Cordoves v. Miami-Dade Cnty.

Decision Date12 March 2015
Docket NumberCase No. 14–20114–CIV.
Citation92 F.Supp.3d 1221
PartiesGladys M. CORDOVES, Plaintiff, v. MIAMI–DADE COUNTY, et al., Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida

Gregory Antonio Samms, Gregory A. Samms, Coral Gables, FL, for Plaintiff.

Erica Sunny Shultz Zaron, Daniel Frastai, Miami, FL, Aaron Benjamin Greenberg, John Archibald Campbell, III, Patrick K. Dahl, Wicker, Smith, O'Hara, McCoy & Ford, P.A., Wicker Smith O'Hara McCoy & Ford, PA, Fort Lauderdale, FL, for Defendants.

ORDER

CECILIA M. ALTONAGA, District Judge.

THIS CAUSE came before the Court on Defendants, Mydatt Services, Inc. d/b/a Valor Security Services (“Valor”); SDG Dadeland Associates, Inc. d/b/a Dadeland Mall (“Dadeland”); Officer Jean R. Pompee (“Pompee”); and Miami–Dade County's (the “County['s]) (collectively, Defendants[']) Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 95] and Combined Memorandum in Support ... (“Motion”) [ECF No. 95–1], both filed December 17, 2014. In the Motion, Defendants seek summary judgment on all claims asserted by Plaintiff, Gladys Cordoves (Cordoves), in the Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”) [ECF No. 52], filed July 31, 2014. The Court has carefully reviewed the Motion; Cordoves's Response ... (“Response”) [ECF Nos. 109, 109–1], filed January 19, 2015; Cordoves's Supplemental Response ... (“Supplemental Response”) [ECF No. 122], filed January 26, 2015; Defendants' Reply ... (“Reply”) [ECF No. 123], filed January 29, 2015; the record; and applicable law.

I. BACKGROUND

This case arises out of an incident at the Dadeland Mall on November 14, 2010, during which Cordoves had a confrontation with security personnel that ended with her arrest. The incident was precipitated by the presence of Shiloh, a small dog Cordoves was toting in a stroller while shopping with her mother and daughter. The following facts—many of which are disputed—are construed in the light most favorable to Cordoves, the non-moving party.

A. Shiloh

Cordoves suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”), a psychiatric condition that causes her to experience, among other symptoms, severe panic attacks. (See Cordoves's Statement of Material Facts (“Pl. SMF”) ¶¶ 111–12 [ECF No. 109] ). Her PTSD was induced by an automobile accident in 1999: Cordoves was in a car with her daughter, Barbara Cordoves (Barbara), when an automobile attached to a tractor-trailer in front of them broke loose from its moorings and crashed down onto the hood of Cordoves's car, trapping her inside. (See id. ¶¶ 110–11). Cordoves has been seeing psychiatrists to help her cope with her PTSD, but her panic attacks still sometimes require hospitalization, and she has been unable to work. (See id. ¶¶ 112, 114–15).

In 2007, Cordoves began psychiatric treatment with Dr. Cuervo, who diagnosed Cordoves with PTSD, severe panic disorder, and major depression recurrent. (See id. ¶¶ 115–16). According to Cordoves, on May 4, 2009, Dr. Cuervo recommended she get a service dog to help her cope with her PTSD and depression. (See id. ¶ 117). Cordoves and her daughter Barbara then spent about seven months looking for a dog. (See id. ¶¶ 118–19). Barbara contacted organizations that bred and trained service dogs, but the organizations had long waiting lists, and their services were expensive. (See May 28, 2014 Deposition of Barbara Cordoves (“Barbara 5/28/14 Dep.”) 105:2–18 [ECF No. 95–11] ). Cordoves and Barbara therefore decided to purchase and train a dog on their own. (See id. ). They searched pet stores looking for an appropriate dog, but all of the dogs they found were too playful and did not have the right temperament. (See id. 105:22–106:12).

