Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca11-24-11424/USCOURTS-ca11-24-11424-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Steve James Forde
Appellee
William Harrison
Appellant

Document Text:

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 24-11424

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

WILLIAM HARRISON, 

Plaintiff-Counter Defendant-Appellant,

CATHEXIS HOLDINGS LP,

Plaintiff,

versus

STEVE JAMES FORDE, 

Defendant-Counter Claimant-Appellee.

USCA11 Case: 24-11424 Document: 28-1 Date Filed: 01/17/2025 Page: 1 of 7
2 Opinion of the Court 24-11424

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Alabama

D.C. Docket No. 1:20-cv-00360-N

____________________

Before NEWSOM, GRANT, and DUBINA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant William Harrison appeals the district court’s order 

denying his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) motion to amend 

judgment to include pre-judgment interest on a $1.1 million judgment, based on his claim for unjust enrichment. After a failed 

agreement, Harrison asserted claims against Steve Forde for breach 

of contract, conversion, fraud, promissory fraud, unjust enrichment, and money had and received. Harrison sought compensatory damages of $5.6 million plus punitive damages in an amount 

determined by the jury. Following a jury trial, the jury returned a 

verdict in favor of Forde and against Harrison on each of his claims 

except for his claim of unjust enrichment, for which the jury 

awarded him $1.1 million. Harrison filed a post-judgment motion 

seeking pre-judgment interest, and the district court denied the 

motion. After reviewing the record and reading the parties’ briefs, 

we affirm the district court’s order denying pre-judgment interest.1

1 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 et. seq., the parties consented for a magistrate 

judge to conduct all proceedings in this case.

USCA11 Case: 24-11424 Document: 28-1 Date Filed: 01/17/2025 Page: 2 of 7
24-11424 Opinion of the Court 3

I.

We review for abuse of discretion a district court’s ruling on 

a Rule 59(e) motion to amend judgment. Gilchrist Timber v. ITT 

Rayonier, Inc., 472 F.3d 1329, 1331 n.2 (11th Cir. 2006). The district 

court exercised jurisdiction over this matter based on diversity of 

citizenship and the amount in controversy and properly relied 

upon state law to determine whether Harrison was entitled to prejudgment interest. Walker v. Life Ins. Co. of N. Am., 59 F.4th 1176, 

1192 (11th Cir. 2023). We review de novo the district court’s determination of Alabama law. Gilchrist, 472 F.3d at 1331 n.2.

II.

Harrison and Kristian Agoglia formed a joint venture to 

source and supply PPE (personal protective equipment) to states, 

municipalities, and businesses. Governmental entities and hospitals approached Agoglia to purchase masks (PPE) for their places of 

business. Under the agreement, Harrison would provide the funds 

for the joint venture and Agoglia would provide the logistics expertise. The joint venture had an order for three million masks for 

medical use and needed a supplier who could quickly fill the order. 

Shortly thereafter, they met Forde, who was sourcing PPE from 

China and selling it to purchasers in the United States. At trial, 

Harrison testified that Forde agreed to sell three million masks for 

$6.6 million and, in reliance on Forde’s representations, Harrison 

wired the money to Forde from Harrison’s company, Cathexis.

Forde did not deliver the masks and admitted to Harrison 

that the masks were not available. However, Forde continued to 

USCA11 Case: 24-11424 Document: 28-1 Date Filed: 01/17/2025 Page: 3 of 7
4 Opinion of the Court 24-11424

discuss with Harrison the sale/purchase of other masks to satisfy 

the agreement. Harrison agreed to proceed with a deal where 

Forde would deliver three million masks by the end of April 2020. 

Forde failed to deliver the masks and did not return the money to 

Harrison, although Harrison demanded that Forde cancel the order and return the funds. Thus, Harrison sought recovery of $5.6 

million from Forde under a theory of unjust enrichment based 

upon Forde’s alleged retention and/or misuse of those funds when 

the international KN95 mask deal went awry in the early days of 

the COVID-19 pandemic. 

III.

Under Alabama law, pre-judgment interest is allowed when 

the amount due is “certain or capable of being made certain.” 

Woods v. Central Bank of the South, 435 So.2d 1287, 1291 (Ala. Civ. 

App. 1982); see also Nelson v. AmSouth Bank, N.A., 622 So. 2d 894, 895 

n.1 (Ala. 1993); Richards v. Gen. Motors Corp., 461 So. 2d 825, 827 

(Ala. Civ. App. 1984) (finding that because the amount due to plaintiff had to be determined by the jury, the amount due was “not 

susceptible of simple computation and, hence, was not subject to 

prejudgment interest”). In other words, Alabama law allows for an 

award of pre-judgment interest on damages that are liquidated. See 

Miller and Co., Inc. v. McCown, 531 So. 2d 888, 889 (Ala. 1988). Liquidated damages are those that are “reasonably ascertainable at the 

time of breach, measured by fixed or established external standard, 

or by standard apparent from documents upon which plaintiffs 

based their claims.” U.S. Fid. And Guar. Co. v. German Auto, Inc., 591 

USCA11 Case: 24-11424 Document: 28-1 Date Filed: 01/17/2025 Page: 4 of 7
24-11424 Opinion of the Court 5

So. 2d 841, 843 (Ala. 1991) (quoting BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 

391(6th ed. 1990)).

