United States District Court 

for the 

Southern District of Florida 

Uniq Branch Office Mexico, S.A. de 

C.V., and Jacobo Helfon Daniel, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

Steel Media Group, LLC, and 

others, Defendants. 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Civil Action No. 22-23876-Civ-Scola 

Order on Amended Motion for Summary Judgment 

This matter is before the Court on Defendant Gisela Coloma’s amended 

motion for summary judgment and accompanying statement of material facts. 

(ECF Nos. 151, 152). The Plaintiffs have responded (ECF No. 158) and filed 

their own statement of material facts (ECF No. 159), and Coloma filed a reply 

(ECF No. 159). Coloma did not file a reply statement of material facts. After 

considering the briefing, the record, and the relevant legal authorities, the 

Court denies the motion. (Mot., ECF No. 151.) 

1. Background 

The Plaintiffs accuse the Defendants of misappropriating funds intended 

to purchase luxury World Cup ticket packages, retaining those funds, and 

failing to deliver the agreed-upon tickets. (See generally Third Am. Compl., ECF 

No. 78.) The Plaintiffs are Uniq Branch Office Mexico, S.A. de CV, a Mexican 

luxury travel company, and its owner and officer Jacobo Helfon Daniel, suing 

as subrogees of their clients. (See Third Am. Compl., ECF No. 78 ¶¶ 13-14; 

Order on Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 115 at 4-5.) The following are the 

background facts as told in the Plaintiffs’ third amended complaint. (ECF No. 

78.) On July 12, 2022, the Plaintiffs entered into an agreement (the 

“Commission Agreement”) with Defendant Steel Media Group, LLC and its sole 

member, Defendant Luis Fernando Rodriguez Mejia, “whereby Plaintiffs would 

promote events, in this case the 2022 FIFA World Cup in Qatar, to [their] 

clients . . . who would then purchase tickets and hospitality packages” through 

Steel. (Id. ¶ 25.) Steel would then pay the Plaintiffs a percentage of the 

earnings. (Id. ¶¶ 26-27.) Steel acted as an intermediary, buying the tickets from 

FIFA’s official seller. (Id. ¶¶ 24-25, 27.) Steel used the personal information of 

multiple people, including Defendant Coloma, to contract and pay for initial 

deposits on the ticket packages. 

Case 1:22-cv-23876-RNS Document 178 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2024 Page 1 of 6
In at least four cases, Uniq clients agreed to purchase World Cup ticket 

packages from the Defendants and made full payments, expecting to receive 

their ticket packages in due time. (Id. ¶¶ 29-32.) In fact, the Defendants would 

pay the official seller the initial deposits but ultimately fail to pay the full 

amount, causing the official seller to cancel the sales and retain the deposits. 

(Id. ¶ 36.) The Defendants first lied to Uniq and its clients about the status of 

the tickets and then lied about the cause of the cancellations, before offering 

refunds and compensation that were never paid. (Id. ¶¶ 36-38.) 

The Plaintiffs ultimately reimbursed the clients and now demand the 

amount the clients paid pursuant to their ticket purchase agreements with the 

Defendants. (Id. ¶¶ 29-32, 40.) The surviving claims at this point in the 

litigation are counts 1 (breach of contract against Steel and Rodriguez) and 9 

(unjust enrichment against Coloma). Coloma’s motion for summary judgment 

pertains to count 9, the unjust enrichment claim. (ECF No. 151.)

2. Legal Standard

Summary judgment is proper if following discovery, the pleadings, 

depositions, answers to interrogatories, affidavits, and admissions on file show 

that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party 

is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 

317, 322 (1986); Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. “An issue of fact is ‘material’ if, under the 

applicable substantive law, it might affect the outcome of the case.” Hickson

Corp. v. N. Crossarm Co., 357 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (11th Cir. 2004). “An issue of 

fact is ‘genuine’ if the record taken as a whole could lead a rational trier of fact 

to find for the nonmoving party.” Id. at 1260. All the evidence and factual 

inferences reasonably drawn from the evidence must be viewed in the light 

most favorable to the nonmoving party. Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 

144, 157 (1970); Jackson v. BellSouth Telecomms., 372 F.3d 1250, 1280 (11th 

Cir. 2004). 

Once a party properly makes a summary judgment motion by 

demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of material fact, whether or not 

accompanied by affidavits, the nonmoving party must go beyond the pleadings 

through the use of affidavits, depositions, answers to interrogatories, 

admissions on file and other documents, and designate specific facts showing 

that there is a genuine issue for trial. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323-24. The 

nonmovant’s evidence must be significantly probative to support the claims. 

