LTC 119-2024 Victory in D.F. v. City of Miami Beach, Case No. 2022-02610-CA-01MIAMI BEACH
OFFICE OF THE CITY A HORNEY
LTC No.
119-2024
LETTER TO COMMISSION
TO: Mayor Steven Meiner and Members of the City Commission
FROM:
DATE:
Rafael A. Paz, City Attorney ~
March 29, 2024
SUBJECT: Victory in D.F. v. City of Miami Beach, Case No. 2022-02610-CA-01
The purpose of this L TC is to advise you of the City's recent legal victory in the Eleventh
Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida. I am pleased to inform you that
Judge Barbara Areces granted the City's Motion for Summary Judgment in the case of
D. F. v. City of Miami Beach.
The lawsuit stemmed from a third-party criminal attack that occurred by a lifeguard stand
on a closed City beach at 3:15 a.m. The Plaintiff alleged negligence on the part of the
City, alleging that the City caused Plaintiff to sustain injuries by failing to implement
adequate security measures.
The City, however, pointed the court to the absence of evidence supporting Plaintiff's
claim, arguing that the City was entitled to judgment as a matter of law under the doctrine
of sovereign immunity and because no reasonable jury could find that the City breached
its duty of care owed to the Plaintiff.
After conducting a hearing on the City's Motion, Judge Areces ruled in favor of the City
as a matter of law and dismissed Plaintiff's complaint in its entirety.
The case was litigated entirely in-house by Chief Deputy City Attorney Robert Rosenwald,
First Assistant City Attorney Henry Hunnefeld, Senior Assistant City Attorney Freddi
Mack, and Assistant City Attorney Benjamin Braun, who served as the lead attorney who
argued the summary judgment motion before the Court.
A copy of the court's order in D.F. v. City of Miami Beach, Case No. 2022-02610-CA-01
is attached.
Please feel free to contact me or Robert Rosenwald for further information about this or
any City litigation matter.
F i li n g # 1 9 4 8 0 8 8 2 8 E-F ile d 0 3 /2 6 /2 0 2 4 1 0 :5 6 :5 5 A M
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL
CIRCUIT IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA
CASE NO: 2022-002610-CA-01
SECTION: CA23
JUDGE: Barbara Areces
D.F.
Plaintiff(s)
vs.
City of Miami Beach
Defendant(s)
I ------------
FINAL JUDGMENT
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT CITY OF MIAMI BEACH'S
MOTION FOR FINAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
THIS CAUSE came before the Court for hearing on Monday, March 25, 2024, upon
Defendant City of Miami Beach's ("Defendant" or "City") Motion for Final Summary Judgment
("Motion"), [Docket No. 72].
After reviewing the Motion, Plaintiff D.F.'s Response to the Motion, City's Reply to the
Response, and having heard the arguments of counsel, and being otherwise fully advised in the
premises, the Court hereby
ORDERS and ADJUDGES that the City's Motion is GRANTED and FINAL
JUDGMENT is hereby ENTERED in favor of Defendant, City of Miami Beach, and against
Plaintiff, D.F., who shall take nothing by this action, and the Defendant shall go hence without day.
Pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.51 0(a), the Court provides the following reasons for
granting the Motion:
I. Findings of Fact
The Court finds that there is no genuine dispute in the record as to the following facts:
This is a negligent security claim filed by Plaintiff against the City. The claim arises from
an incident in which the Plaintiff was assaulted by a non-party, Javier Ignacio ("Ignacio," or
Case No: 2022-002610-CA-0I Page I of 4
"a ssa ila n t") o n th e sa n d at a beach in M iam i B each on Ja nuary 28, 202 1, at 3: 15 a.m . ("incident").
C o m p la in t, ,r,r 7-8, [Docket No. 2]. Specifically, the incident occurred on the lifeguard stand near
the Lincoln Road beach entrance. The incident began when Plaintiff met Ignacio at a nearby
Walgreens on Collins Avenue, and they proceeded to voluntarily walk together eastbound on
Lincoln Road towards the closed City beach and Beachwalk. Plaintiff and Ignacio entered the
closed beach and proceeded to sit together by a dark lifeguard stand; after conversing and smoking
cigarettes together, Ignacio became "very hostile and violent," proceeding to sexually assault the
Plaintiff. The assault lasted for approximately 10 seconds.
Pursuant to Miami Beach City Code, Section 82-2(a), "No person shall ... be or remain in
any public beach not fenced in or provided with gates, between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 5 :00
a.m. on the following day." A violation of section 82-2 results in a civil fine and possible
imprisonment pursuant to Miami Beach City Code, Section 1-14.