There are three general rules to follow in determining the 

allowance of pre-judgment interest in Alabama: “(1) the amount 

due must be certain; (2) the time when it is due must be certain; 

and (3) the amount due and time of payment must be known to 

the debtor.” See Jernigan v. Happoldt, 978 So. 2d 764, 767 (Ala. Civ. 

App. 2007). After considering Alabama law, the district court denied Harrison’s motion for pre-judgment interest, determining that 

the damages were not complete or otherwise capable of being ascertained with any degree of certainty until the jury rendered its 

verdict. The district court relied on the fact that Harrison’s claim 

for unjust enrichment arose in contract, and Alabama law recognizes this type of claim as quasi-contractual. See American Family 

Care v. Fox, 642 So. 2d 486, 488 (Ala. Civ. App. 1994). The district 

court also noted that recovery under a theory of unjust enrichment 

is an equitable remedy, providing an injured party relief when a 

legal remedy is lacking. See Avis Rent A Car Sys. v. Heilman, 876 So. 

2d 1111, 1122-23 (Ala. 2003). 

On appeal, Harrison contends that the district court abused 

its discretion in denying his post-judgment motion to amend the 

judgment to include pre-judgment interest. Harrison relies primarily on Forde’s admission at trial that Harrison was entitled to $1.1 

million from the “get-go.” (R. App. Doc. 20-4 p. 171; Trial Doc. 168 

p. 166.) Harrison also relies on Forde’s bank statements, admitted 

into evidence, showing that as of May 7, 2020, Forde had spent all 

USCA11 Case: 24-11424 Document: 28-1 Date Filed: 01/17/2025 Page: 5 of 7
6 Opinion of the Court 24-11424

the funds he admitted belonged to Harrison. Harrison contends 

that it was certain by May 7, 2020, that Forde’s unjust enrichment 

ended, and pre-judgment interest was ascertainable from that date.

We conclude, based on the record, that the district court did 

not abuse its discretion in denying Harrison’s request for pre-judgment interest. The district court reasoned that because Harrison’s 

unjust enrichment claim arose in contract and was based on the 

same facts relevant to his breach of contract claim, recovery under 

one theory would have been mutually exclusive of the other. 

Thus, had the jury returned a verdict in Harrison’s favor on Claim 

1: Breach of Contract, then Harrison would not have been entitled 

to any recovery on Count 5: Unjust Enrichment. As such, the district court determined that the $1.1 million in damages awarded to 

Harrison on his unjust enrichment claim was not ascertainable, 

complete, or otherwise capable of calculation until the jury’s verdict.

In addition, the record demonstrates that, at trial, Harrison 

continued to maintain his claim for breach of contract, as an individual and as an assignee of Cathexis. Harrison did not obtain the 

assignment of claims from Agoglia, Helanbak, and the unnamed 

joint venture until February 16, 2022. At trial, Harrison and Cathexis continued to assert competing claims that each were entitled 

to damages for unjust enrichment based on their alleged entitlement to the return of the funds used to purchase the masks. Harrison claimed that the funds were his individually; however, evidence showed that Cathexis, not Harrison, had wired the funds 

USCA11 Case: 24-11424 Document: 28-1 Date Filed: 01/17/2025 Page: 6 of 7
24-11424 Opinion of the Court 7

from its business account to fund Helanbak’s purchase of the 

masks. Evidence also showed that Helanbak asserted control over 

the funds when it attempted to freeze the funds it wired to Forde. 

Under these circumstances, the party legally entitled to the equitable return of the funds could not be ascertained until the jury considered all the evidence and returned its verdict. Without objection, Harrison’s mutually exclusive claims for breach of contract 

and unjust enrichment were given to the jury. The jury rejected 

Harrison’s breach of contract claim and returned a verdict solely 

on his claim for unjust enrichment. As such, we conclude, as did 

the district court, that the amount of the jury’s award on the unjust 

enrichment claim was not ascertainable until the jury deliberated, 

balanced the equities, and returned its verdict. 

Harrison cannot demonstrate that the district court abused 

its discretion in denying his motion for pre-judgment interest. Accordingly, based on the aforementioned reasons, we affirm the district court’s order denying Harrison’s post-judgment motion to alter or amend the judgment to award Harrison pre-judgment interest.

AFFIRMED.

USCA11 Case: 24-11424 Document: 28-1 Date Filed: 01/17/2025 Page: 7 of 7