Moskovits v. Mercedes-Benz U.S., LLC
| Decision Date | 10 January 2022 |
| Docket Number | 1:21-cv-20122-JEM/Becerra |
| Parties | ALEXANDER MOSKOVITS, Plaintiff, v. MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC, AUTONATION, INC., L.P. EVANS MOTORS WPB, INC. d/b/a MERCEDES-BENZ OF MIAMI, MAVEL RUIZ, RICHARD IVERS, REX RUSSO, NANCY GREGOIRE, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE, UNKNOWN AGENTS, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida |
OMNIBUS REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [1] ON MOTIONS TO DISMISS
THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon various motions to dismiss. First, Judge Mavel Ruiz (“Judge Ruiz”) filed a Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice. ECF No. [11]. Second, Defendant Nancy Gregoire (“Gregorie”) filed a Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice. ECF No. [25]. Third, Defendants L.P. Evans Motors WPB, Inc. d/b/a Mercedes-Benz of Miami (“L.P. Evans”) Autonation, Inc. (“Autonation”), Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (“Mercedes Benz”), and Richard Ivers (“Ivers”) filed a Motion to Dismiss. ECF No [26]. Finally, Defendant Rex Russo (“Russo”) filed a Motion to Dismiss. ECF No. [27]. Plaintiff subsequently filed an Omnibus Response to Motions to Dismiss With Cross-Motion to Disqualify Under Advocate-Witness Rule. ECF No. [31]. Thereafter, Judge Ruiz filed a Reply, ECF No [33], as did Defendant Russo, ECF No. [34], Defendant Gregoire, ECF No. [40], and Defendants L.P. Evans, Autonation, Mercedes Benz, and Ivers, ECF No. [41]. In addition, the United States Department of State (the “Department of State”) filed a Motion to Dismiss. ECF No. [39]. Plaintiff filed a Response, ECF No. [42], and the Department of State filed a Reply, ECF No. [44].
Upon due consideration of the motions, the pertinent portions of the record, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Amended Complaint, ECF No. [5], be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE and that Plaintiff's Motion to Disqualify Under Advocate-Witness Rule, id., be DENIED. In addition, Defendants Ivers and Gregoire's request for attorneys' fees and costs should be DENIED. See ECF Nos. [26], [40].
This case stems from Plaintiff's purchase of a Mercedes Benz vehicle from Defendant L.P. Evans in January 2017. ECF No. [5-1] at 4. Plaintiff states that shortly thereafter, he realized that the vehicle identification number (the “VIN number”) stated in the purchase contract and vehicle registration did not match the VIN number of the vehicle he was given. Id. at 5. Plaintiff states that he reported the error via an e-mail to the car salesman, an agent with the Internal Revenue Service (the “IRS”), and the Federal Bureau of Investigations (the “FBI”). Id.; see ECF No. [5-1] at 25 () (emphasis omitted). Plaintiff states that the correct vehicle was subsequently delivered to him, but that ten Unknown Agents (the “Agent Defendants”), in cooperation with Defendants L.P. Evans, Autonation, and Mercedes Benz (the “Dealership Defendants”), installed a GPS tracker in the second vehicle without a warrant and without his consent. ECF No. [5] at 4.
Plaintiff alleges that the GPS tracker allowed the Agent Defendants to track him on his trip from South Florida to Texas, and to use an x-ray van to screen his vehicle in Texas. Id. at 8. Plaintiff states that he then drove his vehicle from Texas to Mexico, where he was intercepted by a gang. Id. at 3; ECF No. [5-1] at 6; ECF No. [27] at 2. Plaintiff contends that in an effort to avoid the gang, he drove his vehicle into a traffic barrier, which resulted in significant damages to the vehicle. ECF No. [5] at 3; ECF No. [27] at 2. As a result, Plaintiff states that he took his vehicle to an authorized Mercedes Benz body shop. ECF No. [5] at 3; ECF No. [5-1] at 6; ECF No. [27] at 2. Plaintiff alleges that he then went to the United States Embassy in Guatemala City to report “all of the distressing events of the preceding ten (10) days.” ECF No. [5] at 3. Plaintiff states that staff members of the Department of State involuntarily committed him to a hospital where he was assaulted. Id. When Plaintiff returned to the body shop where he had left his vehicle, he discovered that it had been stripped of its interior. Id. at 7. Plaintiff attributes the state of the vehicle to a full cavity search that was conducted without his knowledge and consent. Id.