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249 (1986). The Court will not 

weigh the evidence or make findings of fact. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249; 

Morrison v. Amway Corp., 323 F.3d 920, 924 (11th Cir. 2003). Rather, the 

Court’s role is limited to deciding whether there is sufficient evidence upon 

Case 1:22-cv-23876-RNS Document 178 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2024 Page 2 of 6
which a reasonable juror could find for the nonmoving party. Id. “If more than 

one inference could be construed from the facts by a reasonable fact finder, 

and that inference introduces a genuine issue of material fact, then the district 

court should not grant summary judgment.” Bannum, Inc. v. City of Fort 

Lauderdale, 901 F.2d 989, 996 (11th Cir. 1990).

3. Analysis

Defendant Coloma moves for summary judgment on the unjust 

enrichment claim against her (count 9 of the third amended complaint). “A 

claim for unjust enrichment under Florida law requires showing that: (1) 

plaintiff has conferred a benefit on defendant; (2) defendant voluntarily 

accepted and retained that benefit; and (3) the circumstances are such that it 

would be inequitable for defendant to retain it without paying the value 

thereof.” OJ Commerce, LLC v. Ashley Furniture Indus., Inc., 817 F. App’x 686, 

692 (11th Cir. 2020).

Coloma argues in her motion that there is no genuine dispute of the facts 

material to this claim because the Plaintiffs have not carried their burden of 

showing that Uniq’s clients conferred a benefit on Coloma, that Coloma knew of 

such a benefit, and that Coloma voluntarily accepted or retained the benefits 

from the Plaintiffs or their clients. (Mot. at 4.) Coloma also argues that Uniq’s 

clients only made payments to Steel after July 12, 2022, making it impossible 

that Coloma received a benefit from them when the contract for tickets 

purchased under her name was dated May 2021. (Id. at 7.)

The Plaintiffs respond that there is a genuine dispute as to these facts 

such that a reasonable jury could find in their favor. The Plaintiffs cite the 

following evidence in support of their position: WhatsApp messages between 

Coloma and Rodriguez where Coloma appears to be involved in Rodriguez’s

hospitality business in February 2022, tending to show her awareness of 

Steel’s business dealings (Ex. C to Pls.’ Statement of Material Facts, ECF No. 

158-3); numerous 2021 and 2022 e-mails from Match WLL to Coloma 

regarding World Cup package payments that Coloma forwarded to Rodriguez, 

showing her knowledge that Rodriguez used her name to order ticket packages

(Ex. F to Pls.’ Statement of Material Facts, ECF No. 158-6); bank statements 

showing thousands of dollars sent from Steel to Coloma during 2022 (Ex. B to 

Pls.’ Statement of Material Facts, ECF No. 158-4); and a May 2021 contract for 

World Cup ticket packages between Match WLL and Coloma stating that after 

the initial deposit, payments were due on June 1, 2021, January 31, 2022, and 

July 1, 2022 (Ex. E to Pls.’ Statement of Material Facts, ECF No. 158-5 at 7).

Summary judgment is not appropriate in these circumstances. “If the 

moving party fails to show that the facts underlying all the relevant legal 

Case 1:22-cv-23876-RNS Document 178 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2024 Page 3 of 6
questions raised by the pleadings or otherwise are not in dispute, then 

summary judgment should be denied—even if the non-moving party has 

introduced no evidence whatsoever.” Edmondson v. Velvet Lifestyles, LLC, 43 

F.4th 1153, 1160 (11th Cir. 2022) (cleaned up) (citing Herzog v. Castle Rock 

Ent., 193 F.3d 1241, 1246 (11th Cir. 1999)). And “[c]redibility determinations, 

the weighing of the evidence, and the drawing of legitimate inferences from the 

facts are jury functions, not those of a judge . . . [t]he evidence of the nonmovant is to be believed, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in his 

favor.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249 (1986). Coloma has 

far from shown that the facts underlying the unjust enrichment claim are

undisputed, and even if she had carried her burden, the Plaintiffs have

provided sufficient evidence to throw those facts into question.