On December 13, 2009, at a pet store called Cute Puppies, Cordoves purchased Shiloh, a white toy poodle, because “there was an immediate connection and bond between” them. (Pl. SMF ¶¶ 119–20). Shiloh was ten weeks old, with no prior training other than potty training. (See id. ¶ 20; Defendants' ... Statement of Material Facts (“Defs. SMF”) ¶ 19 [ECF No. 95–2] ). Despite his lack of prior training, from the very beginning of their relationship, Shiloh could detect the onset of panic attacks in Cordoves. (See Pl. SMF ¶ 121). Over the next several months, Barbara trained Shiloh at home1 to perform his “alert” task in response to Cordoves's panic attacks. (See id. ¶ 122).

Whether Shiloh is next to Cordoves, on the floor, in a stroller, or even in another room, once he detects an impending panic attack, he runs over to Cordoves, jumps onto her lap, and applies a pressurized, massage-like licking pattern to the left side of her body. (See id.; Cordoves 11/7/14 Dep. 18:17–25, 193:21–24; June 11, 2014 Deposition of Barbara Cordoves (“Barbara 6/11/14 Dep.”) 12:20–13:14, 17:8–18 [ECF No. 95–10]; Barbara 5/28/14 Dep. 72:4–18). He also paws on Cordoves, nudges her chin, and yelps to get the attention of Barbara. (See Barbara 6/11/14 Dep. 17:8–18; Barbara 5/28/14 Dep. 72:4–10). Cordoves claims Shiloh's alerts minimize or alleviate her panic attacks, which have decreased in frequency and severity ever since Shiloh became part of her life. (See Cordoves 11/7/14 Dep. 15:13–14; Barbara 5/28/14 Dep. 68:20–24, 70:16–22).

B. Dadeland Mall

The following facts are relevant to Cordoves's 42 U.S.C. section 1983 claim and therefore, unless otherwise noted, are Cordoves's version of the facts. See Jones v. City of Dothan, Alabama, 121 F.3d 1456, 1458 n. 2 (11th Cir.1997) (“For the present purposes, we state the facts in the light most favorable to the [plaintiffs]. This being so, they may not be the actual facts.” (alteration added; citation omitted)). Further, any facts supplied by Defendants that Cordoves did not controvert with evidence are deemed admitted. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)(4) ; S.D. Fla. L.R. 56.1(b) (“All material facts set forth in the movant's statement filed and supported as required ... will be deemed admitted unless controverted by the opposing party's statement, provided that the Court finds that the movant's statement is supported by evidence in the record.”).

1. Encounter with Caminero

On November 14, 2010, Cordoves, Barbara, and Cordoves's mother went to Dadeland Mall2 and brought Shiloh along in a stroller. (See Pl. SMF ¶ 130; Defs. SMF ¶ 34). After entering the mall through JCPenney—outside of which they had parked their car—they headed to the food court to grab a bite to eat. (See Pl. SMF ¶¶ 132–33). Cordoves took a seat at a table with Shiloh and her mother, and Barbara went to Johnny Rockets to order some food. (See id. ¶¶ 133–34). While Barbara was away, security guard Alex Caminero (“Caminero”), an employee of Valor,3 approached Cordoves and told her she had to leave the mall because pets were not allowed. (See id. ¶ 137). Cordoves responded that Shiloh is a service dog, but Caminero ignored her and again demanded she leave the mall. (See id. ¶ 138).

At that point, Barbara approached and asked Caminero what the problem was. (See id. ¶ 139). Caminero again explained pets were not allowed in the mall. (See id. ¶ 140). He then led Barbara to a nearby sign, which stated no pets were allowed. (See id. ¶¶ 140–41). According to Cordoves, the sign did not indicate any exception for service dogs. (See id. ¶ 141). Barbara and Caminero returned to where Cordoves was, and Caminero again ordered them to leave the mall. (See id. ¶ 142).

The parties agree Cordoves then asked to speak with Caminero's supervisor and started trying to read something on Caminero's sleeve, but Caminero kept turning away. (See Defs. SMF ¶¶ 43–45). Cordoves claims she was trying to see if Caminero had any identification displayed on his clothing, but after he kept turning away, he “spontaneously yelled out ‘don't touch me’ while he grabbed his clothes and pulled them to make it appear the Cordoves women had disheveled his clothing.” (Pl. SMF ¶¶ 143–44). Defendants, in contrast, assert Cordoves got angry, “called him a monkey because he was from the Dominican Republic,’ and then Cordoves and Barbara “began pulling on his shirt.” (Defs. SMF ¶ 41).

