Innova Inv. Grp. v. Vill. of Key Biscayne
| Decision Date | 30 April 2021 |
| Docket Number | CASE NO.: 1:19-cv-22540-GAYLES/OTAZO-REYES |
| Parties | INNOVA INVESTMENT GROUP, LLC, Plaintiff, v. VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida |
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Defendant Village of Key Biscayne's Motion to Dismiss Fourth Amended Complaint with Prejudice (the "Motion") [ECF No. 47]. The Court has reviewed the Motion and the record and is otherwise fully advised. For the reasons stated, the Motion is granted.
This action stems from civil penalties imposed by Defendant against a property owned by Plaintiff Innova Investment Group, LLC, for code violations. Plaintiff is the record owner of a 562-square-foot property located at 100 Sunrise Drive, Unit 1, Key Biscayne, Florida (the "Property") with a current market value of $238,450.00 according to the County PropertyAppraiser. On January 24, 2011, Plaintiff obtained title to the Property through a quitclaim deed, which recorded on September 1, 2011. Plaintiff also owns several other properties in Miami-Dade County, Florida.
On January 18, 2012, Defendant issued an Order Imposing Civil Penalties on the Property based on a technical violation of the municipal code that Plaintiff did not cause. On January 25, 2012, Defendant recorded the Order in the public records and the Order became a lien pursuant to Florida Statute § 162.09(3).2 Between March 19, 2012, and November 4, 2012, Plaintiff accrued daily fines, as well as interest, totaling $2,195,774.973 for failing to cure the violation. On November 5, 2012, Plaintiff cured the violation on the Property, but did not pay the related civil fines. On December 10, 2015, Defendant issued an Order Reducing Civil Penalties, which reduced the civil fines on the Property to $25,000.00 and required payment within 30 days of the Order. [ECF No. 47-2 at 2]. The Order further states that failure to comply would result in the re-imposition of the original amount of civil penalties. Id.
In July 2018, a local news channel aired a television segment on a program titled "Help Me Howard" related to Defendant's fines on the Property, casting Defendant in a negative light. After the segment aired, Plaintiff attempted to redress its grievances by petitioning Defendant. Specifically, on July 4, 2018, July 10, 2018, and August 6, 2018, Plaintiff e-mailed Defendant requesting a mitigation hearing as to the civil fines imposed on the Property. [ECF No. 45 at 10-12]. Plaintiff's representative also appeared in person on July 31, 2018, to request a mitigation hearing. Id. at 12. However, Defendant did not schedule a hearing at Plaintiff's request. On April 23, 2019, Plaintiff e-mailed Defendant to inquire whether Plaintiff could request anothermitigation hearing. [ECF No. 47-1 at 2-3]. On May 9, 2019, Defendant informed Plaintiff that Plaintiff would not be provided another mitigation hearing and that Defendant would not reconsider Plaintiff's case. [ECF No. 45 at 13]; [ECF No. 47-1 at 1].
On November 14, 2018, Plaintiff filed this action in the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida, against Defendant, bringing claims to quiet title and for filing false documents under Florida Statute § 817.535. [ECF No. 1-2]. On January 18, 2019, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint, [ECF No. 1-8], and on May 28, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint, [ECF No. 1-17]. On June 19, 2019, Defendant removed this action based on federal question jurisdiction as to Plaintiff's claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and supplemental jurisdiction as to Plaintiff's request for declaratory relief. [ECF No. 1]. On October 18, 2019, the Court dismissed the Second Amended Complaint as a shotgun pleading. [ECF No. 18].
On November 7, 2019, Plaintiff filed its Third Amended Complaint, bringing claims for: (1) Eighth Amendment Excessive Fines in violation of § 1983 (Count I); (2) First Amendment Right to Seek Redress in violation of § 1983 (Count II); (3) Fifth Amendment Takings Clause in violation of § 1983 (Count III); and (4) Declaratory Relief (Count IV). [ECF No. 20]. On November 18, 2019, Defendant filed its Motion to Dismiss Third Amended Complaint, [ECF No. 23], which the Court granted with prejudice as to Counts I, III, and IV, and granted without prejudice as to Count II, [ECF No. 37]. On December 9, 2020, Plaintiff sought leave to file a fourth amended complaint, [ECF No. 41], which the Court granted on February 5, 2021, [ECF No. 44]. On February 13, 2021, Plaintiff filed its Fourth Amended Complaint, bringing a single claim for First Amendment Right to Seek Redress in violation of § 1983. [ECF No. 45]. On February 18, 2021, Defendant filed the instant Motion.
