[DO N OT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 12 26 2

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :0 8- cv -2 02 60 -AJ MANUEL SOLTERO, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pl ai nt iff - App el la nt , ve rs us SWIRE DE VELOPMENT SALES, INC., a Fl or id a Co rp or at io n, SWIRE REALT Y INC., a Fl or id a Co rp or at io n, MAILE AGUILA, in di vi du al ly, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defen da nt s - Ap pe ll ees .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Jul y 30 , 20 12 ) Befo re WILSON, PRYOR an d M ARTIN, Cir cu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: Pl ai nt iff Man ue l So lt ero bro ug htsu itall eg in g t ha t Swi re Dev el op m en t Case: 10-12262 Date Filed: 07/30/2012 Page: 1 of 6Sal es , Swire Real ty, an d t he ir Vi ce Pr es id en t M ai le Agu il a (co ll ect iv el y , “ th e

de fen da nt s” ) m is rep res en te d t o h im th atth e v ie w fro m

a lu xu ry ap artm en t (“ Uni t 36 08 ”) i n M ia m i wo ul d n otbe ob st ru ct edby new co ns tru ct io n n ex t d oo r, an d co ns eque nt ly sol d h im

th e ap art m en t atanin fla te d p ric e. The jury fo un d fo r So lt ero , award in g h im

co m pe ns at ory an d p un it iv e d am ag es . The d is tri ctco urt gr an te d t he de fen da nt s’ m ot io n u nd er Fe de ral Ru le of C iv il Pro cedur e 5 0( b) reque st in g ju dg m en t as a m at te r of law. So lt ero no w app eal s tha t ru li ng , as wel l as ot he rs by the di stric t co urt. We affirm . W e rev ie w th e g ran t o f a Ru le 50 (b ) m ot io n d e n ov o. Ch an ey v. Ci ty of Orla nd o, 4 83 F.3d12 21 , 12 27 (11 thCir . 20 07 ). Ju dg m en t as a m at te r of law “ is ap pr op ria te when a pl ai nt iff pre se nt s n o l eg al ly suf

fic ie ntev id en ti ary ba si s fo r a reas on ab le jury to fin d fo r hi m on a m at eri al ele m en t o f hi s caus e o f act io n.” Ch ris to ph er v . Flo rid a, 44 9 F .3d13 60 , 13 64 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ); s ee al so Co ll ad o v . Uni te d P arce l Se rv ., Co., 4 19 F.3d11 43 , 11 49 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). The jury an d d is tri ctco urt ag reedth atSo lt ero sat is fie d m os t o f th e el em en ts of hi s cl ai m s fo r co m

m on -law frau d a ndne gl ig en t m is rep res en ta ti on , as wel l as ci vi l RI CO un de r Fl or id a la w. See g en eral ly Fla. St at . § 7 72 .10 3( 3) (ci vi l RI CO); Lan ce v . W ad e, 45 7 S o. 2 d 1 00 8, 1 01 1 (F la . 19 84 ) (el em en ts of f rau d) ; Ho on v. Pat e Co ns tr. C o., In c., 60 7 S o. 2 d 4 23 , 42 7 (F la . 4th DCA 1 99 2) (ne gl ig en t
2 Case: 10-12262 Date Filed: 07/30/2012 Page: 2 of 6m is rep res en ta ti on ). They part edway s o nl y with re sp ectto whet he r So lt ero de m on st rat edan y

actua l h arm

res ul ti ng fro m

th e m is rep res en ta ti on s m ad e to hi m ab ou t Un it36 08 ’s vi ew. Actu al ha rm is aness en ti al ele m en t o f bo th frau d a nd ne gl ig en t m is rep res en ta ti on , see Lanc e, 45 7 S o. 2 d a t 1 01 1; Hoo n, 6 07 So . 2dat 42 7; an d apl ai nt iff

m us t s ho w in

jury to p rev ai l o n aRICO cl ai m as we ll , see Fla
. St at . § 7 72 .10 4( 1) . The jury fou ndth is ele m en t s at is fie d, wh il e th e d is tri ctco urt di d n ot . Und er Fl or id a la w, th e actua l h arm in fli ct edby a frau d i s m eas ur edby the am ou ntne ces sa ry

“ to res to re the in

jure d p arty

to th e p os it io n i t wo ul d h av e b een in ha d t he wron g n otbe enco m m it te d.” Nordyne , Inc . v. Fl a. Mo bi le Hom e Supp ly, In c., 62 5 S o. 2 d 1 28 3, 1 28 6 (F la . 1s t DCA 1 99 3) (qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d) . As th e d is tri ctco urt ex pl ai ne d, the re ar e two way s t o d em on st rat e th at ha rm . See Ma rti n v . Bro wn, 5 66 So . 2d89 0, 8 91 –9 2 (F la . 4th DCA 1 99 0) . The

“ ou t-o f-p oc ke t” m etho d re qu ire s a p la in ti ff t o s ho w lo ss res ul ti ng fro m th e di ffer en ce b etweenth e actua l v al ue of t he pro pe rty andth e p ur ch as e p ric e, whi le th e “be ne fit -o f-the -b arg ai n” m etho d re qu ire s p ro of of “ th e d iff

eren ce b etweenth e actua l v al ue of the pro pe rty andit s v al ue ha d the all eg edfact s re ga rd in g i t b een tru e.” Mi no tty

v. Baud o, 4 2 S o. 3 d 8 24 , 83 5 (F la . 4th DCA 2 01 0) (qu ot at io n m ark s o mit te d) . Bot h m etho ds requi re “ th atth e jury hav e ev id en ce o f th e actua l
3 Case: 10-12262 Date Filed: 07/30/2012 Page: 3 of 6va lu e o f th e p ro pe rty in que st io n” at t he ti m e o f th e fraudul en t m is rep res en ta ti on .

