William Marcellin Hoeveler

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.

civil rightscriminal lawproceduretorts & liability

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.

criminal lawcivil rightstorts & liability

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.

torts & liabilityprocedure

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.

civil rightscriminal lawproceduretorts & liability

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.

civil rightsprocedure

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.

torts & liabilityhealthcare

This case arose from the August 2003 arrest of plaintiffs Cindy Fils and Nemours Maurice at a nightclub in Aventura, Florida, leading to claims of false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, battery under state law, and multiple § 1983 claims alleging constitutional violations such as unreasonable seizure and denial of due process against six police officers, Police Chief Thomas Ribel, and the City of Aventura. The defendants moved for summary judgment primarily on qualified immunity grounds. After initially denying the motions in a cursory order, which prompted an appeal and a limited remand from the Eleventh Circuit for a more detailed analysis, the district court on remand reconsidered the record under the proper legal standards. The court concluded that it had erred in its prior denial and proceeded to evaluate each claim against each defendant individually, granting summary judgment where qualified immunity applied or where no municipal policy or custom supported liability.

civil rightscriminal lawproceduretorts & liability

In Wheeler v. DePuy Spine, Inc., the plaintiff sued the manufacturer of the Charite Artificial Disc, a Class III medical device implanted in his spine in 2005, alleging breach of warranty (products liability), negligence, and breach of express warranty after he experienced severe pain and mobility issues post-surgery. The U.S. District Court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment on the products liability and negligence claims, finding them preempted by the Medical Device Amendments of 1976 to the FDCA. The court reasoned that under Riegel v. Medtronic, state-law claims challenging the safety or effectiveness of FDA-premarket-approved devices are barred unless premised on a violation of federal regulations, which the plaintiff had not alleged. The breach of express warranty claim was set for an evidentiary hearing rather than resolved on summary judgment. The topics include healthcare, federal power, torts & liability, and procedure.

healthcarefederal powertorts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved a breach-of-contract claim by the father of a U.S. citizen entertainer who died after falling overboard from a Carnival cruise ship; the suit, filed in Florida state court, sought a $50,000 death benefit under the employment contract. Carnival removed the action to federal court and moved to compel arbitration pursuant to an arbitration clause designating London, Panama City, or Manila, arguing that the clause fell under the New York Convention and thus conferred federal jurisdiction. The court granted the motion to remand and denied arbitration, holding that because both parties were U.S. citizens the arbitration agreement was governed by the Convention only if the underlying legal relationship involved property abroad, performance or enforcement abroad, or another reasonable relation to a foreign state. The record showed the contract was negotiated and signed in Florida, the ship’s home port was in Florida, and the employee’s duties were performed on short domestic cruises, with only incidental foreign contacts such as the Bahamian flag and occasional port calls. These facts did not satisfy the statutory foreign-element requirement, so no federal jurisdiction existed.

procedurelabor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

In Tooma v. Florida Parole Commission, a Florida inmate serving a life sentence challenged the constitutionality of state parole procedures under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, arguing that a statute allowing ex parte objections from the sentencing judge to extend his presumptive parole release date violated due process by denying him a chance to rebut the comments and constituted ex post facto punishment because the procedure was enacted after his crime. The court converted the action to a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation to dismiss, as modified. The core reasoning was that even if the judicial objection procedure were invalidated, the Parole Commission retained discretion to extend the release date based on other statutory factors such as unsatisfactory conduct or release plans, meaning success on the claims would not necessarily result in earlier parole.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

The case involved a passenger who was injured after falling in a hallway on a Celebrity Cruises vessel in April 2006 and filed suit in April 2008 alleging negligence. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing the action as time-barred under the terms of the passenger ticket contract. The contract required any personal injury suit to be filed within one year of the incident and written notice of the claim within six months, provisions the plaintiff received before the cruise. The court found no basis for equitable tolling because the plaintiff had the ticket, was aware of its terms, and failed to pursue the claim diligently within the contractual period despite medical treatment and later consultation with counsel.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case concerns whether the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers complied with the Clean Water Act, NEPA, and the APA when issuing 2002 permits allowing limestone mining companies to discharge dredged or fill material into wetlands in Miami-Dade County near the Everglades and Biscayne Aquifer. After an initial summary judgment for the plaintiffs and a remand from the Eleventh Circuit directing proper deference to the agency, the district court reviewed the administrative record and granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment while denying the cross-motions. The court found the Corps' decision arbitrary and capricious because it failed to adequately consider practicable alternatives under the CWA's 404(b)(1) guidelines and did not properly evaluate significant new information on environmental impacts, such as water contamination risks, under NEPA. The permits authorized conversion of thousands of acres of wetlands to mining pits over ten years, relying on an earlier EIS that multiple agencies had criticized.

