## Facts

- Elizabeth Mekdeci took Bendectin, a prescription anti-nausea drug manufactured by Merrell National Laboratories, during pregnancy.
- In 1975, she gave birth to David Mekdeci with congenital anomalies including malformed or missing fingers and a missing pectoral muscle.
- The Mekdecis sued in federal court under Florida law, alleging strict liability, negligence, breach of warranty, and fraud, claiming Bendectin caused the birth defects.
- After a lengthy first trial and apparent jury deadlock, the jury awarded only the parents’ stipulated medical-expense amount ($20,000) and awarded nothing on the child’s claim.
- The district court found the first verdict a compromise and ordered a new trial on all issues.
- Before the second trial, plaintiffs’ counsel repeatedly moved to withdraw and alternatively sought a continuance or stay; the court denied the requests.
- The second trial resulted in a defense verdict for Merrell; the court entered judgment for Merrell and taxed against plaintiffs Merrell’s costs for both trials.
- Plaintiffs appealed several procedural rulings; Merrell cross-appealed the denial of its directed verdict and JNOV motions after the first trial.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court properly treated the first verdict as a compromise verdict and ordered a new trial on all issues rather than limiting retrial to damages.
2. Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying plaintiffs’ counsel leave to withdraw and denying a continuance or stay shortly before the second trial.
3. Whether the district court erred in taxing Merrell’s costs from both trials against the plaintiffs after Merrell prevailed in the second trial.
4. Whether Merrell’s cross-appeal challenging denial of directed verdict/JNOV after the first trial required review in light of the defense judgment after the second trial.

## Decision

- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the judgment for Merrell.
- The court held the district court acted within its discretion in finding a compromise verdict and ordering a new trial on all issues.
- The court held denial of counsel’s withdrawal motions and denial of a continuance or stay were not abuses of discretion.
- The court upheld taxation of Merrell’s costs for both trials against the plaintiffs.
- The court dismissed Merrell’s cross-appeal as moot.

## Legal Principles

- A trial court has broad discretion to determine whether a jury verdict reflects a compromise on liability and, if so, to order a new trial under Rule 59.
- When liability and damages are not readily separable and there is a substantial risk that liability was compromised, a new trial may properly encompass both liability and damages rather than damages alone.
- Decisions on attorney withdrawal and trial continuances are committed to the trial court’s discretion; late-filed requests may be denied where justification is inadequate and delay would burden the court or prejudice the opposing party.
- Costs are presumptively awarded to the prevailing party; after final judgment for the defendant, the court may tax allowable costs, including costs incurred in prior proceedings leading to the final outcome.
- A cross-appeal seeking judgment as a matter of law based on an earlier trial may be moot when a later trial results in final judgment that resolves the case on independent grounds.

## Conclusion

The Eleventh Circuit upheld the district court’s management of the litigation, including treating the first jury’s limited award as a compromise requiring retrial on all issues, denying late efforts by plaintiffs’ counsel to withdraw or delay the second trial, and awarding the prevailing defendant costs for both trials; the defendant’s cross-appeal was moot after the final defense judgment.


Mekdeci v. Merrell Nat'l Labs., 711 F.2d 1510 (11th Cir. 1983)