Court Opinion

ID: 9382978
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-29 14:14:34.656473+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:42.764382
License: Public Domain

Third District Court of Appeal
                               State of Florida

                        Opinion filed March 29, 2023.
       Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

                            ________________

                              No. 3D22-460
                        Lower Tribunal No. 20-2309
                           ________________

                            Juan Gervas, et al.,
                                Appellants,

                                     vs.

                  Gazul Producciones SL Unipersonal,
                              Appellee.

     An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Maria de
Jesus Santovenia, Judge.

      Polsinelli PC, and Henry H. Bolz, IV and Ghislaine G. Torres Bruner,
for appellants.

     Carlton Fields, and Sylvia H. Walbolt, Thomas Meeks, and Charles
Throckmorton, for appellee.

Before FERNANDEZ, C.J., and SCALES and MILLER, JJ.

     SCALES, J.
      Appellants, defendants below, Juan Gervas (“Gervas”) and MOW

Productions, LLC (“MOW”), appeal a final summary judgment finding Gervas

individually liable to appellee, plaintiff below, Gazul Producciones SL

Unipersonal (“Gazul”) in the amount of $307,848.77 and finding Gervas and

MOW jointly and severally liable to Gazul in the amount of $1,306,225.00.

We affirm Gazul’s judgment against Gervas, individually, and we affirm in

part and reverse in part Gazul’s judgment against Gervas and MOW, jointly

and severally.

      I. Relevant Background

      Gervas was a paid consultant to Spanish musician Alejandro Sanz.

Gazul is a Spanish corporate entity, founded by Sanz, to represent Sanz’s

business interests. Gervas created and managed MOW, a Florida limited

liability company, to serve as Gazul’s domestic agent for Sanz’s 2019

concert tour of the United States.

      The uncontroverted evidence was that MOW’s function was to collect

proceeds from the concert tour’s promoter (Live Nation) and pay tour

expenses. Some of these tour expenses were advanced by Gazul. The

parties agree that MOW was to reimburse Gazul for advanced expenses,

and to remit to Gazul all net concert tour revenue after paying tour expenses.

                                      2
      After the concert tour ended, the parties disputed (i) the amount of

compensation Gazul had agreed to pay Gervas, and (ii) the amount of net

tour revenue that MOW was to remit to Gazul. Specifically, Gazul, in its multi-

count January 30, 2020 lawsuit against Gervas and MOW, alleged that

Gervas retained from concert tour proceeds far greater than his allegedly

agreed-upon yearly salary of 100,000 Euros, and that MOW and Gervas

failed to remit net tour revenue and reimbursements to Gazul, instead

converting the funds due to Gazul.

      Gazul filed a motion for summary judgment along with sworn

declarations from Gazul advisor and board member Enrique Vallejo, Gazul

board member Raquel Perera, Gazul controller Javier Gallego, and

accountant Felix Castillo, who had worked with Gazul, Gervas and MOW.

Castillo’s declaration states that MOW “received $1,306,225 relating to the

2019 United States Tour which remains owing to” Gazul. Gallego’s

declaration (and accompanying summary of payments) states that Gazul

overpaid Gervas $307,848.77 in compensation. Gazul also submitted

Gervas’s deposition transcript, in which Gervas was unable to explain his

defense to Gazul’s claim that Gervas’s agreed-upon salary was capped at

100,000 Euros per year.

                                      3
      Gervas’s principal defense was that the parties had agreed that

Gervas’s compensation would be significantly more than 100,000 Euros per

year. While not entirely clear, MOW’s principal defense was that Gazul’s

lawsuit was premature because not all concert tour expenses had been paid,

referring primarily to a significant tax liability. MOW filed a sworn declaration

of its accountant Jorge De La Torre in which he stated that MOW’s tax

liability, as of the time of his declaration, was $218,647, plus fees and

interest.1 Gervas and MOW conceded, through De La Torre’s declaration,

that they owed $105,218 to Gazul.

      The trial court conducted a lengthy summary judgment hearing and,

on November 9, 2021, entered the judgment on appeal, in which the trial

court found that Gervas was liable to Gazul in the amount of $307,848.77 for

overpaid compensation to Gervas, and that Gervas and MOW had converted

$1,306,225 of Gazul’s funds by failing to remit to Gazal concert tour

proceeds and advance repayments. On February 11, 2022, the trial court

entered an order denying Gervas and MOW’s motion for rehearing. This

appeal timely ensued.

1
   In a November 1, 2021 partial summary judgment order (that was
incorporated into the challenged final summary judgment), the trial court
found MOW’s potential tax liability to be $308,053.99, this amount consisting
of a tax deficiency notice from the Internal Revenue Service for $245,405.86
and one from Florida Department of Revenue for $62,648.13.