Id . (em ph as is ad de d)
. Neit he r pa rty dis pu te s t ha t So lt ero pa id$1 .7 m il li on do ll ars forUni t 3 60 8, so th e an al y si s h in ge s o n wh ethe r So lt ero m etth e se co ndpro ng of t he “ ou t-o fpo ck et ” ru le , pre se nt in g e vi de nc e o f th e “ real or a ctua l v al ue of” Uni t 3 60 8. To sh ow the actua l v al ue of Un it36 08 , Sol te ro pre se nt edanap pr ai sa l tha t v al ue d t he ap art m en t at$1 .5 m il li on at t he ti m e o f cl os in g— $2 00 ,00 0 l es s tha n h e p ai d. Th at wou ldno rm al ly be en ou gh . See Get el m anv. Lev ey , 48 1 S o. 2 d 1 23 6, 1 24 0 (F la
. 3dDCA 19 85 ) (s ta ti ng th at“ Fl or id a co urts wil l ac cep t an y ev id en ce l og ic al ly te nd in g t o e st ab li sh a co rrec t es ti m at e o f th e v al ue of t he pro pe rty”). Butth e di st ric t co urt co nc lu de d tha t the ap pr ai sa l was in su ffi ci en t t o s ho w Uni t 3 60 8’s actua l v al ue , saying th at“ [w]hatth e ap pr ai sa l t oo k i nt o a cco un t i s s he er sp ecu la ti on .” W e ag ree. So lt ero bo re a s pe ci fic bu rd en . He hadto pre se ntev id en ce o f th e actua l va lu e o f Uni t 3 60 8 wi th a so on -to -b e o bs tru ct edvi ew. Ass um in g t ha t v al ue is les s th anth e p ur ch as e p ric e, itco ul d p ro vi de a le ga ll y su ffi ci en t b as is forth e fi nd in g th atSo lt ero was h arm edwhen th e d efen da nt s dup edhi m in to pa y in g fo r wha t h e be li ev edwas a n apa rtment wi th anun ob st ru ct edvi ew. But , whi le th e ap pr ai sa l di d e xp res sl y

co ns id er the vi ew fro m

Uni t 3 60 8 andth ree c om parab le ap art m en ts
4 Case: 10-12262 Date Filed: 07/30/2012 Page: 4 of 6in reac hi ng th e es ti m at e, th e ap pr ai sa l i ts el f of fere d n o i nd ic at io n t ha t i t was acco un ti ng forth e imm in en t o bs tru ct io n o f th atvi ew. Sol te ro di d n otcal l the ap pr ai se r as a witne ss at t ria l t o e xp la in whatwentin to hi s ap pr ai sa l. No r di d h e cal l as a witne ss th e rea l es ta te va lu at io n e xp erthe ret ai ne d, tho ug h t ha t ex pe rt m ig htha ve pro vi de d s om e in si gh t i nt o wh atanap pr ai se r typic al ly con si de rs . Thi s u tt er ab se nc e o f ev id en ce m ak es in te rp ret in g t he ap pr ai sa l m ere gu es swo rk , drawin g a ll for ce fr om th e ap pr ai sa l as anin di cat orof Un it36 08 ’s actua l v al ue . It was th eref or e unr eas on ab le forth e jury to fi ndth atth e ap pr ai sa l pr ic e d idinfactrefl ectth e v al ue of Un it36 08 , acco un ti ng forth e upc om in g ob st ru ct io n o f th e ap artm en t’s v ie w. Andwitho uta ba si s fo r de te rm in in g t he real oractua l v al ue of Un it36 08 , th e jury lack edsu ffi ci en t ev id en ce t o fi ndth at So lt ero su ffer edanou t-o f-p oc ke t l os s. See Ch ris to ph er, 4 49 F.3dat 1 36 4. Thus , we affi rm th e d is tri ctco urt’s g ran t o f jud gm en t as a m at te r of law fo r th e de fen da nt s. See Kin d v . Git tm an , 88 9 S o. 2 d 8 7, 9 0 (F la . 4th DCA 2 00 4) (rev ers in g t he tri al co urt’s d en ia l o f jud gm en t as a m at te r of law wh ere t he pl ai nt iff “pr es en te d n o t es ti m on y fix in g t he actua l v al ue of t he pro pe rty onth e da te of t he sal e”). Bec au se all award s o f co m pe ns at ory da m ag es were s etasi de as am at te r of la w, itfol lo ws tha t the awardof p un it iv e d am ag es was a ls o due to be va cat ed . In

5 Case: 10-12262 Date Filed: 07/30/2012 Page: 5 of 6ad di ti on , as t he di st ric t co urt co rrec tl y rul ed , Sol te ro waiv edan y cla im to no m in al da m ag es by notreque st in g ajury in st ru ct io n o n n om in al da m ag es an d n otask in g th atno m in al da m ag es be in cl ud edon th e v erd ic t fo rm . See Oli ve r v. Fa ll a, 25 8 F.3 d 1 27 7, 1 28 1– 82 (11 th Cir . 20 01 ); Walk er v . And ers on Elec . Con ne ct or s, 9 44 F.2 d 8 41 , 84 4– 45 (11 th Cir . 19 91 ). AFFIRMED .

6 Case: 10-12262 Date Filed: 07/30/2012 Page: 6 of 6