Case Explained: Non-Argument Calendar SHAUNDA SANDERS MAURICE SANDERS v. ELMINGTON PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, LLC 101 DAVENPORT DRIVE HOLDINGS, LLC SOUTHEAST MULTI-FAMILY PARTNERS, LLC DAVID DESHONG SHIELD SECURITY SOLUTIONS, LLC, et al USCA11 Case: 25-12729 Document: 29-1 Date Filed: 08/14/2026 Page: 1 of 7 2

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Filed: 2026-08-14 Docket: 1:22-cv-03985-SDG The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment in a premises-liability action arising from a plaintiff’s fall on an apartment staircase. The court held that even if the district court erred in granting judgment as a matter of law to two defendants (a managing member and his company) by finding they owed no duty of care, such error was harmless under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 61. The court applied the standard for harmless error, which requires determining whether an error affected a party’s substantial rights. Relying on *Perrine v. Fredericks* and *Thomas v. Whitworth*, the Eleventh Circuit reasoned that the plaintiffs had the full opportunity to present their case regarding these defendants to the jury, as the liability theories and evidence were identical for all four remaining defendants. Because the jury returned a verdict against the plaintiffs on their claims against the two remaining defendants (the property owner and the property manager), and the plaintiffs offered no evidence suggesting the jury would have reached a different result had the other two defendants remained in the case, the court concluded the error had little or no impact on the plaintiffs’ substantive rights. The practical consequence is that the judgment entered by the district court in favor of the defendants stands, and the plaintiffs’ appeal is dismissed with no further relief granted. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.