Parker v. Am. Traffic Solutions, Inc.

• Citation: 835 F.3d 1363
• Decision Date: 31 August 2016
• Docket Number: No. 15–13721,15–13721
• Parties: Christopher L. Parker, Marwa Moussa, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Eduardo Zeitune, Angel Luis Lazo–Perez, Erik Bartenhagen, et al., Plaintiffs–Appellees, v. American Traffic Solutions, Inc., et al., Defendants, City of Apopka, City of Aventura, Village of Bal Harbour, City of Boca Raton, City of Boynton Beach, City of Brooksville, Town of Campbellton, City of Clermont, City of Clewiston, City of Cocoa Beach, City of Coral Gables, City of Coral Springs, Town of Cutler Bay, Town of Davie, City of Daytona Beach, City of Doral, Village of El Portal, City of Florida City, City of Fort Lauderdale, City of Green Cove Springs, City of Groveland, City of Gulfport, City of Haines City, City of Hallandale Beach, City of Hialeah, City of Hialeah Gardens, Hillsborough County, City of Hollywood, City of Holly Hill, City of Homestead, Town of Juno Beach, City of Kenneth City, Town of Key Biscane, City of Lakeland, City of Lauderdale Lakes, City of Maitland, Manatee County, City of Margate, Town of Medley, City of Miami, City Ofmiami Beach, City of Miami Gardens, City of Miami Springs, City of Milton, City of New Port Richey, City of North Bay Village, City of North Miami, City of North Miami Beach, City of Ocoee, City of Oldsmar, City of Opa–Locka, Orange County, Town of Orange Park, City of Orlando, Osceola County, City of Palatka, Palm Beach County, City of Palm Coast, City of Pembroke Pines, Village of Palm Springs, City of Port Richey, City of Sarasota, City of South Pasadena, City of St. Petersburg, City of Sunrise, Town of Surfside, City of Sweetwater, City of Tamarac, City of Temple Terrace, City of West Miami, City of West Palm Beach, City of West Park, Defendants–Appellants.
• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (11th Circuit)

835 F.3d 1363

Christopher L. Parker, Marwa Moussa, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Eduardo Zeitune, Angel Luis Lazo–Perez, Erik Bartenhagen, et al., Plaintiffs–Appellees,

v.American Traffic Solutions, Inc., et al., Defendants,City of Apopka, City of Aventura, Village of Bal Harbour, City of Boca Raton, City of Boynton Beach, City of Brooksville, Town of Campbellton, City of Clermont, City of Clewiston, City of Cocoa Beach, City of Coral Gables, City of Coral Springs, Town of Cutler Bay, Town of Davie, City of Daytona Beach, City of Doral, Village of El Portal, City of Florida City, City of Fort Lauderdale, City of Green Cove Springs, City of Groveland, City of Gulfport, City of Haines City, City of Hallandale Beach, City of Hialeah, City of Hialeah Gardens, Hillsborough County, City of Hollywood, City of Holly Hill, City of Homestead, Town of Juno Beach, City of Kenneth City, Town of Key Biscane, City of Lakeland, City of Lauderdale Lakes, City of Maitland, Manatee County, City of Margate, Town of Medley, City of Miami, City Ofmiami Beach, City of Miami Gardens, City of Miami Springs, City of Milton, City of New Port Richey, City of North Bay Village, City of North Miami, City of North Miami Beach, City of Ocoee, City of Oldsmar, City of Opa–Locka, Orange County, Town of Orange Park, City of Orlando, Osceola County, City of Palatka, Palm Beach County, City of Palm Coast, City of Pembroke Pines, Village of Palm Springs, City of Port Richey, City of Sarasota, City of South Pasadena, City of St. Petersburg, City of Sunrise, Town of Surfside, City of Sweetwater, City of Tamarac, City of Temple Terrace, City of West Miami, City of West Palm Beach, City of West Park, Defendants–Appellants.

