92 F. Supp. 3d 1221
S.D. Fla.2015Background
- On Nov. 14, 2010, Gladys Cordoves (plaintiff) was at Dadeland Mall with a small dog, Shiloh, in a stroller; mall security (Valor) and off‑duty officer Jean Pompee confronted her and ordered her to leave because pets were prohibited.
- Cordoves suffers from PTSD and alleges Shiloh is a service dog trained (by her daughter) to alert and mitigate panic attacks by jumping on her, pawing, nudging, and licking.
- A physical confrontation followed; Pompee forcefully restrained and carried Cordoves, slammed her against a store window, and later threw her to the floor after she lost consciousness; she sustained contusions and later underwent treatment and surgery.
- Charges against Cordoves were later dismissed after a state bench trial. She sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (excessive force), the ADA (Title III) against the mall for refusing admission with a service animal, state tort claims (battery, false imprisonment), negligent supervision/security, and concert‑of‑action claims against Valor and Dadeland.
- At summary judgment, the court construed disputed facts in Cordoves’s favor and addressed (1) whether Shiloh is a "service animal" under ADA regs, (2) false imprisonment and negligence tied to the refusal/expulsion, and (3) whether Pompee is entitled to qualified immunity for alleged excessive force.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| ADA service‑animal status (Title III) | Shiloh is individually trained to detect and alert to Cordoves’s panic attacks and thus performs tasks related to her disability | Shiloh is not a service animal: no specific training, only a pet/basic obedience | Genuine dispute of fact; summary judgment DENIED on ADA claim (Count V) |
| False imprisonment (Valor, Dadeland) | Security unlawfully restrained Cordoves when they prevented her from remaining in the mall with her service animal | If Shiloh is not a service animal, Cordoves was trespassing after refusal to leave, so restraint was lawful; probable cause defeated claim | Summary judgment DENIED as to false imprisonment (Counts III & IV) because service‑animal dispute remains and defendants did not adequately develop trespass/probable‑cause arguments |
| Negligence / negligent supervision & security | Defendants failed to train employees on ADA/service‑animal rules and negligently allowed false imprisonment/assault | Claims fail if Shiloh is not a service animal; negligence cannot rest solely on intentional torts (assault, false imprisonment) | Summary judgment DENIED as to ADA‑training theory; GRANTED as to negligence claims premised solely on intentional‑tort theory (no recovery) |
| Excessive force / § 1983 and battery (Pompee, County) | Pompee used excessive, clearly unreasonable force when arresting and handling Cordoves; qualified immunity not available | Force was de minimis/within permissible range; even if excessive, conduct was not clearly established unlawful — qualified immunity applies | Summary judgment GRANTED: Pompee entitled to qualified immunity on § 1983 excessive‑force claim (Count I); battery claim against County (Count II) also DISMISSED; concert‑of‑action § 1983 claims (Count VII) dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (Fourth Amendment reasonableness / excessive force standard)
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (qualified immunity two‑step: constitutional violation then clearly established law)
- Ferraro v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 284 F.3d 1188 (Eleventh Circuit on excessive force and de minimis standard)
- Jones v. City of Dothan, Alabama, 121 F.3d 1456 (use of force during escort/arrest not necessarily excessive)
- Reese v. Herbert, 527 F.3d 1253 (brutal force and lack of probable cause can support excessive‑force finding)