835 F.3d 1363
11th Cir.2016Background
- Plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action challenging red-light camera programs in Florida, alleging citations and fines were void because programs violated the Mark Wandall Traffic Safety Program (Wandall Act).
- Plaintiffs seek disgorgement via an unjust enrichment claim, alleging local governments unlawfully delegated pre-screening and citation authority to private vendors (e.g., ATS), mirroring the defect found in City of Hollywood v. Arem.
- Defendants moved to dismiss the unjust enrichment claim on sovereign immunity grounds, arguing Florida sovereign immunity bars the claim as a quasi-contract remedy.
- The district court denied the motion, treating the claim as seeking recovery of an unlawful monetary extraction (not a quasi-contract claim) and concluding Florida sovereign immunity did not preclude suit.
- Defendants filed an interlocutory appeal of the denial; Plaintiffs moved to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and for sanctions under Fed. R. App. P. 38.
- The Eleventh Circuit heard argument and dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, denying Rule 38 sanctions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denial of Florida sovereign immunity is immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine | Roe and state precedent mean sovereign immunity is only a defense to liability; denial not immediately appealable | Florida procedural changes and some Florida decisions suggest denial should be appealable; Roe has been undermined | Denied jurisdiction: CSX controls; Florida sovereign immunity construed as a defense to liability, so interlocutory appeal not permitted |
| Whether the unjust enrichment claim alleges an "unlawful monetary extraction" (thus outside sovereign immunity) | The claim seeks disgorgement of unlawful fines and is not a quasi-contract claim shielded by sovereign immunity | The claim is a quasi-contract/contract-like claim barred by sovereign immunity | Not reached on merits; district court previously treated claim as unlawful-extraction; appellate court did not decide merits due to lack of jurisdiction |
| Whether recent Florida rule amendments or Wallace v. Dean abrogated CSX/Circuit precedent | Rule amendments allow immediate review in Florida state courts; may indicate a change in practice | CSX remains controlling federal precedent; state procedural changes don't alter federal collateral order analysis | Amendment and Wallace do not abrogate CSX; federal court jurisdiction unchanged |
| Whether the appeal was frivolous under Fed. R. App. P. 38 | Plaintiffs: appeal is frivolous given CSX and Roe controlling | Defendants: their jurisdictional argument is colorable given recent state procedural/amendment developments | Appeal not frivolous; Rule 38 sanctions denied |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Hollywood v. Arem, 154 So. 3d 359 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014) (invalidating Hollywood’s red-light program for unlawful delegation and declaring related citations void)
- CSX Transp., Inc. v. Kissimmee Util. Auth., 153 F.3d 1283 (11th Cir. 1998) (Florida sovereign immunity construed as defense to liability; denial not immediately appealable)
- Department of Education v. Roe, 679 So. 2d 756 (Fla. 1996) (Florida sovereign immunity described as a defense to liability rather than immunity from suit)
- Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 (U.S. 1985) (qualified immunity denial is immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine)
- Keck v. Eminisor, 104 So. 3d 359 (Fla. 2012) (individual immunity under Fla. Stat. § 768.28(9)(a) provides immunity from suit and supports interlocutory review)