891 F.2d 886 (11th Cir. 1990), 89-7014, Wright v. Preferred Research, Inc.

Docket Nº:89-7014.
Citation:891 F.2d 886
Party Name:Sidney H. WRIGHT, III, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. PREFERRED RESEARCH, INC., a Georgia Corp., Defendant-Appellant.
Case Date:January 11, 1990
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 886

891 F.2d 886 (11th Cir. 1990)

Sidney H. WRIGHT, III, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

PREFERRED RESEARCH, INC., a Georgia Corp., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 89-7014.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit

January 11, 1990

Page 887

George L. Beck, Jr. and W. Terry Travis, Montgomery, Ala., for defendant-counterclaim-plaintiff-appellant.

James A. Ward, III, Dothan, Ala., for plaintiff-counterclaim-defendant-appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama.

Page 888

Before VANCE [*], HATCHETT and CLARK, Circuit Judges.

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING AND SUGGESTION OF REHEARING IN BANC

PER CURIAM:

In this petition for rehearing we are asked to reconsider whether defendant-appellant Preferred Research, Inc. filed its notice of appeal prematurely. Earlier we dismissed this appeal because Preferred's notice was filed while plaintiff-appellee Sidney Wright still had a motion for reconsideration pending before the district court. Preferred now argues that Wright's motion for reconsideration was untimely, and that in any event it was not the type of motion that bars a notice of appeal. Finding no merit in these contentions, we deny Preferred's petition for rehearing.

I.

In the district court plaintiff-appellee Sidney H. Wright, III (hereinafter "Wright") was awarded $1,500,000 in punitive damages and $7,000 in compensatory damages. The judgment and order in Wright's favor was entered on July 14, 1988. A week later defendant-appellant Preferred Research, Inc. (hereinafter "Preferred") filed motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict ("j.n.o.v."), for a new trial, and for a stay of proceedings. On July 26, 1988, the trial court granted Preferred's motion to stay the proceedings until the disposition of Preferred's other motions. On December 13, 1988, the trial court denied the motion for j.n.o.v. and ordered that the motion for a new trial be denied on the condition that Wright file a consent to remittitur not later than December 28, 1988. Wright filed both a consent to the remittitur and a motion to reconsider the remittitur order on December 28, 1988. On January 4, 1989, Preferred filed its notice of appeal. On January 6, 1989, the trial judge denied Wright's motion to reconsider the order of remittitur, but allowed Wright additional time to brief his request for equitable relief contained in the motion to reconsider the order of remittitur. On January 31, 1989, the trial court denied Wright's motion for reconsideration "in all remaining respects."

On July 27, 1989, this panel entered an order dismissing Preferred's appeal on the ground that, because Preferred filed its notice of appeal prior to the disposition of Wright's motion for reconsideration, the notice was premature. Preferred has filed a petition for rehearing to which we now respond.

II.

Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(1) provides that notice of appeal in a civil case...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP