333 So.3d 1095
Fla.2022Background
- City of North Miami Beach contracted with American Traffic Solutions (ATS) to operate red‑light cameras, issue citations, and process payments.
- Pincus received a Notice of Violation requiring a $158 penalty and stating online/phone credit‑card payments would incur a convenience fee.
- Pincus paid the $158 penalty by credit card and paid a 5% convenience fee ($7.90).
- He sued ATS in federal court claiming the fee violated Florida statutes and that ATS was unjustly enriched.
- The district court dismissed for failure to state an unjust enrichment claim; the Eleventh Circuit certified questions to the Florida Supreme Court.
- Florida Supreme Court answered the determinative certified question: even if the fee violated statute, Pincus’s unjust enrichment claim fails because ATS provided adequate consideration (convenience, immediacy, confirmation, avoided postage/risk), so retention was not inequitable. The Court remanded and declined to answer the remaining certified questions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether unjust enrichment fails because Pincus received adequate consideration for the convenience fee | Fee is unlawful; ATS should not retain it — unjust to keep the payment | ATS provided real value (convenience of card payment, immediacy, confirmation, avoided postage/risk) | Held: Claim fails — adequate consideration rendered retention not inequitable |
| Whether statutory violations supply a private right of action to support unjust enrichment | Statutory prohibitions permit recovery via unjust enrichment | Statutes either do not create private rights or enforcement is by agencies; court should not rely on private right | Held: Not reached — court declined to address after resolving adequacy of consideration |
Key Cases Cited
- Fla. Power Corp. v. City of Winter Park, 887 So. 2d 1237 (Fla. 2004) (articulates unjust enrichment standard/elements)
- Agritrade, LP v. Quercia, 253 So. 3d 28 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (elements of unjust enrichment: benefit conferred, acceptance, inequity)
- Ruck Bros. Brick, Inc. v. Kellogg & Kimsey, Inc., 668 So. 2d 205 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) (quoted definition of unjust enrichment elements)
- Peoples Nat’l Bank v. First Union Nat’l Bank, 667 So. 2d 876 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) (unjust enrichment elements and requirement to disgorge value when inequitable)
- Pincus v. American Traffic Solutions, Inc., 986 F.3d 1305 (11th Cir. 2021) (certified questions to the Florida Supreme Court)