Ravi Kadiyala, et al. v. Mark Pupke, et al.

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
Nos. 22-10211, 22-13144
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
RAVI KADIYALA, individually, and as the assignee of
Credit Union Mortgage Utility Banc, Inc.,
Plaintiff-Counter Defendant-
Appellee-Cross Appellant,
CREDIT UNION MORTGAGE UTILITY BANC, INC.,
an Illinois corp.,
Plaintiff-Counter Defendant-
Appellee,
versus
MARK JOHN PUPKE,
MARIE MOLLY PUPKE,
USCA11 Case: 22-10211 Document: 77-1 Date Filed: 01/03/2024 Page: 1 of 8

-- 1 of 8 --

2 Opinion of the Court 22-10211
Defendants-Counter Claimants-
Appellants-Cross Appellees,
THE FLAGER GROUP AND ASSOCIATES,
a Florida sole proprietorship,
JOHN P. MILLER,
individually, CPA, PA, a Florida Corporation,
d.b.a. JOHN P. MILLER,
NICOLE ELLERSTEIN,
a.k.a. NICOLE AUGUSTE JACK,
Defendants.
____________________
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
D.C. Docket No. 9:17-cv-80732-KAM
____________________
Before R OSENBAUM , LAGOA , and BRASHER , Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
This is an action alleging fraud in connection with the pur-
chase of a substantial interest in Euro International Mortgage, Inc.
(“Euro”), a mortgage company. The purchaser, Ravi Kadiyala,
claims that, after the sale, he learned that the company’s key asset,
USCA11 Case: 22-10211 Document: 77-1 Date Filed: 01/03/2024 Page: 2 of 8

-- 2 of 8 --

22-10211 Opinion of the Court 3
an “Eagle” lending designation from the Department of Housing
and Urban Development (“HUD”), had been obtained by fraud,
and he sued the sellers, Mark and Marie Pupke, for damages.
After a seven-day trial, a federal jury found in favor of Kadi-
yala on his claims against Mark for fraud and on his claims against
Marie for conspiracy to commit fraud and aiding and abetting. In
accordance with the verdict form, the jury assessed damages indi-
vidually with respect to each of the three claims. The form did not
ask the jury to provide an overall damages figure. For the fraud
claim against Mark, the jury awarded $500,000 in compensatory
damages and $1,000,000 in punitive damages. For the conspiracy
claim against Marie, the jury awarded $250,000 in compensatory
damages and $250,000 in punitive damages. And for the aiding-
and-abetting claim, the jury awarded $250,000 in compensatory
damages and $250,000 in punitive damages. Combined, these fig-
ures resulted in a total award of $1 million in compensatory dam-
ages and $1.5 million in punitive damages.
Post-trial, the district court granted the Pupkes’ motion un-
der Rule 50, Fed. R. Civ. P., to reduce the damages award as dupli-
cative. The court reasoned that the compensatory damages as-
sessed against Mark and Marie were duplicative because the claims
were all based on the same fraud and the same injury. So the court
permitted recovery for $500,000 in compensatory damages against
Mark, with joint and several liability against Marie for up to
$250,000. The court also reduced the punitive damages award
against Marie from a total of $500,000 to $250,000, reasoning that
USCA11 Case: 22-10211 Document: 77-1 Date Filed: 01/03/2024 Page: 3 of 8

-- 3 of 8 --

4 Opinion of the Court 22-10211
the two awards were based on the same conduct, so they were also
duplicative.
Both the Pupkes and Kadiyala have appealed. The Pupkes
argue, for the first time on appeal, that the jury’s damages award
cannot stand because Kadiyala failed to prove actual damages and
relied solely on “speculation and conjecture” about future profits.
For his part, Kadiyala maintains that the district court erred in re-
ducing his damages as duplicative.
I.
As to the Pupkes’ appeal, we cannot grant any relief because
the Pupkes never properly raised a challenge to the sufficiency of
the damages evidence before the district court.1
To preserve an evidentiary sufficiency challenge in a civil
case, the party must comply with Rule 50, including filing a post-
verdict motion for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50(b) or
a new trial under Rule 59. Unitherm Food Sys., Inc. v. Swift-Eckrich,
Inc., 546 U.S. 394, 400–01 (2006) (quotation marks omitted). If a
party fails to make an appropriate post-verdict motion, we have “no
1 Even assuming we had the power to consider this newly raised argument,
we would review it only under the plain-error standard, which “rarely applies
in civil cases.” Ledford v. Peeples, 657 F.3d 1222, 1258 (11th Cir. 2011). And
generally, we will grant relief in a civil case under this standard only when
necessary to prevent “a miscarriage of justice.” Burch v. P.J. Cheese, Inc., 861
F.3d 1338, 1352 (11th Cir. 2017) (quotation marks omitted). This is not a rare
case where invoking the plain-error doctrine is necessary to prevent a miscar-
riage of justice.
USCA11 Case: 22-10211 Document: 77-1 Date Filed: 01/03/2024 Page: 4 of 8