environmentbusiness & regulatoryfederal powerprocedure

The case concerned former Panamanian leader Manuel Noriega's petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, filed in an effort to block his extradition to France on the grounds that it would violate the Geneva Convention's protections for prisoners of war. The court dismissed the petition and lifted its prior stay of extradition. It held that the filing was procedurally improper because challenges to the extradition certification must be brought in a separate proceeding rather than the original criminal case. The court further found it likely lacked jurisdiction over claims regarding Noriega's future treatment in France and, even assuming jurisdiction, determined that the United States had obtained sufficient assurances from France that it would afford Noriega the same POW rights he received in the U.S., consistent with Article 12 of the Convention, which does not prohibit compliant extraditions.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involves former Panamanian leader Manuel Noriega's 2007 petition for writs of habeas corpus, mandamus, and prohibition to block his extradition to France on money laundering charges while serving a U.S. sentence and holding POW status under the Geneva Convention from the 1989 U.S. invasion of Panama. The court denied the petition, finding no jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to challenge the underlying sentence and no basis for mandamus or prohibition relief. It further observed that even under § 2241 habeas review, Noriega failed to show entitlement to relief because the Convention's provisions on POW release and transfer do not prohibit extradition for ordinary crimes, especially to a Convention party like France that would preserve his POW rights, and analogous provisions in the Fourth Geneva Convention support such transfers. The ruling emphasized that POW status persists until final repatriation but does not override valid U.S. criminal proceedings or extradition treaties.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved environmental organizations challenging permits issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (with input from the Fish and Wildlife Service) to private limestone mining companies, allowing the destruction of approximately 5,400 acres of wetlands in Florida to extract material for cement and other products. The court determined that the agencies had violated the Administrative Procedure Act, Endangered Species Act, Clean Water Act, and National Environmental Policy Act in issuing the permits in 2002. It therefore set the permits aside, directing preparation of a supplemental environmental impact statement and formal consultation on impacts to protected species. The core reasoning was that the agencies' decisions lacked a rational basis, failed to consider all relevant factors including risks to the Biscayne Aquifer drinking water supply from mining-related contamination, and did not comply with governing environmental review requirements.

environmentfederal powerbusiness & regulatory

In this case, plaintiff Yali Golan alleged that he and defendant Dr. Marc Puleo had entered into a 1998 agreement making them 50/50 partners in profits from PetMed Express, Inc., and that PetMed failed to disclose this agreement in its SEC registration filings as required under Regulation S-K, Item 404(d). Golan brought Counts II and III against PetMed seeking an order compelling disclosure and asserting a breach of duty. The court granted PetMed's motion to dismiss these counts, holding that no express or implied private right of action exists for violations of the SEC regulation, that a corporation owes no implied common-law obligation to a promoter, and that the claims were barred by the five-year statute of limitations under 28 U.S.C. § 1658. After dismissing the federal claims, the court declined to retain supplemental jurisdiction and remanded the remaining state-law claims to Florida circuit court.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved a Palm Beach County limousine operator challenging Miami-Dade County's regulations requiring permits, insurance proof, and a $2.50 per trip fee for limousines to drop off passengers at Miami International Airport, requirements not applied to taxis from the same area. The plaintiff claimed these rules violated the Equal Protection Clause by discriminating between limousines and taxis and the Commerce Clause by burdening interstate commerce, and also brought state law claims for malicious prosecution and abuse of process. The court granted summary judgment to the defendant, finding the regulations rationally related to legitimate government interests such as managing traffic congestion and recovering costs from ground transportation services that differ from taxis in their operations. The court determined that limousines and taxis are not similarly situated, justifying different treatment, and dismissed the state claims due to lack of statutory notice.

business & regulatorycivil rightsfederal power

The case involved environmental organizations challenging permits issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for limestone mining operations affecting tens of thousands of acres of wetlands in Florida's Lake Belt area near Everglades National Park, as well as related no-adverse-effect determinations by the Fish and Wildlife Service on protected species such as the wood stork. Plaintiffs alleged violations of NEPA, ESA, CWA, and APA in the agencies' handling of the permitting process, including failure to update environmental impact statements and inadequate consultation. The court reviewed the multi-year administrative record of interagency analysis, mitigation plans, permit reductions from fifty to ten years, and concerns over aquifer contamination and seepage impacts to determine whether the federal defendants' actions complied with statutory requirements.

environmentfederal power

In Doe v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., a seaman sued the cruise line in state court over claims arising from an alleged rape during employment on a vessel and the employer's subsequent conduct. The defendant removed the case to federal court and moved to compel arbitration under the United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, while the plaintiff moved to remand. The court denied remand and granted the motion to compel, holding that the plaintiff's employment contract incorporated by reference the Standard Terms and Conditions for Filipino seafarers, which include an option for arbitration before a voluntary arbitrator. Following the Eleventh Circuit's decision in Bautista v. Star Cruises, the court found that the four requirements for Convention jurisdiction were satisfied, the signatures on the documents were undisputed, and defenses based on lack of disclosure or understanding did not render the agreement null and void. The case was therefore sent to arbitration in the Philippines, with the federal action closed administratively.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case involved Margitta Di Gennaro and Core Products Europe, Inc. suing Rubbermaid, Inc. after Rubbermaid acquired Carex Corporation and allegedly failed to reimburse the plaintiffs for time and expenses spent promoting new health care products that Rubbermaid had promised to manufacture but ultimately did not produce. The plaintiffs had an oral sales representative agreement originally with Carex, later reaffirmed with Rubbermaid, under which they marketed products in Europe and the Middle East for a 10% commission on sales while bearing their own expenses. After a bench trial, the court found Rubbermaid liable to the plaintiffs for $299,578.61, awarding damages on a quantum meruit basis that accounted for the percentage of actual sales achieved relative to the total commitments, while rejecting claims for full expenses or compensation for services by non-party Mario Di Gennaro. The reasoning centered on the existence of a commitment by Rubbermaid, the plaintiffs' reasonable reliance in incurring costs, and equitable limits on recovery tied to the contract's expected value and proven efforts.

business & regulatory