Hoefling v. City of Miami

Decision Date06 May 2014
Docket NumberCase No. 11–22358–CIV.
Citation17 F.Supp.3d 1227
PartiesJames Edward HOEFLING, Jr., Plaintiff, v. CITY OF MIAMI, Ricardo Roque, and Jose Gonzalez, Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida

Richard J. Ovelmen, Jason Patrick Kairalla, Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, P.A., Michael N. Wolgin, Jorden Burt LLP, Miami, FL, for Plaintiff.

Warren Bittner, Miami City Attorney's Office, Miami, FL, Ronald Jay Cohen, Rice Pugatch Robinson & Schiller, P.A., Ft. Lauderdale, FL, for Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT AND MOTION TO STRIKE DEMAND FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES (D.E. 68), DISMISSING PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT (D.E. 65), AND CLOSING CASE

JOAN A. LENARD, District Judge.

THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint and Motion to Strike Demand for Punitive Damages (“Motion,” D.E. 68), filed April 25, 2014. Plaintiff filed a Response on May 28, 2013 (“Response,” D.E. 71), to which Defendants filed a Reply on June 21, 2013 (“Reply,” D.E. 78). By leave of the Court (D.E. 80), Plaintiff filed a sur-reply on July 4, 2013 (“Sur-reply,” D.E. 81). Upon review of the Motion, Response, Reply, Sur-reply, and the record, the Court finds as follows.

I. Background1

This is a case related to the destruction of a vessel called the “METIS 0.” Plaintiff James Edward Hoefling, Jr. (Hoefling) owned and lived on the “METIS 0.” In his Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”), Hoefling alleges that on August 20, 2010, two officers from the City of Miami Police Department's Marine Patrol Detail, Sergeant Jose Gonzalez (Gonzalez), and Officer Ricardo Roque (Roque), searched the “METIS 0,” removed a generator, destroyed the vessel and the rest of Hoefling's personal belongings, and committed the remains to a trash dumpster. (SAC ¶ 10.) Hoefling alleges that the officers destroyed his vessel without providing him notice (id. ¶ 11); however, this assertion is contradicted by an exhibit attached to the original Complaint2 and an exhibit attached to the First Amended Complaint (“FAC,” D.E. 33).3

Plaintiff provided as an exhibit to his original Complaint a document entitled City of Miami Office of Code Enforcement NOTICE,” which was signed by Officer Alejandro Macias and dated May 27, 2010. (Compl., D.E. 1, Ex. 3 (Notice).) This Notice was attached to Plaintiff's vessel and informed Plaintiff that the vessel was unlawfully on the property. (See id. )

Plaintiff provided as an exhibit to the FAC three City of Miami Police Department Incident Reports, dated May 27, 2010, August 20, 2010, and September 20, 2010 (Exhibit 3). The narrative from the May 27, 2010 City of Miami Police Department Incident Report shows that Hoefling had notice of the derelict condition of the vessel and provides the following description of the events:

Above listed sailboat with HIN No. FLZK9098D980 is derelict, in that it is left stored and abandoned in a substantially dismantled condition upon public state waters. Listed sailboat has no motor, sails, helm or rudder for propulsion or steering. On May 27, 2010 this officer contacted Mr. James Edward Hoefling Jr on the above listed boat about the condition of his vessel and advised him that it needs to be removed or brought into compliance with the law as per Florida State Statute 823.11.
Vessel is located at coordinates N2542.962' W08013.188'
*Note–Mr. Hoefling advised this officer that he is going to install an anchor light on the vessel and that he was going to comply with the law as soon as he is able.

(FAC Ex. 3 (May 27, 2010 Incident Report).)4 , 5 The August 20, 2010 City of Miami Police Department Incident Report narrative, written by Officer Ricardo Roque, provides the following description of the events:

While conducting a derelict vessel cleanup in Dinner Key Marina the above listed item was found within the vessel scheduled for cleanup (D.V. Case # 100610–174788) and recovered. The vessel was covered in garbage, the above item was seem to possibly have value and then turned into property under the owners name.
(FAC Ex. 3 (August 20, 2010 Incident Report).) The report indicates that the item recovered from the vessel was a “red inverter.” (Id. ) The September 20, 2010 City of Miami Police Department Incident Report narrative provides the following description of the events:
On Friday August 20, 2010 Officer Ricardo Roque # 27435 observed vessel to still be in its derelict condition and had it removed from state waters and destroyed by a city contractor.

