153 So. 3d 394
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2014Background
- On Oct. 30, 2013, Consumer Rights, LLC emailed Bradford County under Florida’s Public Records Act requesting a complete list of all county employees’ work email addresses (or the individual records that would compile such a list).
- After receiving no response, Consumer Rights filed a complaint for enforcement, seeking a writ of mandamus and injunctive relief on Jan. 17, 2014, alleging the records existed and the County had not timely responded.
- Two weeks after suit was filed (and three months after the request), Bradford County compiled and produced a list of employee email addresses and contemporaneously moved to dismiss, arguing no such preexisting list existed and that it had ultimately complied.
- The trial court dismissed the complaint without a hearing, finding no responsive public records existed when the request was received and concluding mandamus was moot because the County later provided the list; it also dismissed the injunctive relief claim.
- The First District Court of Appeal reviewed de novo, held Consumer Rights had sufficiently pled a mandamus claim and that the trial court erred in dismissing that claim without a hearing, affirmed dismissal of injunction claim, and remanded for further proceedings on mandamus.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Consumer Rights stated a proper claim for writ of mandamus to compel production of public records | Consumer Rights argued it timely requested existing public records, the County received the request, the records existed when requested, and the County failed to timely respond, entitling it to mandamus | Bradford County argued no preexisting compiled list existed and that it ultimately produced a list (so there was no refusal or actionable claim) | Court held the complaint sufficiently pled mandamus and remanded for a hearing to determine whether the delay violated Chapter 119; trial court erred in dismissing without a hearing |
| Whether producing the records after suit mooted the mandamus or injunctive claims | Consumer Rights maintained post-suit production does not automatically render relief unavailable when unjustified delay is alleged | Bradford County argued post-filing production cured the claim and rendered mandamus moot | Court rejected mootness as a basis to dismiss mandamus without a hearing and remanded; affirmed dismissal of injunctive relief (concurring judge would have remanded that too) |
| Whether the trial court could decide disputed factual allegations on a motion to dismiss | Consumer Rights argued well-pleaded allegations must be taken as true and factual disputes require a hearing | Bradford County relied on affidavits and argued there were no records until it compiled them | Court held dismissal based on factfinding was improper; factual dispute required a hearing |
Key Cases Cited
- Brewer v. Clerk of Circuit Court, Gadsden County, 720 So.2d 602 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) (motion to dismiss standard and accepting well-pleaded allegations)
- Promenade D’Iberville, LLC v. Sundy, 145 So.3d 980 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (agency’s delay in producing nonexempt records violated the Public Records Act; eve-of-hearing production does not cure unjustified delay)
- Grapski v. City of Alachua, 31 So.3d 193 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (elements for mandamus enforcement of public records law)
- Meadows Community Ass’n, Inc. v. Russell-Tutty, 928 So.2d 1276 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (plaintiff entitled to judicial determination once mandamus cause is pled)
- Huffman v. State, 813 So.2d 10 (Fla. 2002) (mandamus requires clear legal right and indisputable legal duty)
- Barfield v. Town of Eatonville, 675 So.2d 223 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996) (unjustified delay in complying with public records request amounts to unlawful refusal)
- Mazer v. Orange Cnty., 811 So.2d 857 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) (post-filing production of requested documents does not necessarily render public-records action moot)