No. 15–13721

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Date Filed: August 31, 2016

Stephen F. Rosenthal, Ramon A. Rasco, Podhurst Orseck, PA, Andrew T. Trailor, Andrew T. Trailor, PA, Miami, FL, Andrew N. Friedman, Sally Handmaker, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, PLLC, Washington, DC, Leslie Kroeger, Theodore Jon Leopold, Diana L. Martin, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, PLLC, Palm Bch Gdns, FL, Rafael Enrique Millares, Estrella Ticket Defense Law Firm, PA, Coral Gables, FL, for Plaintiffs–Appellees.

Edward George Guedes, Matthew H. Mandel, Adam A. Schwartzbaum, Samuel I. Zeskind, Weiss Serota Helfman Cole & Bierman, P.L., Coral Gables, FL, Samuel I. Zeskind, Matthew H. Mandel, Arnstein & Lehr, LLP, Edmund Bruce Johnson, Christopher J. Stearns, Johnson Anselmo Murdoch Burke Piper & Hochman, PA, Shana H. Bridgeman, Michael David Cirullo, Jr., Tracey A. DeCarlo, Goren Cherof Doody & Ezrol, PA, Samuel S. Goren, Josias & Goren, PA, Fort Lauderdale, FL, Andrew I. Dayes, Donovan Adam Roper, Roper & Roper, PA, Apopka, FL, Joseph A. Poblick, Zephyrhills, FL, Robert L. Switkes, Robert L. Switkes & Associates, PA, Aleksandr Boksner, Robert F. Rosenwald, City Attorney's Office of Miami Beach, Miami Beach, FL, Patricia Leigh McMillan Minoux, Wallace Wood Properties, LLC / Vanguard Productions, LLC, Mesquite, TX, Helene Catherine Hvizd, Amy Taylor Petrick, Palm Beach County Attorney's Office, Dana Collier Herst, Dana Collier–Herst, Christopher Van Hall, Office of the City Attorney, West Palm Beach, FL, Joseph Paul Patner, Office of the City Attorney, Saint Petersburg, FL, Elaine Dawn Walter, Mark Rocco Antonelli, Devang Desai, Joseph M. Winsby, Gaebe Mullen Antonelli & DiMatteo, Coral Gables, FL, Michael P. Spellman, Lisa Barclay Fountain, Sniffen & Spellman, PA, Tallahassee, FL, for Defendants–Appellants.

Ervin A. Gonzalez, Patrick S. Montoya, Colson Hicks Eidson, Coral Gables, FL, Theodore Jon Leopold, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, PLLC, Palm Bch Gdns, FL, Ramon A. Rasco, Stephen F. Rosenthal, Podhurst Orseck, PA, Miami, FL, Marc A. Wites, Wites & Kapetan, PA, Lighthouse Pt, FL, for Annie Migdal.

David Matthew Allen, Jonathan Zachary DeSantis, Kevin P. McCoy, Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, PA, Tampa, FL, Edward Robert McCarthy, Edward Soto, Weil Gotshal & Manges, LLP, Thomas John Meeks, Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, PA, Miami, FL, for American Traffic Solutions, Inc.

Chris Bator, Baker & Hostetler, LLP, Cleveland, OH, Jerry Dean Hamilton, Hamilton Miller & Birthisel, LLP, Miami, FL, Krista Anne Sivick, Baker & Hostetler, LLP, Orlando, FL, for Xerox State & Local Solutions, Inc., f.k.a. ACS State & Local Solutions.

Christina Bredahl, Cole Scott & Kissane, PA, Orlando, FL, for Gatso USA, Inc.

John Bajger, Attorney General's Office, West Palm Beach, FL, for Marshall Stranburg, Individually and as Executive Director of the Florida Department of Revenue.

Jeffrey Dale Jensen, Thomas Robert Unice, Jr., Unice Salzman Radel, PA, Palm Harbor, FL, for City of Bradenton.

Andrew P. Lannon, Patricia Denise Smith, Office of the City Attorney, Palm Bay, FL, for City of Palm Bay.

Jerry M. Gewirtz, Robin Horton Silverman, Office of the Tampa City Attorney, Tampa, FL, for City of Tampa, FL.

