Toni Foudy v. Miami-Dade County, Florida
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 9116
| 11th Cir. | 2016Background
- Plaintiffs Toni and Shaun Foudy alleged that Florida law‑enforcement personnel improperly accessed their personal information in the DHSMV DAVID database in 2005–2008 in violation of the Driver’s Privacy Protection Act (DPPA).
- Plaintiffs discovered the accesses only after obtaining DAVID records/audits in 2011 and 2013, revealing hundreds of accesses; specific accesses implicating Miami‑Dade occurred on May 26, 2005 and January 10, 2008.
- Plaintiffs filed an omnibus suit December 31, 2012; the district court severed claims and ordered separate suits to be filed by August 15, 2014, treating later suits as continuations for statute‑of‑limitations purposes.
- Plaintiffs filed a separate action against Miami‑Dade on August 15, 2014; Miami‑Dade moved to dismiss as time‑barred under the four‑year accrual rule in 28 U.S.C. § 1658(a).
- The district court dismissed the DPPA claims with prejudice as untimely; the Eleventh Circuit affirmed, holding § 1658(a) accrues at occurrence, not discovery.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a DPPA claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1658(a) accrues at occurrence or discovery | Accrual should follow the discovery rule; claim accrues when plaintiffs discovered unauthorized accesses | Accrual occurs when the DPPA violation took place (occurrence rule) | Accrues at occurrence; discovery rule does not apply to § 1658(a) for DPPA claims (affirmed) |
| Whether equitable tolling/self‑concealment excuses late filing | Plaintiffs (on appeal) argued equitable tolling for self‑concealing violations | Miami‑Dade argued statute of limitations bars claim; equitable tolling was not raised below | Court declined to address equitable tolling because it was not raised in district court; issue forfeited on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Reno v. Condon, 528 U.S. 141 (1999) (describing DPPA purpose and scope)
- TRW Inc. v. Andrews, 534 U.S. 19 (2001) (limit judicially implied discovery rule absent clear congressional directive)
- Gabelli v. S.E.C., 568 U.S. 442 (2013) (discovery rule generally inapplicable to statutes lacking specific text or policy justification)
- McDonough v. Anoka Cnty., 799 F.3d 931 (8th Cir. 2015) (DPPA accrual occurs at violation; adopted by Eleventh Circuit)
- Hill v. Texaco, Inc., 825 F.2d 333 (11th Cir. 1987) (equitable tolling for self‑concealing wrongs)
- Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Hamilton, 453 F.3d 1331 (11th Cir. 2006) (statute‑of‑limitations interpretation reviewed de novo)