To survive a motion to dismiss brought pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a claim "must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face,'" meaning that it must contain "factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). While a court must accept well-pleaded factual allegations as true, "conclusory allegations . . . are not entitled to an assumption of truth—legal conclusions must be supported by factual allegations." Randall v. Scott, 610 F.3d 701, 709-10 (11th Cir. 2010). "[T]he pleadings are construed broadly," Levine v. World Fin. Network Nat'l Bank, 437 F.3d 1118, 1120 (11th Cir. 2006), and the allegations in the complaint are viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Bishop v. Ross Earle & Bonan, P.A., 817 F.3d 1268, 1270 (11th Cir. 2016). At bottom, the question is not whether the claimant "will ultimately prevail . . . but whether his complaint [is] sufficient to cross the federal court's threshold." Skinner v. Switzer, 562 U.S. 521, 530 (2011) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
Defendant seeks to dismiss the Fourth Amended Complaint on several grounds. First, Defendant argues that Plaintiff fails to state a First Amendment claim. Second, Defendant argues that Plaintiff fails to allege sufficient facts. Third, Defendant argues that Plaintiff fails to properly allege the factors required under Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs. of N.Y., 436 U.S. 658 (1978). The Court finds that Plaintiff's First Amendment claim pursuant to § 1983 must be dismissed with prejudice because Plaintiff fails to adequately plead its claim.
Defendant attaches as exhibits to its Motion: (1) the unredacted version of the e-mail exchange that Plaintiff includes as an exhibit to its Fourth Amended Complaint and (2) Defendant's Order Reducing Civil Penalties. See [ECF Nos. 47-1 & 47-2]. As the Court proceeds on a motion to dismiss, its review is generally limited to the four corners of the Fourth Amended Complaint. See Moreno v. Carnival Corp., 488 F. Supp. 3d 1233, 1236 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 14, 2020) (). However, the Court may properly "consider a document attached to a motion to dismiss without converting the motion into one for summary judgment only if the attached document is: (1) central to the plaintiff's claim; and (2) undisputed." Bongino v. Daily Beast Co., LLC, 477 F. Supp. 3d 1310, 1316 (S.D. Fla. 2020) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). The Court finds both exhibits are central to Plaintiff's First Amendment Claim and neither exhibit is in dispute. Faustin v. Mike Pacheco's Lawn Serv., Inc., No. 14-CIV-81361, 2015 WL 13779242, at *2 (S.D. Fla. May 29, 2015) (). Therefore, the Court may properly consider the exhibits attached to Defendant's Motion.
"To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that a person acting under color of state law committed an act that deprived him of some right protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States." Lindbloom v. Manatee Cnty., 808 F. App'x 745, 749 (11th Cir. 2020) (per curiam). In its Fourth Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant violated Plaintiff's First Amendment right by preventing it from seeking redress of its grievances in retaliation for the "Help Me Howard" segment. [ECF No. 45 at 5-6 ¶¶ 20-28]. Generally, the First Amendmentprotects the right to petition for redress. Abella v. Simon, 522 F. App'x 872, 874 (11th Cir. 2013) (per cuiram) . Moreover, "[r]etaliation against the exercise of First Amendment rights is a well-established basis for section 1983 liability." O'Boyle v. Sweetapple, 187 F. Supp. 3d 1365, 1370 (S.D. Fla. 2016) (citations omitted). However, "the First Amendment does not impose any affirmative obligation on the government to listen, to respond or . . . [to] bargain . . . ." Smith v. Ark. State Highway Emp., Local 1315, 441 U.S. 463, 465 (1979).
To state a § 1983 First Amendment retaliation claim, a plaintiff must establish that: (1) "his speech or act was constitutionally protected;" (2) "the defendant's retaliatory conduct adversely affected the protected speech;" and (3) "there is a causal connection between the retaliatory actions and the adverse effect on speech." Bennett v. Hendrix, 423 F.3d 1247, 1250 (11th Cir. 2005) (citations omitted). "Furthermore, when a plaintiff sues a municipality under § 1983, the plaintiff must show that execution of the municipality's policy or custom caused the alleged injury." O'Boyle, 187 F. Supp. 3d at 1370 (citing Monell, 436 U.S....
To continue reading
Request your trial