Rodriguez v. Miami-Dade County
117 So. 3d 400
| Fla. | 2013Background
- Rodriguez, a business owner, sued Miami-Dade County after he was shot by a responding police officer; suit alleged negligence and negligent retention/supervision (officer not sued individually).
- Security video captured surrounding events but did not show the moment of the shooting or include audio; parties disputed key facts about whether Rodriguez pointed a firearm and whether officers announced themselves.
- County moved for summary judgment, asserting self-defense and sovereign immunity under a "police emergency" (discretionary/planning-level) exception; trial court denied summary judgment on negligence (granted on negligent-retention claim).
- County sought certiorari review in the Third DCA, which granted relief, held the police emergency exception applied, and certified conflict with other districts about certiorari scope.
- Florida Supreme Court granted review to decide (1) whether certiorari is appropriate to review an interlocutory denial of sovereign-immunity-based summary judgment and (2) whether the police emergency exception immunizes the County as a matter of law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Rodriguez) | Defendant's Argument (County) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Availability of certiorari to review interlocutory denial of sovereign-immunity summary judgment | Continuation of litigation does not constitute irreparable harm; factual disputes exist so interlocutory review is improper | Denial causes irreparable harm because immunity from suit is lost if forced to proceed | Certiorari unavailable: petitioner must show irreparable harm and departure from essential requirements of law; mere costs/continuation of litigation do not suffice and disputed facts here preclude relief |
| Applicability of the police emergency (planning-level) exception to sovereign-immunity waiver | Officer response created a dangerous situation; disputed facts preclude finding of a planning-level emergency that would bar suit | Officers made split-second discretionary decisions in response to an emergency, bringing actions within planning-level immunity | Emergency exception did not apply as a matter of law; trial court correctly denied summary judgment because material factual disputes exist about whether officers created or contributed to the danger |
| Whether video evidence conclusively established self-defense/no negligence | Video is incomplete and inconclusive; expert affidavit supports negligence theory | Video shows Rodriguez pointed a gun at officer before shooting, negating negligence | Court finds video does not resolve all material facts; trial court properly left factual disputes for jury determination |
| Standard for district courts using certiorari to correct trial-court rulings on immunity | District courts must find irreparable harm and a departure from essential requirements of law before granting certiorari | District courts may use certiorari when immunity from suit is implicated | Court reaffirms narrow certiorari scope (Citizens/Keck): irreparable-harm threshold is jurisdictional and must be shown along with legal departure; Third DCA erred in its certiorari exercise |
Key Cases Cited
- Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. San Perdido Ass'n, 104 So.3d 344 (Fla. 2012) (limits certiorari for interlocutory denial of sovereign-immunity defenses; irreparable harm required)
- Keck v. Eminisor, 104 So.3d 359 (Fla. 2012) (distinguishes statutory individual immunity and contemplates narrow interlocutory review when statutory text precludes being named as a defendant)
- Wallace v. Dean, 3 So.3d 1035 (Fla. 2009) (discusses limits of judicial review and political-question considerations)
- Kaisner v. Kolb, 543 So.2d 732 (Fla. 1989) (operational vs. discretionary acts; notes narrow emergency exception in dicta)
- City of Pinellas Park v. Brown, 604 So.2d 1222 (Fla. 1992) (rejects immunity where police actions are operational and not protected planning decisions)
- Commercial Carrier Corp. v. Indian River County, 371 So.2d 1010 (Fla. 1979) (four-part test for distinguishing discretionary/planning acts from operational acts)
- Williams v. Oken, 62 So.3d 1129 (Fla. 2011) (articulates three-part certiorari test: departure from essential requirements of law, material injury, and uncorrectability on appeal)
- Reeves v. Fleetwood Homes of Fla., Inc., 889 So.2d 812 (Fla. 2004) (certiorari standards and miscarriage-of-justice framing)