IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA
ALL STAR BOXING, INC.,
a Florida corporation,
GENERAL JURISDICTION DIVISION
CASE NO.: 10-25018 CA 31
Plaintiff,
v.
SAUL ALVAREZ, an individual,
and, GOLDEN BOY PROMOTIONS,
INC., a California corporation,
Defendants.
___
SAUL ALVAREZ, an individual,
Counter-Plaintiff/Third-Party Plaintiff,
v.
ALL STAR BOXING, INC., a Florida
corporation, FELIX ZABALA, JR., an
individual, and RAFAEL MENDOZA, an
individual,
Counter-Defendants.
____/
ORDER ON DEFENDANT SAUL ALVAREZ’S
MOTION FOR REMITTITUR OR FOR NEW TRIAL
THIS CAUSE came before the Court on Defendant Saul Alvarez’s Motion for
Remittitur or For New Trial (“Defendant’s Motion”), and the Court having reviewed
Defendant’s Motion and the Court file, having heard argument of counsel and being fully
advised in the premises, the Court FINDS as follows:
BACKGROUND
This case was tried before a jury over 13 days from May 23, 2016 until June 13,
2016. On June 13, 2016, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Defendants Alvarez
(“Alvarez”) and Golden Boy Promotions, Inc. (“Golden Boy”) and against Plaintiff All Star
Boxing, Inc. (“ASB”) on ASB’s Breach of Contract and Tortious Interference claims.
However, the jury returned a verdict in favor of ASB and against Alvarez on the Unjust
Enrichment claim, and awarded ASB $8,500,000. Alvarez timely moved for remittitur of
the jury’s verdict on the unjust enrichment claim, or, alternatively for a new trial on unjust
enrichment damages.
LEGAL ANALYSIS
The Florida Legislature has provided trial courts with the discretionary authority to
review a jury’s damages award for excessiveness or inadequacy in light of the facts and
circumstances that were presented to the jury. See § 768.74(1), (6), Fla. Stat. (2015). In
exercising such discretion, a court must consider the following criteria:
(a)
Whether the amount awarded is indicative of prejudice, passion, or
corruption on the part of the trier of fact;
(b)
Whether it appears that the trier of fact ignored the evidence in
reaching a verdict or misconceived the merits of the case relating to
the amounts of damages recoverable;
(c)
Whether the trier of fact took improper elements of damages into
account or arrived at the amount of damages by speculation and
conjecture;
(d)
Whether the amount awarded bears a reasonable relation to the
amount of damages proved and the injury suffered; and
(e)
Whether the amount awarded is supported by the evidence and is
such that it could be adduced in a logical manner by reasonable
persons.
2
§ 768.74(5), Fla. Stat.
Although courts must give “close scrutiny” to damages awards, the Legislature did
not lose sight of the principle that a “fundamental precept of American jurisprudence” is
that the reasonable actions of a jury “should be disturbed or modified with caution and
discretion.” § 768.74(6), Fla. Stat. The party challenging the jury’s award bears the
burden of showing it was “unsupported by the evidence, or that the jury was influenced
by passion or prejudice.” Bould v. Touchette, 349 So. 2d 1181, 1184 (Fla. 1977) (quoting
Talcott v. Hall, 224 So. 2d 420, 422 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969)); see also Chaskes v. Gutierrez,
116 So. 3d 479, 491 (Fla 2d DCA 2013).
Defendants’ request for a remittitur is not subject to being granted given that the
record evidence does not support a determination that the amount of damages is so
excessive that it shocks the judicial conscience and indicates that the jury has been
influenced by passion or prejudice. Weinstein Design Grp., Inc. v. Fielder, 884 So. 2d
990, 1002 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004); see also City of Delray Beach v. Desisto, 197 So. 3d
1206, 1210 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016).
Rather, the Court finds that the jury’s award is supported by the evidence
presented at trial. Namely, the evidence supports the jury’s finding that ASB conferred a
direct benefit on Alvarez.
