Alvarez v. All Star Boxing, Inc.
258 So. 3d 508
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2018Background
- Saul "Canelo" Alvarez contracted All Star Boxing for promotional services for ~15 months (Sept 2008–Dec 2009) when he was ~18; All Star obtained fights, publicity, visas, and paid some expenses.
- In Jan 2010 Alvarez signed exclusively with Golden Boy and received a $1 million signing bonus; All Star sued Alvarez (breach of contract, unjust enrichment) and Golden Boy (tortious interference).
- A jury rejected breach-of-contract and tortious-interference claims but found Alvarez unjustly enriched and awarded All Star $8.5 million; only the damages award is on appeal.
- All Star’s damages proof relied on CPA Carl Fedde’s testimony estimating Alvarez’s earnings: ~$24 million (2010–2015) and a projected ~$135 million (2016–2026), using unverified internet data, a 50% expense catch-all, and an assumed 50/50 promoter–boxer split.
- Fedde admitted he had no factual basis or professional standard for the 50/50 promoter split and could not verify many internet-sourced figures; he also did not tie any percentage of Alvarez’s later earnings to All Star’s 15 months of services.
- The trial court denied defense motions to exclude Fedde and for remittitur; the appellate court reviews whether the $8.5 million award is supported by substantial competent evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the $8.5M unjust-enrichment award was supported by competent substantial evidence | All Star: jury may compute unjust enrichment from Fedde’s $24M and $135M earnings figures (allocate a portion to All Star) | Alvarez: Fedde’s estimates are speculative, unverified, and there is no method linking those earnings to All Star’s services | Reversed — award unsupported: estimates speculative and no evidentiary method tied Alvarez’s later earnings to All Star’s 2008–09 services |
| Admissibility/weight of expert lost-profit projections | Fedde’s lost-profit projections reflect reasonable accounting estimates of Alvarez’s earnings | Alvarez: Fedde used unverified internet data, made unsupported assumptions (50/50 split), and violated his own standards | Fedde’s opinions lacked a fact-based foundation; the 50% split and unverified data are unreliable and entitled to no weight |
| Whether lost profits may be used to calculate unjust enrichment in this manner | All Star: lost-profits projections may be used to measure the benefit conferred | Alvarez: unjust enrichment cannot rest on speculative lost-profits projections without a fact-based allocation | Court did not decide lost-profits are always barred, but held they cannot be used here because of speculative methodology and absence of allocation evidence |
| Proper remedy on remand | All Star: the $8.5M verdict should stand or be remitted | Alvarez: vacate judgment; enter judgment only for provable out-of-pocket expenses | Remand: vacate $8.5M, reconsider remittitur, enter judgment for documented out-of-pocket expenses/services if supported by record, otherwise judgment for defense |
Key Cases Cited
- Department of Transportation v. Samter, 393 So.2d 1142 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981) (expert adjustment unsupported by factual reasoning is entitled to no weight)
- Walters v. State Road Department of Florida, 239 So.2d 878 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970) (reversed when appraisal method was unexplained and unreviewable)
- American Safety Ins. Serv., Inc. v. Griggs, 959 So.2d 322 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (unjust-enrichment award reversed where plaintiffs presented only speculative anticipated profits, not value of benefit conferred)
- Kane v. Stewart Tilghman Fox & Bianchi, P.A., 85 So.3d 1112 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (upheld unjust enrichment award where expert tied a specific percentage of settlement to plaintiff’s contribution)
- Levine v. Fieni McFarlane, Inc., 690 So.2d 712 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (unjust enrichment measured by benefit to recipient, not provider’s costs)
- United Auto. Ins. Co. v. Colon, 990 So.2d 1246 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (economic damages must be proved with definite, non-speculative evidence)