Plaintiff alleges that the City was negligent by: "Failing to provide adequate security for the
public and D.F."; "Failing to have an adequate number of police or other official employees located
in the subject area to protect the public and D.F ."; "Failing to have an adequate number of police or
other official employees located in visible areas to deter crime and thereby protect the public and
D.F."; "Failing to provide adequate lighting to the subject area to deter crime and thereby protect
the public and D.F."; "Failing to provide adequate lighting to the subject area to make known to the
public and D.F., any potential hazards or dangerous encounters"; "Failing to provide adequate
lighting to the subject area to alert other members of the public of the occurrence of crime or
dangerous encounters occurring in and around the subject area"; "Failing to warn the public,
including D.F. of the nature and character of the subject area when it knew or in the exercise of
reasonable care should have known that numerous criminal incidents of a similar nature to the one
herein (i.e., crimes against persons and business) had occurred prior to the subject incident";
"Failing to police, patrol, guard, deter, and otherwise provide adequate protection for the public,
when Defendant knew or should have known of foreseeable criminal acts on persons"; "Failing to
have and/or maintain monitoring and surveillance cameras in working condition such that every
camera was able to monitor and record activity in its line of view"; "Failing to prepare and/or
implement and/or properly implement adequate security policies, security measures, and security
procedures necessary to protect the public, and D.F."; and "Failing to adequately assess the levels
of crime in and around the subject area." Complaint, 26(a )(k ).
II. Conclusions of Law
Case No: 2022-00261 0-CA-0 I Page 2 of 4
In light of the undisputed m aterial fa cts, the C ourt concl udes that, at best, Plaintiff w as an
uninvited licensee at the tim e of the incident and w as ow ed a duty fr om the C ity only to "refr ain
from w anton negligence or w illfu l m isconduct w hich w ould injure [him ], to refr ain fr om
intentionally exposing [him ] to danger, and to w arn [him ] of a defe ct or condition know n to the
landow ners to be dangero us w hen such danger is not open to ordinary observation by the licensee."
Barrio v. City of Miami Beach, 698 So. 2d 1241, 1244 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) ( citing Lane v. Estate of
Morton, 687 So. 2d 53, 54 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)).
As a matter of law, the City did not breach any duty owed to the Plaintiff, an uninvited
licensee at the time of incident, because the City's alleged actions/omissions do not rise to the level
of willful misconduct, wanton negligence, or intentional exposure to danger. Further, "the danger
of crime and criminal assaults is an open and obvious danger for which there is no duty to warn [an
uninvited licensee]." Barrio, 698 So. 2d at 1244 (citing Lane, 687 So. 2d at 54).
Based upon the foregoing, and for the reasons stated on the record during the March 25th
hearing, '' the Court finds that no reasonable jury could find that City breached any duty owed to
the Plaintiff and the City is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Because the City is entitled to
summary final judgment on the element of breach, the Court does not reach any other argument set
forth in the Motion.
FINAL JUDGMENT is hereby ENTERED in favor of Defendant, City of Miami Beach,
and against Plaintiff, D.F., who shall take nothing by this action, and the Defendant shall go hence
without day.
l'! The Court's statements on the record during the March 25th hearing are hereby incorporated by
reference into this Order as if set forth fully herein.
Case No: 2022-002610-CA-01 Page 3 of4
D O N E and ORDERED in Chambers at Miami-Dade County, Florida on this 26th day of March,
2024.
I"
2022-002610-CA-0103-26-202410:49 AM
Hon. Barbara Areces
CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE
Electronically Signed
Final Order as to All Parties SRS #: 12 (Other)
THE COURT DISMISSES THIS CASE AGAINST ANY PARTY NOT LISTED IN THIS
FINAL ORDER OR PREVIOUS ORDER(S). THIS CASE IS CLOSED AS TO ALL PARTIES.
Electronically Served:
Benjamin Z Braun, benjaminbraun@miamibeachfl.gov
Benjamin Z Braun, sandraperez@miamibeachfl.gov
Benjamin Z Braun, merarimotola@miamibeachfl.gov
Charles A Mancuso, svandoorn@uww-adr.com
Freddi Rebecca Mack, freddimack@miamibeachfl.gov
Freddi Rebecca Mack, merarimotola@miamibeachfl.gov
Freddi Rebecca Mack, sandraperez@miamibeachfl.gov
Henry J Hunnefeld, henryhunnefeld@miamibeachfl.gov
Henry J Hunnefeld, sandraperez@miamibeachfl.gov
Henry J Hunnefeld, merarimotola@miamibeachfl.gov
Phillip J Mitchell Jr, pjmitchell@mitchellandwest.com
Phillip J Mitchell Jr, lblumenthal@mitchellandwest.com
Physically Served:
Case No: 2022-002610-CA-0I Page 4 of 4