A reasonable jury could find based on the evidence that the Plaintiffs, as 

subrogees of the Uniq clients, conferred a benefit on Coloma by transferring 

funds to Steel that were passed onto Coloma, and that Coloma was aware that 

she was receiving the funds—irrespective of the exact timing of the Uniq clients’

payments to Steel. The evidence establishes that material facts are in dispute

because the documents show that Coloma was aware of the use of her name 

and personal information for the purchase of ticket packages from Match WLL

and her bank statements show numerous transfers from Steel throughout 

2021 and 2022. Coloma’s denials via interrogatory responses and written 

statements further demonstrate that the parties have material factual 

disagreements that should be resolved by a jury. (Exs. D, E, G to Mot., ECF 

Nos. 151-4, 151-5, 151-7). There are genuine disputes of the facts underlying 

the essential elements of unjust enrichment and summary judgment is 

therefore not appropriate. 

Additionally, according to Coloma, Uniq’s clients would have had to 

directly confer a benefit on Coloma in order to sustain a claim for unjust 

enrichment as a matter of Florida law. Because the funds passed through 

Steel’s account before being transferred to Coloma, she argues, the benefit was 

not directly conferred. (Mot. at 8-9.) However, this is a misreading of the 

applicable caselaw, including Virgilio v. Ryland Grp., Inc., which Coloma 

principally relies on. 680 F.3d 1329, 1337 (11th Cir. 2012). The Florida 

Supreme Court has held that a plaintiff “must directly confer the benefit to the 

defendant” to prevail on an unjust enrichment claim. Kopel v. Kopel, 229 So. 

3d 812, 818 (Fla. 2017)). But a benefit passing through an intermediary does 

not without more eliminate the “direct” nature of a benefit. In Virgilio, the 

Eleventh Circuit held that plaintiff homeowners had not conferred a sufficiently 

direct benefit on residential community developers that received a 1.5% 

marketing fee—not from the plaintiffs—but from the entity that built the 

Case 1:22-cv-23876-RNS Document 178 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2024 Page 4 of 6
homes. 680 F.3d at 1337. Although the builder likely used money received 

from the plaintiffs to pay the marketing fee, the Eleventh Circuit rejected the 

plaintiffs’ theory. As the panel explained, “Plaintiffs do not seek to recover 

money [the developers] received as partial payment for the houses they bought; 

instead, they seek the money [the builder] paid for marketing services under an 

entirely separate services contract.” Id. The benefit received by the developers 

was therefore too attenuated from the funds paid by the plaintiffs to support an 

unjust enrichment claim. 

The same cannot be said in the instant case for funds that, as part of the 

same business dealing, were allegedly paid by the Plaintiffs to Steel and then to 

Coloma. As a court in this district explained, “just because the benefit 

conferred by Plaintiffs on Defendants did not pass directly from Plaintiffs to 

Defendants—but instead passed through a third party—does not preclude an 

unjust-enrichment claim. Indeed to hold otherwise would be to undermine the 

equitable purpose of unjust enrichment claims. . . . To find otherwise would 

mean that a company could set up a shell parent company without any funds, 

funnel money through that shell company, and essentially launder the ‘benefit,’

thereby defeating any unjust enrichment claim.” Williams v. Wells Fargo Bank 

N.A., No. 11-21233-CIV, 2011 WL 4901346, at *5 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 14, 2011)

(Altonaga, J.); see Aceto Corp. v. TherapeuticsMD, Inc., 953 F. Supp. 2d 1269, 

1288-89 (S.D. Fla. 2013) (Marra, J.) (collecting cases). The same is true here, 

and the Court is therefore unconvinced that the funds having passed through 

Steel defeats the Plaintiffs’ unjust enrichment claim. 

Finally, Coloma argues in her motion that the unjust enrichment claim 

fails because the damages would be duplicative of contract damages available 

via the Commission Agreement. (Mot. at 10-11.) The Court has already rejected 

the arguments that this case arises under the Commission Agreement and that 

the unjust enrichment claim is duplicative of contract damages. (See Order on 

Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 115 at 7-8, 13; see also Kowalski v. Jackson Nat. Life 

Ins. Co., 981 F. Supp. 2d 1309, 1317 (S.D. Fla. 2013) (“Florida courts have held

that contracts barring the unjust enrichment claim must be between the 

parties to the unjust enrichment claim.”)) Coloma has therefore failed to 

establish either that no dispute exists as to material facts or that the Plaintiffs’

unjust enrichment claim against Coloma is barred as a matter of law.

4. Conclusion

For the reasons stated above, the Court denies Defendant Coloma’s 

amended motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 151.)

Case 1:22-cv-23876-RNS Document 178 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2024 Page 5 of 6
Done and ordered at Miami, Florida on April 2, 2024.

________________________________

Robert N. Scola, Jr.

United States District Judge

Case 1:22-cv-23876-RNS Document 178 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2024 Page 6 of 6