Fane Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, Florida
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 6523
| 11th Cir. | 2013Background
- Lozman appeals district court dismissal of amended complaint raising constitutional claims; Rooker-Feldman, res judicata, and collateral estoppel defenses invoked.
- The eviction action in state court (Aug 2006) involved Lozman’s marina residence; Lozman counterclaimed alleging First Amendment retaliation, Free Speech, and housing-related claims.
- State court resolved some counterclaims—order dismissed second amended counterclaim without prejudice (Jan 14, 2008)—and later, Aug 2010, entered a stipulation and order for dismissal with prejudice.
- Lozman filed federal complaint (Feb 8, 2008) asserting 42 U.S.C. § 1983, false arrest, and related claims; district court stayed pending state eviction resolution and later dismissed non-admiralty claims May 2011 under Rooker-Feldman and res judicata.
- The Eleventh Circuit reversed, holding Rooker-Feldman did not bar federal claims, res judicata and collateral estoppel did not preclude, and the admiralty action lacked collateral-estoppel effect after Supreme Court reversal in Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach (2013).
- Concludes with remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rooker-Feldman bars the federal action | Lozman commenced federal action before final state judgment | State proceedings ended before 2008, triggering Rooker-Feldman | Rooker-Feldman does not apply; state dismissal did not final resolve First Amendment claims. |
| Whether res judicata bars Lozman’s federal claims | Federal claims distinct from eviction-action claims | State eviction action precludes federal claims | Not barred; not identical or adequately adjudicated on merits under Florida law. |
| Whether collateral estoppel applies against Lozman’s non-admiralty claims | Issues should not be barred by previous state action | Issues were fully litigated | Not precluded; stipulated dismissal treated as consent, not actual adjudication; issues not fully litigated. |
| Whether the admiralty-based claim is precluded by collateral estoppel | Admiralty claim could be affected by prior adjudication | Admiralty action collaterally estopped by prior federal ruling | No collateral estoppel effect after Supreme Court reversal; Admiralty Action not final for preclusion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280 (2005) (limits Rooker-Feldman to state-court loser injuries.)
- Nicholson v. Shafe, 558 F.3d 1266 (11th Cir. 2009) (timing of federal action affects applicability; commence before final state judgment.)
- ASARCO Inc. v. Kadish, 490 U.S. 605 (1989) (hypothetical scenario confirming limits of Rooker-Feldman.)
- Federacion de Maestros de P.R. v. Junta de Relaciones del Trabajo de P.R., 410 F.3d 17 (1st Cir. 2005) (discusses scenarios ending state proceedings for Rooker-Feldman.)
- Tyson v. Viacom, Inc., 890 So.2d 1205 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005) (treatment of final judgments and res judicata; issues of scope of cause of action.)
- Hicks v. Hoagland, 953 So.2d 695 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007) (adjudication of claims requires clear record of former adjudication.)
- State St. Bank & Trust Co. v. Badra, 765 So.2d 251 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000) (foundation for res judicata elements; identity and merits.)
- Tyson v. Viacom, Inc., 890 So.2d 1205 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003) (reiterates limitations of broad 'cause of action' concept.)
- Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Indus. Contracting Co., 260 So.2d 860 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1972) (collateral estoppel principles; actually litigated requirement.)
- Gordon v. Gordon, 59 So.2d 40 (Fla. 1952) (notes relationship between collateral estoppel and res judicata.)