-- 4 of 8 --

22-10211 Opinion of the Court 5
authority” to consider its challenge to the sufficiency of the evi-
dence. Hi Ltd. P’ship v. Winghouse of Fla., Inc., 451 F.3d 1300, 1302
(11th Cir. 2006); see Unitherm, 546 U.S. at 404 (“[R]espondent’s fail-
ure to comply with Rule 50(b) forecloses its challenge to the suffi-
ciency of the evidence.”).
Because the Pupkes “never sought a new trial” or a directed
verdict based on insufficiency of the damages evidence, they “for-
feited [their] right to do so on appeal.” Unitherm, 546 U.S. at 404.
II.
As to Kadiyala’s cross-appeal, “we review a district court’s
determination regarding duplicative damages for clear error.” St.
Luke’s Cataract & Laser Inst., P.A. v. Sanderson, 573 F.3d 1186, 1200
n.17 (11th Cir. 2009).
Ordinarily, “[t]he jury enjoys substantial discretion in award-
ing damages within the range shown by the evidence, and . . . its
verdict does not fail . . . so long as a rational basis exists for the
calculation.” United States v. Sullivan, 1 F.3d 1191, 1196 (11th Cir.
1993). Federal courts have “no general authority to reduce the
amount of a jury’s verdict.” Johansen v. Combustion Eng’g, Inc., 170
F.3d 1320, 1329 (11th Cir. 1999).
But courts do have the power and duty to prevent “double
recovery.” St Luke’s, 573 F.3d at 1203. A plaintiff generally cannot
be compensated for the same injury under different legal theories.
Id.; see Minotty v. Baudo, 42 So. 3d 824, 833 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (“A
double recovery based on the same elements of damages is prohib-
ited.” (quotation marks omitted)). Courts are therefore
USCA11 Case: 22-10211 Document: 77-1 Date Filed: 01/03/2024 Page: 5 of 8

-- 5 of 8 --

6 Opinion of the Court 22-10211
empowered to reduce an award to ensure that a plaintiff does not
receive more than his actual loss. See St Luke’s, 573 F.3d at 1203.
Nonetheless, “a jury is not prohibited from allocating a sin-
gle damages award between two distinct theories of liability.” Me-
dina v. Dist. of Columbia, 643 F.3d 323, 326 (D.C. Cir. 2011). In Co-
quina Investments v. TD Bank, N.A., for example, the jury awarded
the plaintiff $16 million in compensatory damages and $17.5 mil-
lion in punitive damages each on two claims (aiding and abetting
and fraudulent misrepresentation) based on the same Ponzi
scheme. 760 F.3d 1300, 1306–07 & n.4 (11th Cir. 2014). We sum-
marily affirmed the court’s refusal to reduce the award as duplica-
tive, reasoning that it was clear from the record that “the jury in-
tended a total of $32 million in compensatory damages and $35
million in punitive damages,” which trial evidence of the plaintiff’s
total loss supported. Id. at 1307 n.4, 1319. Thus, a jury’s award is
not duplicative merely because “it allocated the damages under two
different causes of action,” Gentile v. Cnty. of Suffolk, 926 F.2d 142,
154 (2d Cir. 1991), so long as the jury intended that result and it is
supported by the evidence at trial, see Coquina, 760 F.3d at 1319.
Here, the district court did not offer adequate grounds to
justify reducing the total amount of damages that the jury
awarded. The court reasoned that the compensatory-damages
awards against Mark and Marie were duplicative of one another
because they were based on the same fraud and the same injury.
That alone is not enough, though, because the jury was not pro-
hibited from allocating its total damages award between Mark and
USCA11 Case: 22-10211 Document: 77-1 Date Filed: 01/03/2024 Page: 6 of 8

-- 6 of 8 --

22-10211 Opinion of the Court 7
Marie through the different causes of action. See Coquina, 760 F.3d
at 1319; Medina, 643 F.3d at 326; Gentile, 926 F.2d at 154. Nothing
in the verdict form or the court’s instructions indicates that the jury
did not intend to award Kadiyala a total of $1 million in compensa-
tory damages. Nor did the court indicate that the total award ex-
ceeded Kadiyala’s actual damages, which he claimed more than $10
million. See Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Air Cap. Grp., LLC,
614 F. App’x 460, 474 (11th Cir. 2015) (“[A] plaintiff may recover
damages on two claims stemming from the same conduct if the
total does not exceed actual damages.”). So while we cannot rule
out double recovery, we must conclude that the district court ex-
ceeded its limited authority in this context by reducing the total
amount of compensatory damages reflected in the jury’s verdict.
See St Luke’s, 573 F.3d at 1203; Sullivan, 1 F.3d at 1196; Johansen, 170
F.3d at 1329.
The issue of punitive damages is no different. The district
court reasoned that the awards of $250,000 in punitive damages
each for the conspiracy and aiding-and-abetting claims were dupli-
cative because they were intended to sanction the same conduct.
But nothing in the record suggests that the jury did not intend to
award a total of $500,000 in punitive damages against Marie for her
conduct. So just like with the issue of compensatory damages, the
court lacked adequate grounds to reduce the award of punitive
damages.
For these reasons, we vacate the district court’s order reduc-
ing the damages awarded to Kadiyala as duplicative, and we
USCA11 Case: 22-10211 Document: 77-1 Date Filed: 01/03/2024 Page: 7 of 8

-- 7 of 8 --

8 Opinion of the Court 22-10211
remand with instructions to enter judgment consistent with the
verdict and this opinion.
III.
In sum, we AFFIRM with respect to the Pupkes’ appeal (No.
22-10211). We VACATE and REMAND, with instructions, with
respect to Kadiyala’s cross-appeal (No. 22-13144).
USCA11 Case: 22-10211 Document: 77-1 Date Filed: 01/03/2024 Page: 8 of 8

-- 8 of 8 --