Zain Gunsby v. Edwin MacKey, Individually and Derivatively on Behalf Of

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: October 14, 2024
• Docket: 6D2023-2138
• Status: Published

Opinion

SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA _____________________________

Case No. 6D2023-2138 Lower Tribunal No. 2021-CA-003029-O _____________________________

ZAIN GUNSBY,

Appellant,

v. EDWIN MACKEY, individually and derivatively on behalf of BLVCK SPADES, LLC,

Appellee. _____________________________

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County. John E. Jordan, Judge.

October 14, 2024

MIZE, J.

Appellant Zain Gunsby (“Gunsby”) appeals a final judgment (the “Final

Judgment”) entered against him that, among other things, awarded Appellee Edwin

Mackey (“Mackey”) damages in the amount of $260,654.00. Gunsby argues that

the amount of the damages award was not supported by competent, substantial

evidence. We agree and reverse the damages award.1

1 Gunsby also appeals two other aspects of the Final Judgment, both of which we affirm without discussion. Background and Procedural History

Mackey and Gunsby formed a Florida limited liability company together

called Blvck Spades, LLC (the “LLC”). Mackey owned 51% of the LLC and

Gunsby owned 49%. The LLC was in the business of manufacturing and selling

playing cards and related merchandise. Eventually, the relationship between

Mackey and Gunsby deteriorated due to disagreements over how to run the LLC and

market its products. During their dispute, both parties took actions to try and exert

control over the business. Mackey alleged that certain actions taken by Gunsby were

wrongful. As a result, Mackey filed a complaint against Gunsby, subsequently

amended, that included five counts, including a claim for violation of the Florida

Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (“FDUTPA”).2 After a non-jury trial, the

trial court issued the Final Judgment which, among other things, awarded Mackey

damages in the amount of $260,654.00 on his FDUPTA claim. Gunsby timely filed

this appeal.

Analysis

We review the trial court’s method of calculating damages de novo. Kinchla

v. Ran Investments, LLC, 6D2023-1385, 2024 WL 4096229, at *2 (Fla. 6th DCA

Sept. 6, 2024). If the trial court applied the correct method of calculating damages,

2 Because the trial court awarded damages solely on the FDUTPA claim, the other counts are not material to this opinion. 2 we review the factual basis for the amount of the damages award for competent,

substantial evidence. Bass Venture Corp. v. Devom, LLC, 342 So. 3d 821, 824 (Fla.

2d DCA 2022) (quoting Asset Mgmt. Holdings, LLC v. Assets Recovery Ctr. Invs.,

LLC, 238 So. 3d 908, 911 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018)); see also Devon Med., Inc. v. Ryvmed

Med., Inc., 60 So. 3d 1125, 1128 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011).

In this case, we are unable to ascertain the method by which the trial court

arrived at the damages amount of $260,654.00. The trial court’s Final Judgment did

not explain how the damages amount was calculated, nor did it provide any factual

findings to support the award.3 While some evidence of damages was presented at

trial, after studying the record extensively, we have not been able to locate any

competent, substantial evidence that could support an award of damages in the

amount granted by the trial court. For these reasons, we must reverse it.

Conclusion

The damages award in the Final Judgment is reversed, and this case is

remanded to the trial court to enter an amended final judgment that makes a damages

award based on the evidence presented at the trial. In the amended final judgment,

the trial court should identify the method used to calculate the damages award.

3 The trial court did not make an oral ruling. While factual findings were not required, they would have been helpful to facilitate appellate review because we can conceive of no method of calculating damages in this case that would have yielded the amount awarded by the trial court. 3 REVERSED and REMANDED with instructions.

NARDELLA and WHITE, JJ., concur.

Kevin Robinson, of Zimmerman, Kiser & Sutcliffe, P.A., Orlando, for Appellant.

No Appearance for Appellee.

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF TIMELY FILED