The Court finds that there was substantial evidence at trial that ASB conferred a
direct benefit on Alvarez that facilitated, and was necessary to, Alvarez’s financial
success. Among other things, the record contains testimony from Felix Zabala, ASB’s
principal, wherein he testified that Alvarez and he agreed that ASB would promote
Alvarez, and that pursuant to that understanding, Zabala obtained an immigration visa for
3
Alvarez; established a plan for Alvarez’s career; promoted fights for Alvarez; paid
expenses for Alvarez, his trainer and his manager; and arranged for Alvarez to participate
in numerous fights in Mexico in order to groom him and cultivate a healthy fan following
in Mexico.
In addition, newspaper articles and video footage supported that testimony,
showing Zabala by Alvarez’s side at numerous fights and press conferences. ASB’s
boxing expert, Arthur Pelullo, testified that the promotional efforts made by ASB were
typical and necessary to build a young fighter’s career.
Florida law recognizes that unjust enrichment exists where one provides services
with the expectation of eventual compensation, those services benefit the recipient, and
the provider does not receive fair value for the services. Media Servs. Grp., Inc. v. Bay
Cities Commc'ns, Inc., 237 F.3d 1326, 1330-31 (11th Cir. 2001); see also BAC Fin. Servs.
Inc. v. Multinat’l Life Ins. Co., No. 13-21529, 2013 WL 5929428, at 3* (S.D. Fla. Nov. 5,
2013).
As such, the Court finds that the evidence supports a determination that ASB’s
services conferred a direct benefit on Alvarez.
The Court also finds that the record evidence demonstrates that the jury’s award
reflects the value of the benefit ASB conferred on Alvarez.
Florida law is clear that the measure of damages in an unjust enrichment claim is
“measured in terms of the benefit to the owner, not the cost to the provider.” Tooltrend,
Inc. v. CMT Utensili, SRL, 198 F.3d 802, 807 (11th Cir. 1999) (applying Florida law)
(emphasis added); see also Restatement (Third) of Restitution and Unjust Enrichment §§
49(3)(a), (c) (2011) (“Enrichment from the receipt of nonreturnable benefits may be
4
measured by … the value of the benefit in advancing the purposes of the defendant ...
[or] the market value of the benefit.”).
The jury was properly instructed that if it found Alvarez was unjustly enriched, one
of the appropriate measures of ASB’s damages was “the value of the benefits that
Defendant Saul ‘Canelo’ Alvarez received from ASB’s labor and expenses.”
Alvarez argues that ASB failed to provide its damages with reasonable certainty.
“The burden of proof is more rigorous with respect to the fact of damage than to
the amount of damage. A plaintiff must show to a reasonable degree of certainty that
some damage occurred, while a relaxed burden of proof [applies] to ascertainment of the
amount of damage.” Slip-N-Slide Records, Inc. v. TVT Records, LLC, No. 05-21113-CIV,
2007 WL 3232274, at *10 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 31, 2007) (quoting Alphamed Pharm. Corp. v.
Arriva Pharm., 432 F. Supp. 2d 1319, 1342 (S.D. Fla. 2006))(emphasis in original);
Christopher Adver. Grp., Inc. v. R & B Holding Co. Inc., 883 So. 2d 867, 871 (Fla. 3d DCA
2004) (law does not contemplate that damages must be calculated with mathematical
exactness); G.M. Brod & Co., Inc. v. U.S. Home Corp., 759 F.2d 1526, 1538 (11th
Cir.1985) (proof of damages may be indirect and based upon assumptions and estimates,
as long as the assumptions rest on adequate data).
Moreover, it is clear that “[u]ncertainty as to the amount of damages or difficulty in
proving the damages will not prevent recovery if it is clear that substantial damages were
suffered as a result of the wrong.” Slip-N-Slide Records, Inc. at *9 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 31,
2007) (citing In re Jet 1 Ctr., Inc., 335 B.R. 771, 788 (M.D.Fla.2005)).
There was substantial evidence presented at trial regarding ASB’s labor on behalf
of Alvarez, and regarding the value of the benefit that such labor conferred on Alvarez.
