, and without all of the testimony presented at trial we 

Case: 15-13477 Date Filed: 12/16/2016 Page: 3 of 4 
4

cannot engage in a review of the evidence. See Borden, Inc. v. Florida E. Coast 

Ry. Co., 772 F.2d 750, 758 (11th Cir. 1985); Fed. R. App. P. 10(b)(2). 

5. The Stein parties say that the jury’s malpractice and breach of contract 

verdicts were the result of an impermissible compromise. But they failed to 

properly raise a compromise verdict objection in their post-trial motion and 

therefore forfeited it. See Reider, 793 F.3d at 1260–61.

AFFIRMED.

2

 2 We commend the district court for its handling of the case, particularly given the challenges 

posed by the number of issues and how the parties and their counsel chose to litigate them. 

Case: 15-13477 Date Filed: 12/16/2016 Page: 4 of 4