USCA11 Case: 20-10087 Date Filed: 06/24/2021 Page: 1 of 10
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 20-10087
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 0:18-cv-62703-WPD
KALLBERG INDUSTRIES, LLC,
a Tennessee limited liability company,
Plaintiff - Counter
Defendant - Appellant
Cross - Appellee,
versus
AUTOMOTIVE EXPERTS, INC.,
a Georgia company,
Defendant - Counter
Claimant - Appellee
Cross - Appellant,
MICHAEL KUNKEL,
Defendant -
Counter Claimant
Appellee.
USCA11 Case: 20-10087 Date Filed: 06/24/2021 Page: 2 of 10
________________________
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(June 24, 2021)
Before JILL PRYOR, NEWSOM, and MARCUS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
This appeal arises out of a breach-of-contract dispute between a contractor,
Kallberg Industries of Tennessee, and its subcontractor, Automotive Experts.
Kallberg Tennessee has appealed the district court’s award of damages in favor of
Automotive, and Automotive has cross-appealed the district court’s rejection of its
claim for prejudgment interest. After careful review and with the benefit of oral
argument, we affirm.
I
A
After Hurricane Maria hit Puerto Rico in 2017, the United States contracted
with private companies to support relief missions there. One such company was
Louis Berger. Louis Berger contracted with Kallberg Industries, LLC, a Florida
limited liability company to service generators on the island. Kallberg Florida,
through its subcontractor, Kallberg LLC of Tennessee, the plaintiff in this action,
subcontracted Automotive Experts to supply equipment and mechanics to support
2
USCA11 Case: 20-10087 Date Filed: 06/24/2021 Page: 3 of 10
the mission.1 Kallberg Tennessee and Automotive never entered into a written
agreement.
Kallberg Tennessee used Automotive’s equipment from October 2017 until
February 2018 and its mechanics from October 2017 until November 2018. Louis
Berger paid Kallberg Florida, who, in turn, paid Kallberg Tennessee for the use of
the equipment. Kallberg Tennessee delayed payment to Automotive for the use of
the equipment and mechanics despite receiving payment from Berger. Instead,
Kallberg Tennessee tendered a check to Automotive for substantially less than
Automotive had expected and filed a declaratory judgment action against
Automotive and Automotive’s CEO Michael Kunkel in Florida state court.
B
Automotive removed to federal court based on diversity and counterclaimed
against Kallberg Tennessee for breach of contract and unjust enrichment. After a
two-day bench trial, the district court entered its findings of fact and conclusions of
law. The district court found that Kallberg Tennessee had breached an oral
contract to pay Automotive $50 per day for each mechanic that was referred to and
1
At the time that Automotive’s CEO Michael Kunkel agreed to provide services for the mission
in Puerto Rico, he was unaware that there were two Kallberg entities—one registered as an LLC
in Florida and one in Tennessee, each run by different Kallberg family members. It wasn’t until
Kallberg Tennessee sued Kunkel and Automotive that he became aware of Kallberg Tennessee.
Nonetheless, it appears that Kallberg Tennessee, through Kallberg Florida, billed and received
payment from Louis Berger for the work that Automotive and Kunkel did in Puerto Rico.
3
USCA11 Case: 20-10087 Date Filed: 06/24/2021 Page: 4 of 10
hired by Kallberg Tennessee. It awarded Automotive $287,700 on this claim. It
also found that, while the parties didn’t reach an agreement on the rate of payment
for equipment that Automotive had provided, Kallberg Tennessee was unjustly
enriched by the use of Automotive’s equipment and was paid $1,250,765 for this
equipment by Louis Berger. The district court ordered this entire amount
disgorged and paid to Automotive as damages.
Both parties moved to alter or amend the judgment. Kallberg Tennessee
argued that disgorgement wasn’t the proper remedy and that Automotive had
unclean hands that should bar recovery. The district court denied that motion.
