Case Name: Bart FANELLI, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BMC SOFTWARE, INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-04-20
Citations: 686 F. App'x 666
Docket Number: No. 15-14431 & 16-12339
Parties: Bart FANELLI, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BMC SOFTWARE, INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WILSON, and JULIE CARNES Circuit Judges, and TREADWELL, District Judge
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 686
Pages: 666–667

Head Matter:
Bart FANELLI, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BMC SOFTWARE, INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-14431 & 16-12339
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
(April 20, 2017)
Michael Eric Ross, Scott G. Blews, Glianny Fagundo, Eric Seth Fisher, Kelly Casey Mullally, Taylor English Duma, LLP, Atlanta, GA, for Plaintiff-Appellee
A. Craig Cleland, Margaret H. Campbell, Margaret Santen Hanrahan, Amy Elizabeth Jensen, David Paul Thatcher, Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart, PC, Atlanta, GA, Theresia Maria Moser, Charles Edward Solley, Moser Law Group, LLC, Atlanta, GA, for Defendant-Appellant
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.

Opinion:
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.