                                       4
         II. Analysis2

      Under the new summary judgment standard, 3 Gazul, as the party

seeking affirmative relief, had the initial burden to establish that Gazul both

2
 We review de novo the trial court’s summary judgment. Ibarra v. Ross
Dress for Less, Inc., 350 So. 3d 465, 467 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022).
3
  Because the trial court heard Gazul’s motion for summary judgment after
May 1, 2021, the trial court applied Florida’s new summary judgment
standard. Prior to our high court’s rule amendment of Florida Rule of Civil
Procedure 1.510, a party could defeat a summary judgment motion by a
showing in the record of a “scintilla of evidence” that could create a fact issue.
See Mobley v. Homestead Hosp., 291 So. 3d 987, 992 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019)
(Logue, J., concurring). Under the revised rule, effective May 1, 2021, this is
no longer the case. In re Amendments to Fla. Rule of Civil Procedure 1.510,
317 So. 3d 72, 76 (Fla. 2021). Under the new summary judgment standard,
a movant who bears the burden of persuasion at trial has the initial burden
of demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of material fact and must
produce evidence sufficient to result in a directed verdict at trial. Id. at 75-77.
Once this initial burden is met, the party opposing the summary judgment
motion must then provide evidence showing that there exists a genuine issue
of material fact. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250 (1986).
“A party asserting that a fact . . . is genuinely disputed must support the
assertion by . . . citing to particular parts of materials in the record, including
depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or
declarations, stipulations (including those made for purposes of the motion
only), admissions, interrogatory answers or other materials[.]” Fla. R. Civ. P.
1.510(c)(1)(A). Importantly, “[i]f the evidence [presented by the nonmovant]
is merely colorable, or is not significantly probative, summary judgment may
be granted.” In re Amendments to Fla. Rule of Civil Procedure 1.510, 309
So. 3d 192, 193 (Fla. 2020) (quoting Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249-50)). “When
opposing parties tell two different stories, one of which is blatantly
contradicted by the record, so that no reasonable jury could believe it, a court
should not adopt that version of the facts for purposes of ruling on a motion
for summary judgment.” Id. (quoting Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380
(2007).

                                        5
overpaid Gervas in compensation and that Gervas and MOW converted

concert tour proceeds that they were supposed to remit to Gazul. Once

Gazul met its burden, the burden then shifted to Gervas and MOW, the non-

movants, so that Gervas had to show that Gervas had an agreement with

Gazul for compensation exceeding 100,000 Euros per year, and Gervas and

MOW had to show that they properly retained certain concert tour revenues.

     On our de novo review of the summary judgment record, we conclude

that Gazul met its initial burden to establish that Gervas was entitled to a

salary of 100,000 Euros per year only and that he was overpaid by the sum

of $307,848.77. Gervas failed to meet his burden to show that a reasonable

factfinder could find that Gervas was contractually entitled to the greater

amount that Gervas had been paid. We therefore affirm Gazul’s summary

judgment against Gervas.

     We also affirm that portion of Gazul’s summary judgment against

Gervas and MOW, jointly and severally, that finds them liable to Gazul for

the unrepaid funds Gazul advanced to MOW and for the net concert tour

proceeds that have not been remitted to Gazul. Indeed, Gervas and MOW’s

own witness, De La Torre, testified in his declaration that monies remain due

and owing to Gazul.

                                     6
      We, however, are unable to reconcile the declarations of the

competing witnesses without improperly weighing the evidence. See Gracia

v. Sec. First Ins. Co., 347 So. 3d 479, 482 (Fla. 5th DCA 2022) (holding that

under the new summary judgment standard, “the general rule remains intact:

credibility determinations and weighing the evidence ‘are jury functions, not

those of a judge,’ when ruling on a motion for summary judgment” (quoting

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986))). Gervas and

MOW concede, through their witness De La Torre, that they owe Gazul in

excess of $105,000, while Gazul’s witness places the figure in excess of

$1,300,000. This significant disparity between witness declarations appears

to us to raise a genuine issue of material fact on the issue of damages that

would preclude summary judgment. See Knight v. N.Y. State Dep’t of Corr.,

18-CV-7172 (KMK), 2022 WL 1004186, at *6 (S.D. N.Y. 2022); Andries v.

Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., 12 So. 3d 260, 261 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (“[A]

‘battle of the experts’ creates an issue for resolution by the jury (precluding

summary judgment on that issue if material to the underlying cause of

action).”).

      Further, the tax liability issue precludes summary judgment as to the

damages Gervas and MOW owe to Gazul. As noted above, MOW asserts

(and the trial court found in its November 1, 2021 partial summary judgment

                                      7
order) that MOW has unpaid tax liabilities to the Internal Revenue Service

and the Florida Department of Revenue of $308,053.99. The trial court

determined that the parties did not intend for MOW – an entity established

to “pass through” concert tour revenues to Gazul – to incur tax liability. The

trial court’s partial summary judgment also impliedly holds that if, irrespective

of the parties’ intentions, MOW does have a tax liability resulting from its

operations, Gervas and MOW agreed to indemnify Gazul for, and hold Gazul

harmless from, such tax liability. While the parties might never have intended

for MOW to incur any tax liability, we are unable to discern from the summary

judgment record the requisite unrebutted evidence that, if such intentions

proved to be frustrated, Gervas and MOW agreed to bear the burden of any

such liability and how Gazul otherwise would account for this potentially

outstanding concert tour expense.

      III. Conclusion

      We affirm the trial court’s final summary judgment against Gervas on

Gazul’s compensation claim alleging that Gervas was overpaid by

$307,848.77. We also affirm that portion of the final summary judgment order

finding Gervas and MOW jointly and severally liable to Gazul on Gazul’s

claim that they owe Gazul reimbursement of advanced funds and remittance

of net concert tour revenue. We reverse that portion of the final summary

                                       8
judgment order affixing damages as to those claims, concluding that Gazul,

on this record, did not meet its burden to establish the existence of no

genuine issue of material fact, and we remand for determination of the

amount of damages to which Gazul is entitled on those claims.

     Affirmed in part; reversed and remanded in part.

                                    9