Opinion
No. 07-12992.
December 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.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. D.C. Docket No. 02-80527 CV-KLR.
Before DUBINA, BLACK and FAY, Circuit Judges.
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 man-date, 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.