(FAC Ex. 3 (September 20, 2010 Incident Report).)

Hoefling's Second Amended Complaint contains five counts against Defendants City of Miami, Gonzalez, and Roque: (1) “Substantive and Procedural Due Process Violation” (SAC ¶¶ 41–47); (2) “Unreasonable Search and Seizure” (id. ¶¶ 48–55); (3) “Intentional Destruction of Property” (id. ¶¶ 56–59); (4) “Negligent Destruction of Property” (id. ¶¶ 60–66); and (5) “Takings” (id. ¶¶ 64–66). The SAC also contains a prayer for relief that includes punitive damages “based on defendants' willful conduct ... and their intentional disregard for plaintiff's property rights as guaranteed by the United States Constitution[.] (Id. at 13.)

On April 25, 2013, Defendants moved to dismiss the SAC and to strike Plaintiff's demand for punitive damages. (Motion, D.E. 68.) In their Motion, Defendants make the following arguments: (1) Plaintiff's substantive due process claim is precluded; (2) even if the substantive due process claim is not precluded the officers' conduct is not “conscience shocking”; (3) Plaintiff's procedural due process claim fails because he was provided proper notice; (4) Plaintiff's procedural due process claim fails because he has an adequate post-deprivation remedy; (5) Plaintiff's claims in Counts III and IV for intentional and negligent destruction of property, respectively, fail because general maritime law does not impose a duty of reasonable care upon a law enforcement officer with respect to the enforcement of the law; (6) Plaintiff's claim under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments for unreasonable search and seizure fail because the search and seizure was reasonable; (7) Plaintiff's Takings claim fails because enforcing Florida's Derelict Vessel Statute, which requires a vessel to be properly maintained or be removed from public waters, does not constitute a taking; (8) Gonzalez and Roque are entitled to qualified immunity; and (9) Plaintiff is not entitled to punitive damages. (Id. at 7–19.)

In response, Plaintiff appears to make the following arguments: (1) Defendants' Motion is improperly based upon materials outside the SAC that should not be considered;6 (2) the reasonableness of the officers' search and seizure is a question of fact not properly before the Court at the Motion to Dismiss stage; (3) the officers did not designate the vessel as “derelict” and therefore did not provide notice to Plaintiff that it was subject to destruction; (4) Defendants' post-deprivation remedy argument is flawed because there is no remedy that could undo the destruction of Plaintiff's vessel; (5) Defendants' argument that they cannot be held liable for intentional or negligent destruction of property is flawed because the destruction of Plaintiff's vessel was not within the scope of their discretionary authority; (6) Defendants' Takings argument is flawed because Plaintiff is not challenging the Derelict Vessel Statute but rather that Defendants' failure to provide Plaintiff notice violated the Statute's procedures for destroying a derelict vessel; and (7) punitive damages are an available remedy. (Response at 8–19.)

II. Legal Standards

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a court may dismiss a claim for “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” “To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’ Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) ). Conclusory statements, assertions or labels will not survive a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. Id. “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id.; see also Edwards v. Prime, Inc., 602 F.3d 1276, 1291 (11th Cir.2010) (setting forth the plausibility standard). In recent decisions, the Eleventh Circuit further advised that courts may make reasonable inferences in a plaintiff's favor, but they are not required to draw plaintiff's inference. Sinaltrainal v. Coca–Cola, 578 F.3d 1252, 1260 (11th Cir.2009).

The Eleventh Circuit has set forth a heightened pleading standard for claims brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983, stating as follows:

[T]his circuit, along with others, has tightened the application of Rule 8 [of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure] with respect to § 1983 cases in an effort to weed out nonmeritorious claims, requiring that a § 1983 plaintiff allege with some specificity the facts which make out its claim. Thus, a plaintiff must allege some factual detail as the basis for a § 1983 claim.... [I]n a § 1983 action, a plaintiff must plead that each Government-official defendant, through the official's own individual actions, has violated the Constitution.

Keating v. City of Miami, 598 F.3d 753, 762–63 (11th Cir.2010) (internal citations and quotations omitted).

III. Discussion
A. Qualified Immunity

In their Motion, Defendant's Gonzalez and Roque assert that they are entitled to qualified immunity on the claims based on Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment violations (Counts I and II) and the non-constitutional tort claims for intentional and negligent destruction of property (Counts III and IV).

1. Claims brought under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments (Counts I and II)

“Because...

To continue reading

Request your trial

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