Automotive sought prejudgment interest and to correct the disgorgement amount
from $1,250,765 to $1,447,325. The district court denied the request for
prejudgment interest but granted a correction to the disgorgement amount,
acknowledging that it had relied on an incorrect calculation in one of Automotive’s
exhibits.
Both parties have now appealed—Kallberg Tennessee because it argues that
the court erred with respect to its remedies and in rejecting a defense of unclean
hands, and Automotive because it argues that the district court erred by denying its
request for prejudgment interest. 2
2
We review the district court’s determination of the proper legal standard to compute damages
de novo and factual findings for clear error. A. A. Profiles, Inc. v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 253
4
USCA11 Case: 20-10087 Date Filed: 06/24/2021 Page: 5 of 10
II
A
We’ll begin with Kallberg Tennessee’s appeal. Kallberg first contends that
the district court erroneously used a disgorgement measure of damages. It makes
three arguments in support of this contention.
First, Kallberg Tennessee argues that disgorgement wasn’t a proper remedy
because Automotive sought damages at law for its unjust enrichment claim and
disgorgement can be used only as an equitable remedy. Regardless of whether the
district court was correct to call this remedy “disgorgement” or something else, it’s
clear that the district court applied the correct measure of damages for
Automotive’s unjust enrichment claim. As a matter of Florida law, damages for
unjust enrichment can be based on either “(1) the market value of the services; or
(2) the value of the services to the party unjustly enriched.” Alvarez v. All Star
Boxing, Inc., 258 So. 3d 508, 512 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2018). Here, the district
court calculated unjust-enrichment damages based on the value of the use of
Automotive’s equipment to Kallberg Tennessee, which was the amount that Louis
Berger paid Kallberg for that equipment. Moreover, Kallberg waived the position
F.3d 576, 581 (11th Cir. 2001). We review the denial of a motion to amend or alter the judgment
for abuse of discretion. Shuford v. Fid. Nat. Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 508 F.3d 1337, 1341 (11th
Cir. 2007). And we review the award or denial of pre-judgment interest for abuse of discretion.
Maytronics, Ltd. v. Aqua Vac Sys., Inc., 277 F.3d 1317, 1320 (11th Cir. 2002). The substantive
law of Florida law applies.
5
USCA11 Case: 20-10087 Date Filed: 06/24/2021 Page: 6 of 10
that “disgorgement” wasn’t a proper remedy for Automotive’s unjust enrichment
claim by stipulating pre-trial that disgorgement was a proper remedy for that claim.
See G.I.C. Corp. v. United States, 121 F.3d 1447, 1450 (11th Cir. 1997) (“[P]arties
are bound by their stipulations and a pretrial stipulation frames the issues for
trial.”).
Next, Kallberg Tennessee argues that the district court couldn’t apply a
disgorgement remedy without first finding that it engaged in “conscious
wrongdoing.” We find no support in Florida law for that contention. While
Kallberg is correct that disgorgement is “a remedy designed to deter wrongdoers
by making it unprofitable to engage in the wrongful behavior,” Bailey v. St. Louis,
268 So. 3d 197, 201 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2018), there’s no affirmative requirement
in Florida law requiring an on-the-record finding of conscious wrongdoing as a
prerequisite to support such an award for an unjust enrichment claim.
Finally, Kallberg Tennessee argues that the district court miscalculated
disgorgement by failing to base its award on a fair calculation of its net profits,
rather than the total amount that it was paid by Louis Berger for the use of
Automotive’s equipment. We find no clear error in the district court’s calculation.
Here, whatever label the district court put on this remedy, it correctly based its
calculation on the amount that Kallberg Tennessee was unjustly enriched by Louis
Berger for the use of Automotive’s equipment. Kallberg Tennessee also conceded
6
USCA11 Case: 20-10087 Date Filed: 06/24/2021 Page: 7 of 10
in the district court that the numbers in Defense Exhibit 94 that the court used to
perform that calculation were correct, and it failed to present sufficient evidence
showing that the total award should have accounted for its expenses in using the
equipment. And when the trial court asked Kallberg Tennessee how it should
calculate the remedy for the equipment, Kallberg’s attorney failed to offer the court
any definitive method of calculating Kallberg’s profit from the equipment use.
