Amato and Bouchard v. City of Miami Beach
208 So. 3d 235
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Appellants Leo Amato and Donald B. Bouchard, retired City of Miami Beach firefighters, sued the City, City officials, an outside consultant, and ten union officials alleging they were misled during collective bargaining about DROP options to induce early retirement.
- Alleged scheme: appellants were told the three-year DROP would be eliminated to induce retirement, while the City and Union secretly agreed to replace it with a five-year DROP in the 2009–2012 CBA.
- Appellants learned of the five-year DROP on April 29, 2010; the five-year DROP was ratified around July 14, 2010. Bouchard retired August 31, 2012; Amato retired March 31, 2013.
- Plaintiffs filed suit in circuit court on March 2, 2015 (amended April 27, 2015) against fourteen defendants asserting claims including unfair labor practices and breach of fiduciary duty.
- Trial court dismissed with prejudice, finding (1) lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because claims fell within PERC’s exclusive jurisdiction under PERA, and (2) claims were barred by the applicable statutes of limitations; the district court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether circuit court had subject-matter jurisdiction over claims implicating collective-bargaining conduct | Appellants framed claims as common-law torts and fiduciary breach in circuit court | Defendants argued disputes were labor matters within PERC’s exclusive jurisdiction under PERA | Court held claims arose from collective bargaining and alleged unfair labor practices, so PERC had exclusive jurisdiction; circuit court lacked jurisdiction |
| Whether appellants exhausted administrative remedies (filed PERC complaint timely) | Appellants proceeded directly to circuit court without a prior PERC filing | Defendants contended plaintiffs failed to file PERC complaints and thus failed to exhaust administrative remedies | Court held appellants failed to file PERC complaints and exhaustion was required before judicial relief |
| Whether claims were time-barred under PERC jurisdictional limitations | Appellants argued accrual or equitable doctrines tolled limitations | Defendants maintained the six-month PERC limitations period and four-year common-law limitation for fiduciary claims had run | Court held accrual occurred at discovery (April/July 2010); six-month PERC window and four-year fiduciary window expired before the March 2015 suit, so claims were time-barred |
| Whether breach of fiduciary duty claim against outside consultant survived statute-of-limitations scrutiny | Appellants asserted consultant owed a fiduciary duty and claim was timely or tolled | Consultant argued no fiduciary duty and, in any event, four-year limitations expired | Court held fiduciary claim accrued no later than July 2010 and was barred by the four-year statute of limitations; other findings (no fiduciary duty) were unnecessary to reach because of time bar |
Key Cases Cited
- Browning v. Brody, 796 So. 2d 1191 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (discussing PERC jurisdiction over unfair labor practice disputes)
- Fla. Educ. Ass’n v. Wojcicki, 930 So. 2d 812 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (PERC has exclusive jurisdiction over disputes between public employers and employees)
- Maxwell v. Sch. Bd. of Broward Cnty., 330 So. 2d 177 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976) (characterizing PERA jurisdiction by the nature of the dispute rather than label)
- Gulf Pines Mem’l Park v. Oaklawn Mem’l Park, 361 So. 2d 695 (Fla. 1978) (requiring exhaustion of administrative remedies before judicial review)
- Fla. Marine Fisheries Comm’n v. Pringle, 736 So. 2d 17 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999) (six-month jurisdictional statute of limitation to file a PERC complaint)
- Kelly v. Lodwick, 82 So. 3d 855 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (breach of fiduciary duty claims accrue and are subject to a four-year statute of limitations)