The case involves Andrew and Adele Bloom suing state and county officials, along with related entities, over the 2002 seizure of animals from their property pursuant to a search warrant and the ensuing criminal prosecution for animal abuse and neglect. The Third Amended Complaint asserted multiple claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of constitutional rights, including arrest without probable cause, false arrest, and malicious prosecution, plus state-law claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress, conspiracy, defamation, trespass to chattel, and conversion. The court evaluated motions to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), applying the Twombly/Iqbal plausibility standard, service-of-process rules, and qualified-immunity analysis that examines whether officers had arguable probable cause and whether any alleged misstatements in the warrant affidavit were material. It addressed service deficiencies for the state commission and scrutinized the factual allegations concerning the warrant and officers' observations to determine which claims could proceed.
This case involved claims by a minor plaintiff against Miami-Dade County after she was sexually assaulted by a police officer, Paul Brosky, who used his position to isolate and abuse her. The plaintiff asserted state-law negligence in the county's hiring and supervision of Brosky, a federal civil rights claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging deliberate indifference to a pattern of officer misconduct, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. The court granted the county's motion for summary judgment on all counts. It reasoned that the evidence showed no prior similar incidents of sexual misconduct by officers that went undisciplined, that Brosky's background check and hiring complied with county procedures without revealing red flags, and that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a custom or policy of deliberate indifference or actionable negligence causing the harm.
This case stems from a 2008 boat collision in Miami Harbor injuring passenger Richard Sol, who settled claims against pilot Cory Fritzler and insurer Fireman’s Fund before dismissing all defendants. Fritzler and Fireman’s Fund then filed cross-claims seeking indemnity or contribution from the City of Miami and Officer Estevez under general maritime law. The court granted in part and denied in part the motions to dismiss: indemnity claims against the City were dismissed because maritime indemnity requires vicarious liability rather than merely non-negligent tortfeasor status, all claims against Officer Estevez were dismissed on qualified immunity grounds, and contribution claims against the City were allowed to proceed as they adequately alleged concurrent fault.
In Robbins v. City of Miami Beach, the plaintiff sued three police officers and the City under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for excessive force and under Florida law for assault, battery, and negligence after officers burst into a bathroom stall with guns drawn, prompting Robbins to flee and be shot. The court ruled on motions to dismiss only the state-law claims, granting them in part by dismissing assault and battery claims against Officer Pfrogner due to insufficient factual allegations that he committed such acts, and denying them in part by rejecting the officers' affirmative defense under Fla. Stat. § 776.085 because the complaint's admissions did not prove by a preponderance that Robbins committed a forcible felony like resisting arrest with violence. The court also permitted respondeat superior negligence claims against the City to proceed where facts supported potential liability for excessive force or failure to intervene.
In Forbes v. St. Thomas University, Inc., plaintiff Randall Vanessa Forbes, a law student with post-traumatic stress disorder stemming from prior sexual assaults, sued the university under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. She alleged that the school failed to provide reasonable test-taking accommodations, such as extra time and a private room, which contributed to her low grades and eventual dismissal for falling below the required GPA. The court denied the university's motion for summary judgment, finding genuine disputes of material fact regarding the interactions between Forbes and school officials about accommodations, whether any promises were made, and whether the provided testing conditions met legal requirements. The opinion also addressed the definition of disability under the ADA Amendments Act, concluding that issues such as whether Forbes was regarded as disabled and the reasonableness of any accommodations could not be resolved without further evidence at trial.
In Wheeler v. DePuy Spine, Inc., the plaintiff sued the manufacturer of the Charite Artificial Disc for breach of express warranty, claiming the device failed to meet promises of safety, efficacy, durability, and restored natural motion based on statements and images in a brochure and website. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment on this claim. Even assuming the claim was not preempted by federal FDA premarket approval requirements under the Medical Device Amendments, the court found that the marketing statements did not qualify as affirmations of fact or promises forming the basis of the bargain under Florida law, especially in light of explicit risk disclosures and the plaintiff's focus on images rather than specific guarantees.
