Roofing v. Flemmings
138 So. 3d 524
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- On Dec. 4, 2008 Jose Alvarez (employee of Professional Roofing & Sales, Inc.) struck former employee Derrick Roy Flemmings with a baseball bat; Alvarez was charged criminally with aggravated battery with a deadly weapon.
- Alvarez moved to dismiss the criminal charges under Florida’s Stand Your Ground statute; after an evidentiary hearing the criminal court found Alvarez justified and dismissed the charges.
- While the criminal case was pending, Flemmings filed a civil suit (assault, battery, negligence, IIED; later punitive damages) against Alvarez and his employer based on the same incident.
- Alvarez and Professional Roofing sought dismissal of the civil case arguing immunity under section 776.032 (Stand Your Ground) and invoked res judicata/collateral estoppel based on the criminal-court immunity determination.
- The trial court summarily denied the petitioners’ motions to dismiss without holding an evidentiary hearing; petitioners sought a writ of prohibition in the appellate court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do res judicata / collateral estoppel bar the civil suit because criminal court found Alvarez immune? | Flemmings: criminal proceeding does not bind civil claim; res judicata not met. | Petitioners: single prior legal determination should preclude re-litigation in civil case. | No; res judicata/collateral estoppel require identity/mutuality of parties and do not apply because the State — not Flemmings — was the opposing party in the criminal case. |
| Does a criminal-court immunity ruling under Stand Your Ground automatically preclude a later civil action by a private plaintiff? | Flemmings: criminal ruling is not automatically determinative in civil action absent statutory language. | Petitioners: immunity determination should carry over to civil cases. | No; the Stand Your Ground statute does not plainly abolish mutuality requirement or state that a criminal immunity ruling is dispositive in civil suits by nonparties. |
| Was the trial court required to hold an evidentiary hearing to decide the Stand Your Ground immunity claim in the civil case? | Flemmings: factual disputes justify denying immunity without hearing or leave for summary judgment. | Petitioners: immunity is a true immunity and requires a pretrial evidentiary determination; defendant bears burden by preponderance. | Yes; an evidentiary hearing is required to resolve factual disputes and the defendant must prove entitlement to immunity by a preponderance of the evidence. |
| Was the petition for writ of prohibition untimely or waived because petitioners did not immediately appeal the first denial? | Flemmings: petition untimely / waived. | Petitioners: no strict time requirement for prohibition; appellate court may review both orders. | No waiver; appellate court may review and granted prohibition. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mederos v. State, 102 So.3d 7 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (writ of prohibition appropriate to challenge denial of Stand Your Ground dismissal)
- Topps v. State, 865 So.2d 1253 (Fla. 2004) (elements of res judicata / claim preclusion)
- Porter v. Saddlebrook Resorts, Inc., 679 So.2d 1212 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) (elements of collateral estoppel / issue preclusion)
- Massey v. David, 831 So.2d 226 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) (mutuality/identity of parties required for res judicata and collateral estoppel)
- Dennis v. State, 51 So.3d 456 (Fla. 2010) (defendant must prove Stand Your Ground immunity by preponderance; court must confront factual disputes pretrial)
- State v. Yaqubie, 51 So.3d 474 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (section 776.032 is a true immunity provision requiring adjudication of disputed facts)