Beach Blitz Co. v. City of Miami Beach, Florida
13 F.4th 1289
| 11th Cir. | 2021Background
- Beach Blitz operated Ocean 9, a package liquor store in Miami Beach’s MXE district, failed to timely renew its annual Business Tax Receipt (BTR) for 2016–17, and received multiple citations (including for operating without a BTR).
- After settling three citations for $1,000 (but not renewing the BTR), Beach Blitz’s counsel met with a deputy city attorney on October 5, 2017; the City closed the store on October 6, 2017 for operating without a BTR.
- Beach Blitz filed a § 1983 suit (Oct. 30, 2017) asserting three procedural due-process claims, a substantive due-process claim, and a First Amendment retaliation claim; it also sought injunctive relief but later dismissed emergency counts.
- The district court granted the City’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion: procedural and substantive due-process claims were dismissed without leave to amend; the retaliation claim was dismissed with leave to amend but Beach Blitz did not amend and that claim was later dismissed; the court then awarded § 1988 attorney’s fees, finding all claims frivolous.
- The Eleventh Circuit held the City was a prevailing party (the dismissal rebuffed Beach Blitz and carried judicial imprimatur), affirmed that Counts I, II, III, and V were frivolous, but reversed the frivolity finding as to the First Amendment retaliation claim and remanded to apportion fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prevailing-party status under § 1988 | Beach Blitz sought declaratory/injunctive relief to change legal relationship (invalidate ordinances, vindicate BTR rights) | City argued dismissal rebuffed plaintiff and thus defendant prevailed | City is prevailing party: involuntary Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal (with judicial imprimatur and denial of leave to amend) rebuffed Beach Blitz despite the "without prejudice" label |
| Frivolity of procedural due-process claims (Counts I, II, V) | City targeted package stores; BTR suspension/closure was unconstitutional and vague | Complaint failed to plead meaningful deprivation, Monell policy/custom, or attempt to avail state remedies | Counts I, II, V were frivolous/without foundation; fees may be awarded for these claims |
| Frivolity of substantive due-process claim (Count III) | Beach Blitz had a property/liberty interest in retaining BTR and earning income from lawful sales | No fundamental property right in doing business or making a profit; ordinance rationally related to legitimate government interest | Count III frivolous; fees may be awarded for this claim |
| Frivolity of First Amendment retaliation claim (Count IV) | Close temporal proximity (one day) and deputy city attorney’s “not likely coincidental” remark support causation | Closure was lawful enforcement for lack of BTR and prior citations; no adequate pleading of retaliatory motive or causation | Count IV was not frivolous; district court abused discretion in finding it so; fees for Count IV not recoverable; remand to apportion fees attributable to frivolous counts |
Key Cases Cited
- Christiansburg Garment Co. v. E.E.O.C., 434 U.S. 412 (1978) (defendants may recover fees when plaintiff’s action is frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation)
- CRST Van Expedited, Inc. v. E.E.O.C., 136 S. Ct. 1642 (2016) (defendant prevails whenever plaintiff’s challenge is rebuffed; prevailing-party inquiry requires judicial imprimatur)
- Semtek Int’l Inc. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 531 U.S. 497 (2001) (distinguishing dismissals on the merits from dismissals without prejudice)
- Sullivan v. Sch. Bd. of Pinellas Cnty., 773 F.2d 1182 (11th Cir. 1985) (factors for assessing frivolity: prima facie case, settlement offer, stage of dismissal)
- Cordoba v. Dillard’s, Inc., 419 F.3d 1169 (11th Cir. 2005) (abuse-of-discretion review of frivolity awards; close calls should weigh against fees)
- Busby v. City of Orlando, 931 F.2d 764 (11th Cir. 1991) (claims warranting careful attention should not be deemed groundless for fee awards)
- Bailey v. Wheeler, 843 F.3d 473 (11th Cir. 2016) (temporal proximity can support First Amendment causation at pleading stage)
- Thomas v. Evans, 880 F.2d 1235 (11th Cir. 1989) (close timing between protected conduct and adverse action can support retaliation claim)
- Coll. Sav. Bank v. Fla. Prepaid Postsecondary Educ. Expense Bd., 527 U.S. 666 (1999) (no fundamental property right in the activity of doing business)
- McKinney v. Pate, 20 F.3d 1550 (11th Cir. 1994) (property interests created by state law do not automatically trigger substantive due process protection)