Case Information
*1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA M imni D ivision
Case Num ber: 14-23285-CIV-M O RENO TRU DY M IG HTY , as Personal Representative
of the Estate of David N . Alexis, deceased,
Plaintiff,
VS.
M IAM I-DADE COUNTY and M IGUEL
CA RBA LLO SA ,
Defendants.
/ OM NIBUS ORDER TEM PO M RILY LIFTING TH E STAV CLARIFYIN G T H E C O U RT 'S O R D ER A D O PTIN G TH E M A G ISTR ATE 'S R EPO RT A N D R EC O M M E ND A TIO N . DEN Y IN G A S M O O T PLA IN TIFF'S M O TIO N TO CERTIFV AND REINSTITUTING TH E STAY
THIS CAUSE cam e before the Court upon Plaintiff s M otion to Lift Stay to Allow Appellate Review and to Certify August 25, 2015 Order as Final and Appealable (the tlM otion to Lift Stay'') (D.E. 72), tiled on Januarv 6. 2016. Plaintiff also filed a Proposed Motion to Certify the Court's August 25, 2015 Order Adopting M agistrate's Report and Recomm endation as Final and Appealable pursuant to Rule 54(b) (the dsM otion to Certify'') (D.E. 72-1) on Januarv 6. 2016. The Court also has cause to reconsider its nzling on Plaintiffs M otion for Clarification Regarding the Court's Order Adopting the M agistrate's Report and Recommendation (the çsM otion for Clarification'') (D.E. 59), filed on Aueust 28. 2015, which the Court denied as moot as pal't of the Order Staying Case Pending Appeal (D.E. 63) on September 10. 2015. The Court now review s the issues presented in a11 of these m otions and their concom itant responses and replies, and issues the follow ing Om nibus Order.
1. BA CK G RO UN D
This is an action by the Estate of David N. Alexis to recover for alleged civil rights violations that were comm itted when Officer M iguel Carballosa shot and killed Alexis. Plaintiff Tnzdy M ighty, as the personal representative of A lexis's estate, also asserted claim s against Carballosa's employer, M iami-Dade County, for violation of 42 U.S.C. j 1983, wrongf'ul death, assault and battery, and negligent failure to train. Shortly after Plaintiff filed her Am ended Complaint (D.E. 17), both M iami-Dade County and Carballosa filed motions to dismiss the claim s against them. See D.E. 23, 25.M iam i-Dade County argued that Plaintiff failed to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) as to the Section 1983 claim and that sovereign immunity precluded Plaintiff s state law claim s. Carballosa, on the other hand, argued that his qualified imm unity defense required dism issal.
M agistrate Judge John J. O 'Sullivan issued a Report and Recom m endation after the motions to dism iss were fully briefed. The Report and Recomm endation recommended that M iam i-Dade County's M otion to Dismiss be granted and that Carballosa's M otion to Dismiss be denied. See D.E. 42 at 44. The Report and Recomm endation also recom m ended that Plaintiff's claims against Miami-Dade County be dismissed without prejudice so that Plaintiff could have t$a final opportunity to correct the pleading deficiencies identified in this Report and Recommendation.'' Id
After M agistrate Judge O'Sullivan issued the Report and Recomm endation, the Court reviewed the issues presented in the parties' Objections and the Report and Recommendation de novo, and içaffirm ed and adopted'' the Report and Recom m endation. D .E. 55 at 1. In so doing, the Court noted çsthat the Plaintiff did not object to M agistrate O'Sullivan's recommendation.'' Id at 2. The Court concluded that tsM inmi-Dade (Countyl's motion to dismiss is granted.'' 1d.
2 *3 The Order Adopting the Report and Recom mendation did not state whether the dism issal was with prejudice or without prejudice. Plaintiffs M otion for Clarification asks the Court to clarify whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice,and requests leave to file a Second Am ended Complaint. See D .E. 59.
