The case involves Andrew and Adele Bloom suing state and county officials, along with related entities, over the 2002 seizure of animals from their property pursuant to a search warrant and the ensuing criminal prosecution for animal abuse and neglect. The Third Amended Complaint asserted multiple claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of constitutional rights, including arrest without probable cause, false arrest, and malicious prosecution, plus state-law claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress, conspiracy, defamation, trespass to chattel, and conversion. The court evaluated motions to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), applying the Twombly/Iqbal plausibility standard, service-of-process rules, and qualified-immunity analysis that examines whether officers had arguable probable cause and whether any alleged misstatements in the warrant affidavit were material. It addressed service deficiencies for the state commission and scrutinized the factual allegations concerning the warrant and officers' observations to determine which claims could proceed.
This case involved claims by a minor plaintiff against Miami-Dade County after she was sexually assaulted by a police officer, Paul Brosky, who used his position to isolate and abuse her. The plaintiff asserted state-law negligence in the county's hiring and supervision of Brosky, a federal civil rights claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging deliberate indifference to a pattern of officer misconduct, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. The court granted the county's motion for summary judgment on all counts. It reasoned that the evidence showed no prior similar incidents of sexual misconduct by officers that went undisciplined, that Brosky's background check and hiring complied with county procedures without revealing red flags, and that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a custom or policy of deliberate indifference or actionable negligence causing the harm.
This case stems from a 2008 boat collision in Miami Harbor injuring passenger Richard Sol, who settled claims against pilot Cory Fritzler and insurer Fireman’s Fund before dismissing all defendants. Fritzler and Fireman’s Fund then filed cross-claims seeking indemnity or contribution from the City of Miami and Officer Estevez under general maritime law. The court granted in part and denied in part the motions to dismiss: indemnity claims against the City were dismissed because maritime indemnity requires vicarious liability rather than merely non-negligent tortfeasor status, all claims against Officer Estevez were dismissed on qualified immunity grounds, and contribution claims against the City were allowed to proceed as they adequately alleged concurrent fault.
