Foudy v. Indian River County Sheriff's Office
845 F.3d 1117
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Toni and Shaun Foudy alleged Florida law‑enforcement personnel repeatedly accessed their DAVID driver‑record information without consent between July 2005 and June 2011; they learned of the accesses after obtaining an audit in April 2011.
- The Foudys filed an initial DPPA suit on December 31, 2012 and refiled multiple severed actions in August 2014 and February 2015 after district judges severed and dismissed shotgun pleadings and ordered refiling.
- The refiled actions at issue named the Cities of Port St. Lucie and Fort Pierce, Indian River County Sheriff’s Office, and related individuals; the complaints asserted claims under the DPPA and § 1983 (based on the DPPA).
- District courts dismissed the refiled complaints as time‑barred, holding that under 28 U.S.C. § 1658 a DPPA cause of action accrues when the unlawful access occurs (the occurrence rule) and that the § 1983 claims premised on the DPPA accrue at the same time.
- The Foudys argued equitable tolling (self‑concealment) and that amended complaints related back to the December 31, 2012 filing; the courts rejected both arguments and entered judgments for defendants.
- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed: § 1983 claims based on the DPPA accrue upon occurrence; DPPA violations are not inherently self‑concealing for equitable tolling; refiling did not relate back because plaintiffs failed to follow court orders and had no tolling justification.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| When does a § 1983 claim premised on the DPPA accrue? | § 1983 claim accrues on discovery (discovery rule) | Accrues when the DPPA violation occurred (occurrence rule) | Accrues at the time of the alleged DPPA violation (occurrence rule) |
| Do direct DPPA claims qualify for equitable tolling based on self‑concealment? | Violations were self‑concealing because access was discoverable only via audit | DPPA violations are not inherently self‑concealing; no affirmative concealment alleged | No equitable tolling: DPPA violations are not self‑concealing absent deception or affirmative concealment |
| Do refiled complaints relate back to the original Dec. 31, 2012 filing under Rule 15(c)? | Refiled complaints should relate back to preserve timeliness | Plaintiffs failed to comply with severance/refiling orders; no tolling; relation back unwarranted | No relation back: dismissals and failure to follow court orders preclude relation back and tolling |
| Was dismissal for failure to follow court orders an abuse of discretion? | Dismissal was improper; misinterpretation of prior severance order | District court properly enforced its orders and closed cases after noncompliance | No abuse of discretion: dismissal and later closures for noncompliance were appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Foudy v. Miami‑Dade Cty., 823 F.3d 590 (11th Cir. 2016) (DPPA claims accrue when the violation occurs under § 1658)
- Collier v. Dickinson, 477 F.3d 1306 (11th Cir. 2007) (DPPA actionable under § 1983)
- Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384 (2007) (§ 1983 accrual is a question of federal law; accrual when plaintiff has a complete and present cause of action)
- Jones v. R.R. Donnelley & Sons Co., 541 U.S. 369 (2004) (§ 1658 governs limitations for causes of action made possible by post‑1990 statutes)
- Baker v. Birmingham Bd. of Educ., 531 F.3d 1336 (11th Cir. 2008) (§ 1658 governs § 1983 claims based on post‑1990 statutory amendments)
- Hobson v. Wilson, 737 F.2d 1 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (definition and examples of self‑concealing wrongs for equitable tolling)