SAUL ALVAREZ

v.

ALL STAR BOXING, INC.

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed April 23, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

Nos. 3D24-0179 & 3D24-1287 Lower Tribunal No. 10-25018 ________________

Saul Alvarez, Appellant,

vs.

All Star Boxing, Inc., Appellee.

Appeals from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Migna Sanchez-Llorens, Judge.

Brodsky Fotiu-Wojtowicz, PLLC, Michael S. Olin, Alaina Fotiu- Wojtowicz, and Joel S. Perwin, P.A., and Joel S. Perwin, for appellant.

Brito, PLLC, and Alejandro Brito, for appellee.

Before FERNANDEZ, LINDSEY, and MILLER, JJ.

MILLER, J.

2

In these consolidated appeals, appellant, Saul “Canelo” Alvarez, challenges a final judgment of remitter awarding appellee, All Star Boxing, Inc., $1,045,418.83 in unjust enrichment damages, comprised of $45,418.83 in out-of-pocket expenses and $1 million for the value of All Star’s promotional service provided to Alvarez between September 2008 and January 2010. This case returns to us following our decision in Alvarez v. All Star Boxing, Inc. (Alvarez I), 258 So. 3d 508 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018), where we reversed an $8.5 million unjust enrichment award due to insufficient evidence and remanded for the trial court to reconsider damages based on the existing trial record. The sole issue in this appeal is whether the current award is similarly flawed. We have jurisdiction. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.030(b)(1)(A).

BACKGROUND

This dispute stems from All Star’s promotional efforts on behalf of Alvarez, a now world-renowned professional boxer, during a fifteen-month period when he was an emerging talent. All Star is a boxing company operated by Felix “Tuto” Zabala, Jr. The entity provided Alvarez with services such as arranging nine strategically coordinated fights, securing television exposure on various outlets, including Telefutura Univision, obtaining a P-1 athletic visa for Alvarez to fight in the United States, and

All Star sued Alvarez for breach of contract and unjust enrichment and Golden Boy for tortious interference. After a fourteen-day trial, the jury rejected the breach of contract and tortious interference claims but found Alvarez was unjustly enriched by All Star’s services and awarded $8.5 million in damages. The award was primarily premised upon the testimony of All Star’s expert, Carl Fedde, who calculated damages based on lost profits. This court deemed Fedde’s methodology speculative and improper for an unjust enrichment claim. Alvarez I, 258 So. 3d at 512–13. The panel reversed the award and remanded with instructions “for the trial judge to vacate the current final judgment; to reconsider the motion for remittitur; to enter a judgment of remitter if there is evidence of the value of All Star’s expenditures and services in the existing record or, if not, a judgment for the defense . . . .” Id. at 515.

On remand, the trial court was constrained to review the existing record without considering any new evidence, and Alvarez conceded All Star sustained out-of-pocket expenses in the amount of $45,418.83. All Star

STANDARD OF REVIEW

We ordinarily review a trial court’s order granting a remittitur for a clear showing of abuse of discretion. See Aills v. Boemi, 41 So. 3d 1022, 1027 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010). The evidentiary sufficiency of a damages award, however, is reviewed for competent, substantial evidence, see Doyle v. CitiMortgage, Inc., 162 So. 3d 340, 341 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015), and the methodology used for computing damages is reviewed de novo, Gunsby v. Mackey, 395 So. 3d 655, 656 (Fla. 6th DCA 2024).

LEGAL ANALYSIS

Under Florida law, unjust enrichment damages must reflect the reasonable value of the plaintiff’s labor and costs expended for the benefit of the defendant or the value of any economic benefit that the plaintiff had conferred upon the defendant. See Alvarez I, 258 So. 3d at 512; see also