942 F.3d 1277
11th Cir.2019Background
- The Town of Gulf Stream and contractor Wantman sued Denise DeMartini, CAFI, and others in federal court under RICO, alleging a scheme of deliberately vague public-records requests and follow-on suits to extract excessive attorneys’ fees. The district court dismissed the RICO complaint; this Court affirmed.
- CAFI (funded/controlled by Martin O’Boyle) sent ~2,000 public-records requests to the Town and Wantman; many requests were allegedly vague or designed to induce delay and litigation.
- Joel Chandler, former CAFI executive director, resigned, gave sworn statements and documents to Town counsel alleging a two-step “windfall”/extortion scheme and implicating DeMartini as a key actor.
- After the RICO suit failed on appeal, DeMartini sued the Town under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for First Amendment retaliation (for filing the RICO suit) and sued Wantman under Florida law for malicious prosecution.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the Town and Wantman, holding defendants had probable cause to file the RICO suit; DeMartini appealed.
- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed: it held (1) a civil retaliatory‑lawsuit§1983 claim is generally defeated by existence of probable cause for the underlying civil suit and (2) Wantman had probable cause for the RICO suit under Florida malicious‑prosecution standards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a §1983 First Amendment retaliation claim predicated on a retaliatory civil lawsuit requires the plaintiff to plead and prove absence of probable cause for the underlying civil suit | DeMartini: Lozman controls — unique facts here show an official municipal policy to retaliate so no probable‑cause element should bar her claim | Town: Hartman/Nieves framework applies; involvement of independent counsel creates causation gap so absence of probable cause is required | Court: Generally require absence of probable cause for §1983 retaliation claims predicated on civil suits; Hartman/Nieves approach governs; Lozman’s narrow exception does not apply here |
| Whether the Town had probable cause to file the civil RICO suit against DeMartini | DeMartini: RICO claim was baseless because filing/threat of suit cannot be a Hobbs Act predicate (Eleventh Circuit precedent) and thus the RICO suit was frivolous | Town: Had substantial evidence (Chandler’s sworn testimony, documentary records, pattern of conduct) supporting a reasonable belief in a viable RICO claim, including a good‑faith argument distinguishing Eleventh Circuit precedent | Court: Town had probable cause — reasonable belief existed given Chandler’s affidavits, investigation by outside counsel, and the scale/pattern of requests |
| Whether Wantman lacked probable cause for malicious prosecution under Florida law | DeMartini: Wantman joined RICO suit without independent investigation and therefore lacked probable cause | Wantman: Joined after consulting Richman (outside counsel who investigated and advised); attorney knowledge imputed to Wantman | Court: Wantman had probable cause because Richman’s investigation and advice were imputed to Wantman; summary judgment for Wantman affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Hartman v. Moore, 547 U.S. 250 (2006) (retaliatory criminal‑prosecution §1983 claims require plaintiff to plead and prove absence of probable cause to show causation)
- Nieves v. Bartlett, 139 S. Ct. 1715 (2019) (retaliatory‑arrest claims are generally defeated by existence of probable cause; narrow selective‑arrest exception exists)
- Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, 138 S. Ct. 1945 (2018) (on unique facts, a retaliatory‑arrest plaintiff may proceed despite probable cause when official premeditated policy and objective evidence of retaliation exist)
- Mt. Healthy City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274 (1977) (employment‑retaliation causation uses but‑for test; defendant may show it would have acted absent protected conduct)
- Prof’l Real Estate Inv’rs, Inc. v. Columbia Pictures Indus., Inc., 508 U.S. 49 (1993) (probable cause to institute civil proceedings requires only a reasonable belief the claim may be valid)
- Raney v. Allstate Ins. Co., 370 F.3d 1086 (11th Cir. 2004) (filing/threat to file suit generally not a Hobbs Act predicate)
- United States v. Pendergraft, 297 F.3d 1198 (11th Cir. 2002) (threat to litigate or fabricated evidence behind threat not "wrongful" under Hobbs Act)
- Town of Gulf Stream v. O’Boyle, [citation="654 F. App'x 439"] (11th Cir. 2016) (panel reciting CAFI scheme and affirming dismissal of Town/Wantman RICO complaint)