Juan Llauro v. Detective Michael Linville
20-12862
| 11th Cir. | Dec 6, 2021Background
- Plaintiffs (multiple individuals, estate, and Capri Construction) sued Detectives Linville and Valdes, Broward County Sheriff’s Office (BSO), and an insurer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state-law theories, alleging arrest/search warrants rested on affidavits that lacked probable cause.
- The district court dismissed the FAC with prejudice, concluding the arrest affidavits established probable cause and defendants were entitled to qualified immunity; state-law claims were dismissed without supplemental jurisdiction.
- Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal from the June 30, 2020 dismissal, then (while the appeal was pending) moved in district court on November 9, 2020 to reopen the case under Rules 59/60 and for leave to file a second amended complaint under Rule 15.
- The district court denied those post-judgment motions as untimely and for failure to show exceptional circumstances under Rule 60(b)(6); it treated the June 30 order as a final, appealable judgment.
- On appeal plaintiffs argued (1) the district court lacked jurisdiction to decide the post-judgment motions because no separate Rule 58 judgment had been entered (so the 150-day Rule 58 clock had not run), and (2) the district court erred by treating the detectives’ affidavits as incorporated written instruments and crediting them over the FAC.
- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed: it held plaintiffs waived the Rule 58 timing argument by filing a Notice of Appeal, the post-judgment motions were untimely under Rules 15 and 59 and lacked extraordinary circumstances under Rule 60(b)(6), and the district court correctly applied precedent when comparing the FAC to the attached affidavits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court erred in denying post-judgment motions to reopen and to amend (Rules 15/59/60) | Motion was timely because no separate Rule 58 judgment was entered and the 150-day period under Rule 58(c) had not expired | Plaintiffs waived the separate-document rule by filing a Notice of Appeal; motions were filed after final judgment and thus untimely under Rules 15 and 59; Rule 60(b)(6) relief not shown | Affirmed — Notice of Appeal treated dismissal as final (waiver under Mallis); Rule 15 and 59 motions untimely; Rule 60(b)(6) relief not warranted (no exceptional circumstances) |
| Whether district court erred in treating detectives’ affidavits as written instruments and crediting them over FAC allegations | Affidavits are not "written instruments" under Rule 10(c); district court improperly accepted affidavit statements as true despite FAC alleging falsity | Affidavits may be considered under Eleventh Circuit precedent (Gill); court must compare specific complaint allegations against affidavit statements to decide which controls | Affirmed — plaintiffs waived the Rule 10(c) argument by not raising it below; district court correctly applied Gill/Paez framework and found the FAC’s allegations insufficient to negate probable cause |
Key Cases Cited
- Gill as Next Friend of K.C.R. v. Judd, 941 F.3d 504 (11th Cir. 2019) (framework for comparing complaint allegations to attached affidavits and deciding which controls)
- Bankers Trust Co. v. Mallis, 435 U.S. 381 (U.S. 1978) (parties may waive Rule 58 separate-document requirement by treating an order as final and appealing)
- Paez v. Mulvey, 915 F.3d 1276 (11th Cir. 2019) (analyzing whether alleged misstatements/omissions negate probable cause)
- Jacobs v. Tempur-Pedic Int’l, Inc., 626 F.3d 1327 (11th Cir. 2010) (Rule 15(a) governs amendments before judgment and does not apply after judgment)
- Williams v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. Sys. of Ga., 477 F.3d 1282 (11th Cir. 2007) (standard of review for denial of leave to amend)
- Plaintiff A v. Schair, 744 F.3d 1247 (11th Cir. 2014) (treating an order that ends litigation on the merits as immediately appealable)
- Dalrymple v. Reno, 334 F.3d 991 (11th Cir. 2003) (de novo review of qualified immunity dismissal on motion to dismiss; accept complaint allegations unless contradicted by proper exhibits)
- Access Now, Inc. v. Southwest Airlines Co., 385 F.3d 1324 (11th Cir. 2004) (issues not raised in district court are ordinarily waived on appeal)
- Griffin v. Swim-Tech Corp., 722 F.2d 677 (11th Cir. 1984) (Rule 60(b)(6) is an extraordinary remedy requiring exceptional circumstances)