[ DO NOT PUBLISH ] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

No. 1 3

- 1 1 184

D.C. Docket No. 2:11

- cv - 00573

- WHA

- CSC

LAWRENCE H. GUETTLER, JR. , Plaintiff

- Appell ee ,

versus THE CITY OF MONTGOMERY, a municipal corporation, DORIAN BRUNSON, JERRY PETTY , Defendant s - Appell ant s .

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama (March 21, 2014)

Before HULL, Circuit Judge, and Goldberg, ∗ Judge, a nd Smith , ** District Judge

.

∗ Honorable Richard W. Goldberg, United States Court of International Trade Judge, sitting by designation

. ** Honorable C. Lynwood Smith, Jr., United States District Judge for the Northern District of Alabama, sitting by designation.

Case: 13-11184 Date Filed: 03/21/2014 Page: 1 of 62 PER CURIAM : Defendant

- appellant the City of Montgomery (“the City”) appeals from the district court’s grant of judgment as a matter of law in plaintiff

- appellee Lawrence Guettler’s favor. The City also appeals from t he district court’s denial of the City’s motion to a lter the jury’s damages award. After review of the record and the briefs of the parties, and having the benefit of oral argument , we affirm

. I. BACKGROUND After a citizen complained about the state of plaintiff Guettler’s property, the City began a process of notifying Guettler of the propert y’s deficiencies and the City’s intention to demolish the property if the deficiencies were not cured. The state statute under which the City acted required the Cit y to give Guettler (1) notice of the property’s deficiencies and the City’s intention to cure those deficiencies, (2) an opportunity to object at a City Council meeting, and (3) an opportunity to appeal the City Council’s decision to demolish the property in the county court. After complying with the first two state

- law requirements , the City demolished the home on Guettler’s property

. Before it demolished the home , the City failed to notify plaintiff Guettler of the City Council’s ultimate decision to

Case: 13-11184 Date Filed: 03/21/2014 Page: 2 of 63 dem olish the property and, thus, failed to afford Guettler an opportunity to appeal the decision in the county courts. After the City demolished the home , plaintiff Guettler sued the City under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged violations of his Fourth and Fourtee nth Amendment rights. Guettler alleged that the City violated his constitutional rights when it demolished the home without affording him notice of the deficiencies or unsafe characteristics of the home and without providing him an opportunity to appeal t he City’s decision to demolish the home

. The case proceeded to a jury trial. After the close of evidence, both parties moved for judgment as a matter of law. The district granted judgment as a matter of law in plaintiff Guettler’s favor. The court relied on two independent and alternative grounds to reach its conclusion. First, the court concluded that the City violated plaintiff Guettler’s Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process rights. Second, the court concluded that the City violated Guettler’s Fourth Amendment right to be fr ee from unreasonable seizures. The district court submitted the issue of damages to the jury. The jury awarded plaintiff Guettler $26 ,800 for diminution in property value and $7,500 for
mental and emotio nal distress.

Case: 13-11184 Date Filed: 03/21/2014 Page: 3 of 64 The City moved to alter or amend the amount of the jury’s damages award for property value diminution. The district court denied the City’s motion. The City timely appealed.
II. DISCUSSION A. Judgment as a Matter of Law To obtain reversal of a dist rict court judgment that is based on multiple, independent grounds, an appellant must convince us that every stated ground for the judgment against him is incorrect. “ When an appellant fails to challenge properly on appeal one of the grounds on which the district court based its judgment, he is deemed to have abandoned any challenge of that ground, and it follows that the judgment is due to be affirmed. ” Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian
Ins. Co. , 739 F.3d 678, 680 (11th Cir. 2014); Little v. T

– Mobile USA, In c. , 691 F.3d 1302, 1306 (11th Cir. 2012). That is the situation here. In its brief on appeal, the City challenge d the district court’s conclusion that the City violated Guettler’s Fourteenth Amendment due process rights. The City did not challenge the di strict court’s alternative, and independent, basis for granting judgment as a matter of law: that the City also violated Guettler’s Fourth Amendment right to be from an unreasonable seizure. As a result, the City has abandoned any argument it may have ha d that the district court erred in concluding

Case: 13-11184 Date Filed: 03/21/2014 Page: 4 of 65 that that the City violated Guettler’s Fourth Amendment right

. See Sapuppo , 739
F.3 d at 680. Because the district court’s Fourth Amendment finding is unchallenged on appeal, i t follows that the district court’ s judgment as a matter of law is due to be affirmed. See id. at 683.
B. Damages The City argues that the district court erred in denying the City’s motion to alter the amount of property dimi nu tion damages awarded by the jury. There was ample evidence from which the jury could have determined that the City’s demolition of plaintiff Guettler’s home reduced the property value by $26,800

. For example, the jury heard live testimony regarding the property’s pre

- and post

demolition value and saw various tax reco rds and appraisals

. The jury’s damages award can be easily reconciled with the evidence presented at trial. The district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to alter the damages award. See Lamonica v. Safe Hurricane Shutters, Inc. , 711 F.3d 1 299, 1317 (11th Cir. 2013) (“We review the denial of a motion to alter or amend a judgment under Rule 59(e) for abuse of discretion.” (internal quotation marks omitted) ). Case: 13-11184 Date Filed: 03/21/2014 Page: 5 of 66 III. CONCLUSION For the forgoing reasons , the district court’s order granting judgment as a matter of law in plaintiff Guettler’s favor is affirmed , and the district court’s order denying the City’s motion to alter the damages award is affirmed. AFFIRMED

. Case: 13-11184 Date Filed: 03/21/2014 Page: 6 of 6