Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach
39 F. Supp. 3d 1392
S.D. Fla.2014Background
- Lozman, a resident with a floating home in Riviera Beach marina, publicly opposed the City’s redevelopment plan and filed a Sunshine Act suit in 2006. Shortly thereafter he was subject to repeated removals from meetings, arrests/threatened arrests, an eviction attempt, cutting of electricity, and an in rem admiralty action that resulted in seizure and destruction of his floating home.
- City council minutes from a 2006 closed executive session include council members discussing investigating and intimidating the source of Lozman’s Sunshine Act suit and authorizing expenditures to pursue that goal.
- The City pursued state-court eviction and later a federal in rem admiralty action; the federal court issued an arrest and the City later purchased and destroyed the floating home at a marshal’s sale. The Supreme Court later held the floating home was not a "vessel," divesting the admiralty court of jurisdiction.
- Lozman filed a § 1983 Second Amended Complaint asserting First Amendment retaliation and right-to-petition claims, Fourth Amendment false arrest claims (person and property), Fourteenth Amendment due process and equal protection claims, and supplemental state claims for false arrest, battery and conversion.
- The City moved for summary judgment and argued, inter alia, probable cause justified arrests, Monell limitations precluded municipal liability, and statutory pre-suit notice defects barred state claims. The court resolved most issues on cross-motions for summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| First Amendment retaliation (Monell liability) | Lozman argues the City, led by council members, retaliated (lawsuits, arrests, harassment) for his protected speech and Sunshine Act suit; a majority of council endorsed retaliatory course so City is liable. | City argues individual actions aren’t municipal policy; no majority-authorized retaliatory policy; probable cause for arrests defeats retaliation claim. | Denied City summary judgment: genuine issues of fact on retaliatory motive, timing, council statements, Rules of Decorum, and Monell theories (final policymaker, express policy, custom) survive to trial. |
| Fourth Amendment false arrest (person) | Lozman contends November 2006 arrest lacked probable cause and was retaliatory. | City contends officers had probable cause for disorderly conduct/resisting arrest. | Denied City summary judgment: triable issue whether probable cause existed for disorderly conduct, so false arrest claim as to person survives. |
| Fourth Amendment false arrest (property—in rem seizure of floating home) | Lozman contends seizure and destruction were wrongful and later held invalid. | City argues admiralty court’s warrant/order provided probable cause at time of seizure; subsequent jurisdictional ruling is irrelevant to probable cause analysis. | Granted City summary judgment: seizure was supported by admiralty court authority and constituted probable cause at time of arrest/seizure. |
| Fourteenth Amendment equal protection (selective enforcement) | Lozman says other marina lessees were similarly delinquent but not pursued; City singled him out to punish his speech. | City argues comparators are not similarly situated and enforcement priorities (safety, arrearage differences) justified treatment. | Court granted reconsideration and denied City SJ on dockage-fee selective enforcement theory: testimony shows many lessees were in arrears and raises triable issue whether Lozman was singled out. |
| Fourteenth Amendment due process (substantive/procedural) | Lozman asserts campaign to harass deprived due process rights. | City argues these claims are duplicative of First and Fourth Amendment protections and are unavailable where those specific provisions apply. | Granted City summary judgment: due process claims based on these facts duplicate more specific constitutional protections and fail. |
| State-law conversion & pre-suit notice | Lozman: conversion based on seizure/destruction; seeks summary judgment. | City: Lozman failed to provide statutorily required pre-suit notice under Fla. Stat. § 768.28(6); some state claims time-barred. | Conversion claim dismissed without prejudice for failure to provide pre-suit notice (not yet time-barred); battery claim from Oct 2009 dismissed with prejudice as time-barred; other state claims limited per notice and accrual rules. |
Key Cases Cited
- Monell v. Dept. of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (municipal liability requires an official policy or custom)
- Mt. Healthy City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274 (retaliation test: protected conduct, causal connection, chilling effect)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment burdens and evidentiary showing)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (genuine issue and materiality standards at summary judgment)
- Village of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562 ("class of one" equal protection standard)
- Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, 133 S. Ct. 735 (U.S. Supreme Court decision that Lozman’s floating home was not a "vessel")
- Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (probable cause analysis does not alone resolve equal protection selective-enforcement claims)