At that point, Cordoves, her mother, and Barbara decided to heed Caminero's directive to leave the mall, so they headed in the direction of JCPenney, near where their car was parked. (See Pl. SMF ¶ 145). As they walked away, Caminero followed them while “speaking into [his walkie-talkie] saying things that the Cordoves women could not hear.” (Id. ¶ 147). A female security guard approached them and warned them to leave, but they explained they were heading to the exit where they had parked. (See id. ¶ 148). Soon enough, they were surrounded by a number of other security guards, at which point Pompee, an off-duty Miami–Dade County police officer working at the mall,4 arrived. (See id. ¶¶ 148–49).

2. Encounter with Pompee

Caminero told Pompee that Cordoves was not following his order to leave the mall on the basis pets were not allowed. (See Defs. SMF ¶ 54). Another security guard, Dwain Pratt, told Pompee, we need to move them out of the Mall.” (Id. ¶ 57). Pompee asked Caminero if Caminero wanted Pompee “to arrest her (meaning Gladys Cordoves) for hitting [him],” to which Caminero responded, “yes.” (Pl. SMF ¶ 150). Cordoves asked Pompee if he had seen Cordoves hit Caminero, but Pompee said he did not have to see that happen to arrest her. (See id. ¶ 151).

According to Cordoves, [e]verything happened very fast.” (Defs. SMF ¶ 79 (alteration added)). First, “Pompee ... immediately grabbed forcefully and painfully on ... Cordoves['s] right wrist.” (Pl. SMF ¶ 152 (alterations added)). Then he “grabbed the left forearm area forcefully causing pain and bruising on the forearm of Ms. Cordoves.” (Id. ¶ 153). He “then spun Ms. Cordoves around so that her back was to him. He pulled both of [her] arm[s] up against her joint causing pain and injury. He then placed her in a bear hug and began squeezing her extremely hard causing pain.” (Id. ¶ 154 (alterations added)). Next, Pompee lifted her up and “began pulling her back in the direction of the food court.”...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • United States v. Dental Dreams, LLC
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico
    • March 28, 2018
    ...have not cited any federally-mandated animal training standards; instead, there do not appear to be any. See Cordoves v. Miami–Dade County , 92 F.Supp.3d 1221, 1230 (S.D. Fla. 2015) ("there are no federally-mandated animal training standards") (quoting Prindable v. Ass'n of Apartment Owners......
  • Riley v. Bd. of Comm'rs of Tippecanoe Cnty., 4:14-CV-063-JD
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Indiana
    • September 21, 2017
    ...support animals - into public facilities." [DE 20 at 2] (citing 28 C.F.R. § 35.136(g)); see also, e.g., Cordoves v. Miami-Dade Cty, 92 F. Supp. 3d 1221, 1230 (S.D. Fla. 2015); Davis v. Ma, 848 F. Supp. 2d 1105, 1114 (C.D. Cal. 2012), aff'd, 568 F. App'x 488 (9th Cir. 2014); Miller v. Ladd, ......
  • Baxter v. Roberts
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Florida
    • March 28, 2021
    ...the force used was clearly excessive.21 Jean-Baptiste v. Jones, 424 F. Supp. 3d 1251, 1263 (S.D. Fla. 2019); Cordoves v. Miami-Dade Cnty., 92 F. Supp. 3d 1221, 1238 (S.D. Fla. 2015). Florida's "clearly excessive" standard is equivalent to the Fourth Amendment standard for excessive force. T......
  • C. L. v. Del Amo Hosp., Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • March 30, 2021
    ...Bd. of Comm'rs of Tippecanoe Cnty. , No. 14-CV-00063, 2017 WL 4181143, at *5 (N.D. Ind. Sept. 21, 2017) ; Cordoves v. Miami-Dade County , 92 F. Supp. 3d 1221, 1230 (S.D. Fla. 2015) ; Rose v. Springfield–Greene Cnty. Health Dep't , 668 F. Supp. 2d 1206, 1214–15 (W.D. Mo. 2009) ("There are no......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT