Kastritis v. City of Daytona Beach Shores

Decision Date18 May 2011
Docket NumberCase Nos. 6:09–cv–2105–Orl–35GJK, 6:10–cv–941–Orl–35GJK.
PartiesGudrun KASTRITIS, Joedith R. Dice, Heather Buchanan, Nikki Sias, and Tanya Sias, Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF DAYTONA BEACH SHORES, Trevor R. Wyman, and Susanne Williams, Defendants. Angela Glenn, Plaintiff, v. City of Daytona Beach Shores, Trevor R. Wyman, and Susanne Williams, Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Brett Hartley, Brett Hartley, P.A., New Smyrna Beach, FL, Gary S. Edinger, Gary S. Edinger & Associates, P.A., Gainesville, FL, for Plaintiffs.

John T. Conner, S. Renee Lundy, William E. Lawton, Dean, Ringers, Morgan & Lawton, P.A., Gail C. Bradford, Bell & Roper, P.A., Orlando, FL, David R. Lane, Robert E. Bonner, Meier, Bonner, Muszynski, O'Dell & Harvey, P.A., Longwood, FL, for Defendants.

ORDER

MARY S. SCRIVEN, District Judge.

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court for consideration of Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Dkt. 53); the Motions for Summary Judgment submitted by Defendants City of Daytona Beach (Dkt. 51), Trevor R. Wyman (Dkt. 50), and Susanne Williams (Dkt. 49); and the responses thereto (Dkts. 60, 62, 56, 58, 57, 59, and 55). Upon consideration of all relevant filings, case law, and being otherwise fully advised, the Court hereby DENIES Defendant Wyman's Motion (Dkt. 50); DENIES Defendant Williams' Motion (Dkt. 49); DENIES Defendant City's Motion (Dkt. 51); and GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Plaintiffs' Motion (Dkt. 53)

I. Background
A. Case History

On December 14, 2009, Gudrun Kastritis, Joedith R. Dice, Heather Buchanan, Nikki Sias, and Tanya Sias filed an action in federal court against the City of Daytona Beach Shores, and Daytona Beach Shores Public Safety Department Detective Trevor R. Wyman and Officer Susanne Williams (collectively Defendants), pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, for, inter alia, violations of Plaintiffs' First and Fourth Amendment rights under the United States Constitution. (Dkt. 1) The Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint on February 16 and 19, 2010. (Dkts. 18, 20, and 21) After considering Defendants' motions and Plaintiffs' responses at (Dkts. 24–26), United States Magistrate Judge Gregory J. Kelly entered a Report and Recommendation on August 20, 2010, recommending dismissal of Counts III, VI, VII, and X, in their entirety. (Dkt. 30 at 37) Judge Kelly also recommended that the district court dismiss Counts I and II to the extent Plaintiffs sought declaratory judgments against the Defendants. ( Id.) Judge Kelly also determined that the search warrant was overbroad in violation of the Fourth Amendment's particularity requirements and recommended that the district court find the search warrant unconstitutional. ( Id. at 28) None of the Defendants objected to the Report and Recommendation.

On September 8, 2010—after conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and recommendations—this Court confirmed Judge Kelly's findings and adopted the Report and Recommendation as part of its Order. (Dkt. 33) A review of the record reveals that on September 22, 2010, this case was consolidated for all further proceedings with an action brought against the same defendants by Angela Glenn 1 (hereinafter referred to, together with Ms. Kastritis, Ms. Dice, Ms. Buchanan, Ms. N. Sias, and Ms. T. Sias, as Plaintiffs), in the Middle District of Florida case. See Glenn v. City of Daytona Beach Shores, et al., Case No.: 6:10–cv–941–Orl–35GJK, Dkt. 36. At that time, the Court designated Kastritis v. City of Daytona Beach Shores, et al., Case No.: 6:09–cv–2105–Orl–35GJK as the “Lead Case.” ( Id., at 2)

Pursuant to the Court's September 8, 2010 Order dismissing some of the claims, the following claims remain at issue in this case:

• Counts I and II: Plaintiffs' damage claims against Defendant City and the individual Defendants for Fourth Amendment violations, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983;

• Count IV: Plaintiffs' claim for declaratory judgment against Defendant City for First Amendment violations, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983; • Count V: Plaintiffs' claim for a permanent injunction against Defendant City for First Amendment violations, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983;

• Count IX: Plaintiffs' state-law claim for battery against Defendant City and Defendant Williams; and

• Count XI: Plaintiffs' state-law claim for intentional infliction of severe emotional distress against Defendant City and Defendant Williams.

B. Undisputed Facts

The following facts are undisputed in this case:

In January 2009, a confidential informant notified the Daytona Shores Department of Public Safety (the “Department”) that some employees of Biggins Gentlemen's Club (the “Club”) were selling prescription pills and other illegal narcotics to patrons. (Wyman Aff't., Dkt. 50–2 ¶¶ 7–10; Fowler Aff't., Dkt. 49–8 ¶ 13) The confidential informant also notified the Department that his/her friend, David Thomas, a manager at the Club, died from a drug overdose of Roxicodone that he purchased from an exotic dancer at the Club. (Dkt. 1 at 55; Dkt. 53–4 at 60; Fowler Aff't., Dkt. 49–8 ¶ 13) From May 6, 2009 to September 16, 2009, Defendant Wyman, in his official capacity as a law enforcement officer for the Department, conducted an undercover investigation at the Club. (Dkt. 1 at 56–60; Dkt. 53–4 at 54–60) During the investigation three individuals, namely Rosalie Kain, Amanda Jean Deavers, and Rose Anna Marie Gustin, had engaged Defendant Wyman in illegal drug transactions while he was undercover as a patron in the Club. (Dkt. 1 at 56–60; Dkt. 53–4 at 54–60; Wyman Aff't., Dkt. 50–2 ¶¶ 13–18) Based on the information gathered during investigation, Defendant Wyman prepared an affidavit and warrant for a search of the Club, including vehicles in the parking lot and all persons inside the establishment. (Dkt. 1 ¶ 34; Wyman Depo., Dkt. 53–3 at 10, 13) The warrant was issued by Judge Michael Hutcheson of the Circuit Court in and for Volusia County. (Dkt. 1 at 61; Dkt. 53–4 at 1)

On September 18, 2009, at approximately 10:00 p.m., Daytona Beach Shores Public Safety officers, including Defendants Wyman and Williams, executed a search warrant on the Club, located at 2324 South Atlantic Avenue in Daytona Beach Shores, Florida. (Dkt. 1 ¶ 51; Fowler Aff't., Dkt. 49–8 ¶ 19) Several officers, including Defendant Williams, entered the dressing area in the Club and searched through the personal items of the exotic dancers, including those of the Plaintiffs. (Dkt. 1 ¶ 55; Fowler Aff't., Dkt. 49–8 ¶ 19) All patrons inside the Club were detained for thirty (30) minutes while officers conducted a pat-down search on each of them and checked for outstanding warrants. (Dkt. 1 ¶ 56; Wyman Depo., Dkt. 53–3 at 32) Officers also detained and hand-cuffed all of the Club's employees and performers, including Plaintiffs, with “flexicuffs.” (Dkt. 1 ¶ 59; Wyman Depo., Dkt. 53–3 at 30–31) The employees, including Plaintiffs, were then directed to line up against a wall, questioned, and photographed. (Dkt. 1 ¶¶ 62, 64; Williams Depo., Dkt. 49–1 at 25–26)

During the execution of the warrant, Defendant Williams strip searched each of the Plaintiffs. (Dkt. 1 ¶¶ 68, 129, 131; Williams Depo., Dkt. 49–1 at 44–52) Plaintiffs Kastritis, Dice, Buchanan, and Glenn performed at the Club as exotic dancers. (Case No. 6:09–cv–2105–MSS–GJK, Dkt. 1 ¶¶ 8–10; Case No. 6:10–cv–00941–MSS–GK, Dkt. 1 ¶ 9) As exotic dancers, Plaintiffs Kastritis, Dice, Buchanan, and Glenn wore bikinis. (Dkt. 1 ¶ 65; Williams Depo., Dkt. 49–1 at 35) Plaintiffs N. Sias and T. Sias were employed at the Club as bartenders. (Dkt. 1 ¶¶ 11–12) As bartenders,Plaintiffs N. Sias and T. Sias wore shorts, shirts and blouses. (Dkt. 1 ¶ 67; Williams Depo., Dkt. 49–1 at 21–22) The vehicles belonging to the Plaintiffs were also searched. (Fowler Aff't., Dkt. 49–8 ¶ 20) The search warrant did not authorize a strip search of anyone in the Club. See (Dkt. 1 at 61–63; Dkt. 53–4 at 1–3)

II. Standard of Review

Summary judgment is appropriate when the movant can show that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fennell v. Gilstrap, 559 F.3d 1212, 1216 (11th Cir.2009) (citing Welding Servs., Inc. v. Forman, 509 F.3d 1351, 1356 (11th Cir.2007)). Which facts are material depends on the substantive law applicable to the case. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). The moving party bears the burden of showing that no genuine issue of material fact exists. Clark v. Coats & Clark, Inc., 929 F.2d 604, 608 (11th Cir.1991).

Evidence is reviewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Fennell, 559 F.3d at 1216 (citing Welding Servs., Inc., 509 F.3d at 1356). A moving party discharges its burden on a motion for summary judgment by showing or pointing out to the Court that there is an absence of evidence to support the non-moving party's case. Denney v. City of Albany, 247 F.3d 1172, 1181 (11th Cir.2001) (citation omitted).

When a moving party has discharged its burden, the non-moving party must then designate specific facts (by its own affidavits, depositions, answers to interrogatories, or admissions on file) that demonstrate there is a genuine issue for trial. Porter v. Ray, 461 F.3d 1315, 1321 (11th Cir.2006) (citation omitted). The party opposing a motion for summary judgment must rely on more than conclusory statements or allegations unsupported by facts. Evers v. Gen. Motors Corp., 770 F.2d 984, 986 (11th Cir.1985) ( “conclusory allegations without specific supporting facts have no probative value.”).

III. Section 1983

Under Section 1983 of Title 42 of the United States Code (Section 1983),

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 cases
  • Cent. Ala. Fair Hous. Ctr. v. Magee
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Alabama
    • 12 Diciembre 2011
  • Wilson v. Hinton, Case No. 3:17-cv-1045-J-34MCR
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida
    • 15 Febrero 2019
    ...conduct." Richardson v. City of Pompano Beach, 511 So.2d 1121, 1123 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987). See also Kastritis v. City of Daytona Beach Shores, 835 F.Supp.2d 1200, 1225 (M.D. Fla. 2011) (defining these standards). Additionally, courts are reluctant to strip officers of their immunity under sec......
  • Tarantino v. Citrus Cnty. Gov't
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida
    • 4 Septiembre 2014
    ...incident where officers shot a homeowner in the course of investigating a car burglary). See also Kastritis v. City of Daytona Beach Shores, 835 F.Supp. 2d 1200, 1225-26 (M.D. Fla. 2011) (finding that evidence of the scope and intrusiveness of the strip search which precluded grant of quali......
  • Bryant v. Mascara
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida
    • 16 Mayo 2017
    ...2015 WL 12927885, at *6 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 23, 2015), aff'd, 658 F. App'x 940 (11th Cir. 2016) (quoting Kastritis v. City of Daytona Beach Shores, 835 F. Supp. 2d 1200, 1225 (M.D. Fla. 2011) (citations omitted)). "In determining whether an officer is entitled to summary judgment as a result o......
  • 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