On Septem ber 4, 2015, Carballosa filed his N otice of Interlocutory Appeal of the Court's denial of his motion to dismiss and his invocation of qualified im munity. See D .E. 61. The Court then stayed the case pending Cmballosa's appeal and denied a11 pending motions as m oot, including Plaintiff's M otion for Claritk ation. See D.E. 63.
Finally, on Septem ber 17, 2015,Plaintiff filed her Notice of Appeal. See D.E. 66. Miami-Dade County filed a M otion to Dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, and the Eleventh Circuit entered an order on December 22, 2015 granting the motion and dism issing Plaintiff s appeal. See D .E. 71. The court held that the Court's Order Adopting the Report and Recomm endation w as not a final, appealable order because dtit did not resolve a11 claim s against all parties, and the district court has not certified the order for imm ediate review under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b).'' 1d.
II. AN A LY SIS See W..Yz4 Equitable L (# Ins.
W hether to lift a stay is within the discretion of the Court. Co. v. Inhnity Fin. Grp., LLC, No. 08-CV- 8061 1, 2012 W L 6027098, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 23, 2012). In exercising such discretion, the Court should consider the facts of each case and the public interest. See id
Given the facts in this case, the Court finds a temporary lift of the stay is appropriate. Plaintiff s m otions dem onstrate that Plaintiff is in doubt as to where her claim s against M iam i- D ade County stand w hile her claim s against Carballosa are on appeal. As such, the Court *4 GRANTS Plaintiffs M otion to LiftStay for the lim ited purpose of allowing the Court to reconsider Plaintiffs M otion for Clarification (D.E. 59) and M otion to Certify (D.E. 72-1).
The stay having been lifted, the Court reconsiders its Order denying as m oot Plaintiff s M otion for Clarification. The Court notes that M agistrate Judge O 'Sullivan's Report and Recomm endation recomm ended that Plaintiff s claim s against M iam i-Dade County be dismissed without prejudice, but that the Court's Order Affirming and Adopting the Report and Recommendation simply stated that CtM iami-Dade (Countyl's motion to dismiss is granted.'' D.E. 55 at 2. lt would be inconsistent for the Court to find, however, that the Order that Staffirm ed and adopted'' the Report and Recomm endation also reversed M agistrate Judge O'Sullivan's recommendation that the dismissal be without prejudice. As a result, the Court VACATES its Order denying as moot Plaintiffs M otion for Clarification, GR ANTS Plaintiffs M otion for Clarification, and CLARIFIES that the Order Adopting the Report and Recommendation dismissed Plaintiff's claims against M iami-Dade County without prejudice. Because Plaintiffs claims against M iami-Dade County were dismissed without prejudice, Plaintiff s M otion to Certify is DEN IED A S M O O T .
111. C O N CLU SIO N
Based on the foregoing, it is ADJUDGED as follows:
Plaintifps M otion to Lift Stay (D.E. 72) is GRANTED for the limited purpose of allowing the Court to reconsider Plaintiff's M otion for Clarification (D.E. 59) and Motion to Certify (D.E. 72-1);
(2) The Court's order denying as moot (D.E. 63) Plaintiffs M otion for Claritication is VACATED, Plaintiff s M otion for Clarification (D.E. 59) is GRANTED, the Court's Order Adopting the Report and Recommendation is CLARIFIED that the dism issal of Plaintiffs
4 *5 claims against Minmi-Dade County was without prejudice, and Plaintiff s request for leave to file a Second Amended Com plaint is GRANTED;
(3) Plaintiff's M otion to Certify is DENIED AS M OOT in light of the Court's ruling on Plaintiffs M otion for Clarification; and
(4) The stay in this case is REINSTITUTED for the pendency of Carballosa's appeal. DONE AND ORDERED i M n Chambers at M iam i, Florida, this of Febnzary 2016. sr-e - -r':';': ... -' ) . .'' -''- .
FED E A . . N O UNITED STXTES DISTRICT JUDGE Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record