Loving v. Miami-Dade County, Florida
1:19-cv-21351
S.D. Fla.Jun 30, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Dyma Loving sued Miami-Dade County and individual officers after allegedly being wrongfully arrested and subjected to excessive force by Officers Alejandro Giraldo and Juan Calderon.
- The incident arose when police were called because Loving’s neighbor threatened her and a friend with a shotgun; instead, Loving was arrested for disorderly conduct and resisting without violence.
- Loving claims she was physically attacked, manhandled, arrested without probable cause, and that one officer fabricated evidence to support the arrest.
- Loving alleges Miami-Dade County maintained unconstitutional policies or customs leading to her mistreatment (e.g., failing to discipline officers, inadequate training, ratifying misconduct).
- The County moved to dismiss all claims, arguing state law claims are barred by sovereign immunity and federal claims fail to state a Monell claim for municipal liability.
- The Court reviewed defendants’ motion, plaintiff’s response, and ruled on whether the case could proceed against Miami-Dade County.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sovereign immunity for state law torts | Officers’ actions fall within County liability exceptions | Alleged actions are bad faith/wanton, exempt from waiver of immunity | Immunity applies; dismissal with prejudice |
| Notice requirements under Fla. Stat. § 768.28(6) | Procedural bar, not grounds for dismissal with prejudice | Plaintiff failed to give notice as required | Court based dismissal on sovereign immunity |
| Monell liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 | County’s customs or lack of training caused constitutional violations | No official/unofficial policy or widespread practice alleged or supported | Allegations insufficient; dismissal with prejudice |
| Leave to amend | Plaintiff should be allowed to amend | Further amendment would be futile | Dismissal with prejudice, amendment futile |
Key Cases Cited
- Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (sets standard for municipal liability under §1983 requiring a policy or custom)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading standard for sufficiency of factual allegations)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard for plausibility in federal complaints)
- City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378 (1989) (municipal liability based on deliberate indifference in training)
- Brown v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 923 F.2d 1474 (11th Cir. 1991) (municipal liability under §1983 requires widespread practice)
- Brown v. Neumann, 188 F.3d 1289 (11th Cir. 1999) (liability only attaches where official has final policymaking authority)
- Knight through Kerr v. Miami-Dade Cnty., 856 F.3d 795 (11th Cir. 2017) (no policy-based liability without constitutional violation)