5
The fact that Alvarez’s profits were considered to determine the value of his career
does not mean that the jury mistakenly awarded ASB’s lost profits.
It is the province of the jury to weigh the evidence, assess credibility, and consider
conflicting expert testimony. J & H Auto Trim Co., Inc. v. Bellefonte Ins. Co., 677 F.2d
1365, 1373 n.12 (11th Cir.1982) (“The very essence of [the jury's] function is to select
from among conflicting inferences and conclusions that which it considers most
reasonable. That conclusion ... cannot be ignored.”).
Although ASB submitted to the jury that its lost past profits were $24,000,000, the
jury did not improperly utilize that measure of damages and instead awarded ASB the
sum of $8,500,000.
Finally, the Court determines that the amount awarded by the Jury is within the
parameters established by the evidence. The evidence submitted to the jury supports its
findings regarding the benefit conferred on Alvarez’s career, and the amount by which
ASB contributed to that value.
The evidence at trial established that the value provided by a promoter is
necessarily proportional to the boxer’s earnings, which can vary according to many
factors. The verdict is, therefore, supported by the evidence. Further, the Court does not
find record evidence to support the contention made in the motion that counsel for ASB
instructed the jury to improperly award lost profits.
MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL
The Court has a duty to grant a new trial only where “the jury has been influenced
by extraordinary considerations, misled by the force and credibility of the evidence, or
6
when the verdict fails to comport with the manifest weight of the evidence.” Pierce v.
Nicholson Supply Co., Inc., 676 So. 2d 70, 71 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996).
“A new trial should not be granted unless it is reasonably clear that substantial
rights have been violated to the extent that a fair trial was not had.” N. Dade Imp. Motors,
Inc. v. Brundage Motors, Inc., 221 So. 2d 170, 176 (Fla. 1st DCA 1969); see also Lindsey
v. Johnson, 415 So. 2d 778, 780 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). “If an error has been preserved,
the legal standard the trial court uses in deciding a motion for new trial is whether the
error is so pervasive or prejudicial that the injured party is denied the right to a fair trial.”
Hasegawa v. Anderson, 742 So. 2d 504, 506 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999), citing Gregory v.
Seaboard System R.R., Inc., 484 So. 2d 35, 39 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986).
The Court does not find record evidence that demonstrates that the jury did not
understand the jury instructions or was confused as to the law governing their duty. The
Court also finds that the statements made by counsel for ASB in closing arguments do
not rise to the level of comments that warrant a new trial. Alvarez has not demonstrated
that, based on ASB’s counsel’s comments, Alvarez was deprived of a fair trial.
The Court’s decision regarding the proposed “Unclean Hands” instruction is not in
error and does not entitle Alvarez to a new trial. To the contrary, the Court found that
there was no evidence presented to substantiate Alvarez’s proposed “Unclean Hands”
instruction. Cuozzo v. Ronan & Kunzl, Inc., 453 So. 2d 902, 904 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984).
The arguments raised by Alvarez as to purported evidentiary errors in the trial are
not supported by the record and, thus, do not entitle Alvarez to a new trial. Accordingly,
Defendant’s Motion is DENIED.
7
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami-Dade County, Florida, on 03/16/17.
______________________________
MIGNA SANCHEZ-LLORENS
CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE
No Further Judicial Action Required on THIS
MOTION
CLERK TO RECLOSE CASE IF POST
JUDGMENT
The parties served with this Order are indicated in the accompanying 11th Circuit email
confirmation which includes all emails provided by the submitter. The movant shall
IMMEDIATELY serve a true and correct copy of this Order, by mail, facsimile, email or
hand-delivery, to all parties/counsel of record for whom service is not indicated by the
accompanying 11th Circuit confirmation, and file proof of service with the Clerk of Court.
Signed original order sent electronically to the Clerk of Courts for filing in the Court file.
cc:
Alejandro Brito, Esq.
Edward Guedes, Esq.
Michael Olin, Esq.
Joel Perwin, Esq.
8