Blue Martini Kendall, LLC v. Miami Dade County Florida, 816 F.3d 1343

Two off-duty Miami-Dade police officers were hired by Blue Martini Kendall to provide paid "police services" the night of Oct. 2, 2010; an altercation occurred in the breezeway and the officers restrained and allegedly assaulted Gustavo and Elsa Martinez.
The Martinezes sued the officers, Miami-Dade County, and Blue Martini in federal court raising § 1983 and state tort claims; County and officers later settled with the Martinezes for $25,000.
Miami-Dade County filed a cross-claim under Fla. Stat. § 30.2905 seeking indemnification from Blue Martini for the officers’ acts while performing off-duty services for the employer.
The district court held Blue Martini not vicariously liable on respondeat superior/negligence grounds but granted summary judgment to the County on indemnification, interpreting § 30.2905 to impose a mandatory indemnity obligation (about $35,575 including fees).
Blue Martini appealed solely on the ground that § 30.2905 is unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause for shifting liability to private employers without regard to whether the officer acted for the public.
The Eleventh Circuit exercised discretion to hear the constitutional challenge (though it was not raised below), found Blue Martini had standing, and evaluated the statute under rational-basis review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Fla. Stat. § 30.2905 violates the 14th Amendment due process clause by shifting liability for off-duty officers to private employers without regard to whether the officer acted as an employee of the employer or the municipality	Blue Martini: statute impermissibly deprives it of property by imposing strict indemnity regardless of whether the officer’s conduct served the private employer or benefitted the public	County: statute is a valid exercise of state power to allocate financial responsibility for off-duty policing; statute reasonably serves legitimate governmental interests	The statute easily survives rational-basis review; it is constitutional and does not violate due process.

Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (standing requires injury in fact, causation, and redressability)
Access Now, Inc. v. Southwest Airlines Co., 385 F.3d 1324 (11th Cir. 2004) (appellate courts generally decline to consider issues not raised below)
Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. v. Fernandez, 741 F.2d 355 (11th Cir. 1984) (exceptions permitting appellate consideration of new issues)
Roofing & Sheet Metal Servs., Inc. v. La Quinta Motor Inns, Inc., 689 F.2d 982 (11th Cir. 1982) (more willingness to consider new issues in summary judgment context)
FCC v. Beach Communications, 508 U.S. 307 (strong presumption of validity under rational-basis review)
Leib v. Hillsborough County Pub. Transp. Comm’n, 558 F.3d 1301 (rational-basis test formulation)
Williams v. Pryor, 240 F.3d 944 (rational-basis standard explanation)
Wright v. Hanna Steel Corp., 270 F.3d 1336 (definition of "miscarriage of justice" as appellate exception)
Akanthos Capital Mgmt., LLC v. CompuCredit Holdings Corp., 677 F.3d 1286 (appellate consideration of pure legal issues with general impact)
In re Worldwide Web Sys., Inc., 328 F.3d 1291 (discussion of public importance standard for appellate review)