Case Name: Lana PEREZ, Elena Leffler, Plaintiffs-Appellants Cross-Appellees, v. SAKS FIFTH AVENUE, INC., a foreign corporation, doing business in Florida, Defendant-Appellee Cross-Appellants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-01-21
Citations: 379 F. App'x 801
Docket Number: No. 09-10574
Parties: Lana PEREZ, Elena Leffler, Plaintiffs-Appellants Cross-Appellees, v. SAKS FIFTH AVENUE, INC., a foreign corporation, doing business in Florida, Defendant-Appellee Cross-Appellants.
Judges: Before WILSON and COX, Circuit Judges and RESTANI, Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 379
Pages: 801–801

Head Matter:
Lana PEREZ, Elena Leffler, Plaintiffs-Appellants Cross-Appellees, v. SAKS FIFTH AVENUE, INC., a foreign corporation, doing business in Florida, Defendant-Appellee Cross-Appellants.
No. 09-10574.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
Jan. 21, 2010.
Craig L. Berman, Berman Law Firm, P.A., Saint Petersburg, FL, Erika Deutsch Rotbart, Deutsch Rotbart & Associates, P.A., Boca Raton, FL, for Plaintiffs-Appellants Cross-Appellees.
Justin B. Uhlemann, Mcdermott, Will & Emery, LLP, Miami, FL, Carolyn T. Sehiff, Joel E. Cohen, Mcdermott Will & Emery LLP, New York, NY, for Defendant-Appellee Cross-Appellants.
Before WILSON and COX, Circuit Judges and RESTANI, Judge.
Honorable Jane A. Restani, Chief Judge, United States Court of International Trade, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The district judge, in a well-reasoned order, granted Saks Fifth Avenue, Inc.'s renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(b). He found that the judgment was warranted because "no reasonable juror could conclude that in taking adverse employment action against Plaintiffs, Phelan acted as a mere [conduit] for Terbecki or Salerno's age animus or retaliatory motives." Perez v. Saks Fifth Avenue, Inc., 592 F.Supp.2d 1388, 1399-1400 (S.D.Fla.2009). We have carefully reviewed the record and the court's order, and we conclude that the court properly granted judgment as a matter of law. We therefore affirm the judgment of the district court. As a result, Saks's conditional cross-appeal from the denial of its alternative motion for new trial pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 50(b) and 59(a) is moot.
AFFIRMED.