Based upon these facts, on May 10, 2018, Plaintiff filed suit against the Dealership Defendants and the Agent Defendants in the Circuit Court for the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida. ECF No. [5-1] at 1-16. In that case, Plaintiff asserted claims for fraud, invasion of privacy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and conspiracy to commit an unlawful act. See Id. Defendant Russo is an attorney who represented Plaintiff in the state action, and Defendants Ivers and Gregoire represented the Dealership Defendants. ECF No. [5] ¶ 35; ECF No. [5-1] at 56. Judge Ruiz was the presiding judge in the state action. See ECF No. [5-1]. Plaintiff filed a Motion to Disqualify Judge Ruiz as the presiding judge. ECF No. [5-1] at 76. Plaintiff argued that the “new case clerk corruptly circumvented random selection” and improperly assigned Judge Ruiz to the case. Id. (quotation omitted). The motion to disqualify was denied, and Judge Ruiz remained as the presiding judge. See ECF No. [5-1] at 71-73.
On May 29, 2018, the defendants in the state action filed a Motion to Stay Litigation Pending Arbitration, arguing that Plaintiff's claims were subject to an arbitration agreement. ECF No. [5-1] at 29. On February 3, 2020, Judge Ruiz held a hearing on the motion to compel arbitration. Id. at 38-53. At the hearing, Defendant Russo explained that when Plaintiff was shopping for a vehicle, he informed the Mercedes Benz salesman of his intent to drive the car into Mexico and that the salesman “let him leave the showroom with a car that had the wrong VIN number” and “steered him into an insurance policy that didn't cover him.” Id. at 42:6-14. Moreover, Defendant Russo explained that the finance agreement did not permit Plaintiff to drive the car into a different country. Id. at 45:13-17. Defendant Russo argued that the arbitration agreement attached to the vehicle purchase contract did not apply because the conduct alleged in the complaint, namely the car switch and installation of a GPS tracking device, was independent from the purchase of the vehicle. Id. at 48-49. Judge Ruiz concluded that Plaintiff's claims were subject to arbitration because the arbitration agreement encompassed all claims. Id. at 50:1-3. Plaintiff appealed the order denying Judge Ruiz's disqualification and the order comempelling arbitration, but the Third District Court of Appeal per curiam affirmed. See Moskovits v. L. P. Evans Motors WPB, Inc., 303 So.3d 543 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020).
Plaintiff now files this Amended Complaint asserting: (1) legal malpractice against Defendant Russo (Count I); (2) a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against all Defendants (Count II); (3) a conspiracy to interfere with his civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1985 against all Defendants (Count III); (4) a Bivens Action against the Department of State and the Agent Defendants (Count IV); (5) an Alien's Action for Tort against all Defendants (Count V); and (6) fraud on the court against Judge Ruiz and Defendants Russo, Ivers, Gregoire, and the Dealership Defendants (Count VI). ECF No. [5]. As to each count, Plaintiff requests $100, 000 in damages, plus costs. Id. at 28-30. As to Count VI, Plaintiff also requests “a judgment to vacate and set aside the motion to compel arbitration . . . and re-open the case for a new and fair hearing in federal courts.” Id. at 30.
The crux of the Amended Complaint is that Defendants conspired to interfere with Plaintiff's Constitutional rights. Id. at 1-2. Plaintiff first argues that his Constitutional rights were violated at the state court hearing on the Dealership Defendants' motion to compel arbitration. Id. Plaintiff states that Judge Ruiz and Defendants Russo, Gregoire, and the Dealership Defendants: (1) disregarded the invasion of Plaintiff's privacy rights given the installation of a GPS tracking device in his vehicle, (2) aided and abetted in a conspiracy to deprive Plaintiff of his Constitutional rights, (3) discriminated against Plaintiff based on his status as a felon, (4) denied Plaintiff the right to a jury trial, and (5) committed fraud on the court. Id. at 2-3. As to the Department of State, Plaintiff alleges that it unlawfully committed him to the world's most dangerous hospital in Guatemala. Id. at 3. As to the Agent Defendants, Plaintiff alleges that they “conducted an identical car switch and unwarranted GPS tracker installation” in cooperation with the Dealership Defendants, which deprived him of his federal rights. Id. at 4.
Specifically Plaintiff states that he is a fifty-seven-year-old man who was born in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. ECF No. [38] at 1. He states that he “originally became involved with drugs at age 18 during a visit to the New York City discotheque known as ‘Studio 54' attended by American cultural icons, including a White House Chief of Staff.” Id. at 2. Plaintiff notes that his visit to Studio 54 gave him “a government seal of approval as to the recreational use of cocaine that was the main feature of the venue.” Id. He states that in the summer of 1983, “after earning a place on the Wharton School Dean's List for academic excellence, ” he was arrested in Mexico because he was...
To continue reading
Request your trial