The court also noted that in using the equipment, Kallberg Tennessee never
expended any money, indicating that Kallberg’s total reimbursement for the
equipment was pure profit.
Accordingly, Kallberg Tennessee has failed to show that the district court
abused its discretion in ordering Kallberg to pay back to Automotive the profits for
the use of Automotive’s equipment or committed clear error in calculating those
profits.
B
Kallberg Tennessee next claims that the district court erred by awarding
Automotive $287,700 in breach-of-contract damages for the $50 per day referral
fee Kallberg promised for Automotive’s mechanics because, it contends, it was
really Kallberg Florida, not Kallberg Tennessee, who hired the mechanics after
February 2018. Thus, Kallberg Tennessee argues, Automotive can’t recover
amounts paid to mechanics after that date.
7
USCA11 Case: 20-10087 Date Filed: 06/24/2021 Page: 8 of 10
There’s no clear error in the district court’s damages award. The district
court based its calculation on Defense Exhibits 80 and 81, which appear to list all
the mechanics on the relief mission and the numbers of days worked. The only
company name listed on those documents is “Kallberg.” The district court
concluded that based on these documents, Automotive referred mechanics for
5,754 “labor days” and multiplied that amount by $50 to get $287,700. The district
court committed no clear error in thinking that the “Kallberg” in these documents
was Kallberg Tennessee and that these documents accurately reflected the
mechanics that Automotive referred to “Kallberg.” Nor did it clearly err in
concluding that Kallberg Tennessee’s contractual relationship with Automotive
persisted after February 2018, even though, in February, Kallberg Florida assumed
some of Kallberg Tennessee’s mission responsibilities. In fact, Kallberg admitted
during its opening statement at trial that Kallberg Florida retained Kallberg
Tennessee to do work on the Puerto Rico mission and that every mechanic was
going to be working for Kallberg Tennessee.
C
Lastly, and briefly, Kallberg Tennessee claims that the district court
erroneously held that it failed to preserve a defense of unclean hands for trial by
neglecting to include the issue in its pre-trial briefings. While Kallberg pleaded
unclean hands in its answer, neither its pre-trial stipulations nor its proposed
8
USCA11 Case: 20-10087 Date Filed: 06/24/2021 Page: 9 of 10
findings of fact and conclusions of law mentioned unclean hands as an affirmative
defense and issue for trial. Kallberg attempted to amend these filings only after the
district court signed its final judgment and the day before the district court entered
its final judgment. The district court didn’t abuse its discretion by rejecting
Kallberg’s motion to reconsider issues that its attorney neglected to preserve. See
Morro v. City of Birmingham, 117 F.3d 508, 515 (11th Cir. 1997) (“We have not
hesitated to back up district courts when they put steel behind the terms of pretrial
orders and hold parties to them … [A] defendant can waive a potential defense by
failing to ensure that the issue is clearly preserved in the pretrial order.”); see also
Day v. Liberty Nat’l Life Ins. Co., 122 F.3d 1012 (11th Cir. 1997) (similar).
III
Next, Automotive’s cross-appeal. The district court rejected Automotive’s
claim for prejudgment interest because it wasn’t raised in its counterclaim. It
alternatively declined to award prejudgment interest because it found that
“[Automotive] did not do everything that it could have to mitigate damages.”
Automotive claims that this was error because it did everything it could to mitigate
damages. But Automotive, like Kallberg, is bound by its pre-trial stipulations, see
G.I.C. Corp., 121 F.3d at 1450, and here, Automotive failed to include a claim for
prejudgment interest in either its counterclaim, pretrial stipulation, or proposed
9
USCA11 Case: 20-10087 Date Filed: 06/24/2021 Page: 10 of 10
findings of fact or conclusions of law. The district court didn’t abuse its discretion
in rejecting this claim.
AFFIRMED.
10