Usher L. Brown, Garganese Weiss & D'Agresta, PA, Orlando, FL, Thomas Robert Unice, Jr., Unice Salzman Radel, PA, Palm Harbor, FL, for City of Winter Park, FL.

Before WILSON and JULIE CARNES, Circuit Judges, and MOORE,^* District Judge.

JULIE CARNES

, Circuit Judge:

Plaintiffs sued various local government defendants (“Defendants”), claiming unjust enrichment and seeking disgorgement of traffic fines Plaintiffs allege were imposed in violation of Florida law. Defendants moved to dismiss the claim, asserting sovereign immunity. The district court denied Defendants' motion to dismiss, and Defendants now appeal. After a careful review of the record and controlling Circuit precedent, and with the benefit of oral argument, we dismiss this interlocutory appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs filed this class action against red-light camera vendor American Traffic Solutions, Inc. (“ATS”), a company that contracts with Florida local governments to install and operate unmanned cameras designed to capture video images of traffic violations. Plaintiffs alleged in the complaint that they were filmed committing a traffic violation on one of these cameras, and that they subsequently received a traffic citation and paid a fine. According to Plaintiffs, the citations were void, and the fines were thus unlawful, because the red-light camera programs violated Florida law in several respects.

Other plaintiffs subsequently filed similar actions in various state and federal courts in Florida, and all of the actions were consolidated with this case under the first-filed rule. Plaintiffs prepared an amended master complaint in the consolidated action, asserting claims against Defendants, the Florida Department of Revenue, and three red-light camera vendors, including ATS. The master complaint alleges that Defendants unlawfully issued citations and collected fines for traffic violations recorded by red-light cameras. Among other claims, it includes an unjust enrichment claim in which Plaintiffs seek disgorgement of the fines they paid to Defendants.

The fines that are the subject of the unjust enrichment claim were imposed pursuant to the Mark Wandall Traffic Safety Program (the “Wandall Act”), Florida Statutes § 316.0083

. The Wandall Act authorizes the use of red-light cameras, and it creates a detailed procedure that must be followed by a local government when issuing citations and imposing fines under this program. Id. Pursuant to the Wandall Act, a Florida appellate court recently invalidated the red-light camera program operated by the City of Hollywood. See

City of Hollywood v. Arem , 154 So.3d 359, 361 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014). The court in Arem held that Hollywood's program violated the Wandall Act because it unlawfully delegated police power to a red-light camera vendor by allowing the vendor to (1) pre-screen and determine which camera shots to send to Hollywood's traffic enforcement officer and (2) issue traffic citations with the mere acquiescence of the enforcement officer. Id. The court concluded that citations issued pursuant to Hollywood's red-light camera program were void and should be dismissed. Id. at 361, 365.

In support of their unjust enrichment claim, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants operated similarly unlawful red-light camera programs. Specifically, Plaintiffs contend that Defendants violated the Wandall Act by improperly delegating pre-screening authority to ATS and other red-light camera vendors. See id. at 365

(stating that, under Florida law, a local government “lacks the lawful authority to outsource to a third-party vendor the ability to make the initial review of the computer images of purported violations”). In addition, Plaintiffs assert that the citations they received were unlawfully issued by red-light camera vendors rather than by a Florida law or traffic enforcement officer. See id.

Defendants moved to dismiss the unjust enrichment claim on the ground of sovereign immunity. In support of their motion, Defendants argued that the unjust enrichment claim was a “quasi-contract” claim barred by sovereign immunity under Florida law. The district court denied the motion. It construed the unjust enrichment claim as a claim to recover an “unlawful monetary extraction” rather than as a quasi-contract claim. According to the district court, Florida sovereign immunity does not apply to an unlawful extraction claim.

Defendants filed an interlocutory appeal of the district court's denial of sovereign immunity. Plaintiffs moved to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and for a frivolity determination and sanctions pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 38

. The motion was carried with the case, and this Court heard oral argument on both the jurisdictional issue and the merits of the sovereign immunity claim. For the reasons that follow, we now grant Plaintiffs' motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, but deny their request for sanctions under Rule 38.

DISCUSSION

I. Jurisdiction

Our jurisdiction is limited to appeals...