Parker v. American Traffic Solutions, Inc.
835 F.3d 1363
11th Cir.2016Background
- Plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action challenging red-light camera programs in Florida, alleging citations and fines were void under the Mark Wandall Traffic Safety Program (§ 316.0083) and seeking disgorgement via unjust enrichment.
- Plaintiffs allege vendors (e.g., American Traffic Solutions) unlawfully pre-screened images and effectively issued citations, mirroring the defect identified in City of Hollywood v. Arem.
- Defendants (local governments) moved to dismiss the unjust enrichment claim based on Florida sovereign immunity, arguing it bars the claim as a quasi-contract/sovereign-immunity issue.
- The district court denied dismissal, treating the claim as recovery of an "unlawful monetary extraction" (not a barred quasi-contract claim) and held Florida sovereign immunity did not preclude the claim.
- Defendants filed an interlocutory appeal; Plaintiffs moved to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and sought Rule 38 sanctions for frivolity.
- The Eleventh Circuit dismissed the interlocutory appeal for lack of jurisdiction (finding CSX controlling) and denied Rule 38 sanctions, concluding Defendants’ jurisdictional argument was colorable though unsuccessful.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the denial of Florida sovereign immunity denial is immediately appealable under the collateral-order doctrine | Roe/CSX interpretation: sovereign immunity is a defense to liability, so plaintiffs argued denial is not immediately appealable | Defendants: Florida law (and recent state procedural changes/decisions) permit immediate review; Roe/CSX no longer control or were distinguishable | Court: CSX remains controlling; Florida sovereign immunity is treated as a defense to liability, so the denial is not appealable under the collateral-order doctrine; appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction |
| Whether the appeal was frivolous warranting Rule 38 sanctions | Plaintiffs: appeal is frivolous given settled Eleventh Circuit precedent (CSX) | Defendants: their jurisdictional position is colorable based on recent Florida procedural amendments and some state decisions | Court: Not frivolous; defendants’ argument was colorable; Rule 38 sanctions denied |
Key Cases Cited
- CSX Transp., Inc. v. Kissimmee Util. Auth., 153 F.3d 1283 (11th Cir. 1998) (holding Florida sovereign immunity is a defense to liability and denial is not immediately appealable)
- Department of Education v. Roe, 679 So.2d 756 (Fla. 1996) (discussing nature of Florida sovereign immunity as not providing immunity from suit like qualified immunity)
- Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 (1985) (establishing collateral-order immediate appealability for federal qualified immunity denials)
- City of Hollywood v. Arem, 154 So.3d 359 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014) (invalidating a red-light camera program for unlawful delegation and holding citations void)
- Keck v. Eminisor, 104 So.3d 359 (Fla. 2012) (distinguishing sovereign immunity for governmental entities from individual immunity under Fla. Stat. § 768.28)
- Wallace v. Dean, 3 So.3d 1035 (Fla. 2009) (discussing duty versus sovereign immunity in tort context)
- Tinney v. Shores, 77 F.3d 378 (11th Cir. 1996) (recognizing interlocutory appealability when state law defines immunity as immunity from suit)