915 SLR LLC et al v. City of Altamonte Springs et al
Filing
43
ORDER granting 39 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. Signed by Judge Gregory A. Presnell on 8/1/2014. (ED)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
915 SLR LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No: 6:13-cv-1630-Orl-31DAB
CITY OF ALTAMONTE SPRINGS,
Defendant.
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc.
39) filed by the Defendant, City of Altamonte Springs (the “City”) and the response (Doc. 42)
filed by the Plaintiff, 915 SLR LLC (“915 SLR”). The Defendant seeks judgment on the
pleadings as to Count III of the Amended Complaint (Doc. 26), the only remaining count. In
Count III, the Plaintiff asserts a Section 1983 claim, alleging that the City violated the Eighth
Amendment’s ban on the imposition of excessive fines.
I.
Background
According to the allegations of the Amended Complaint (Doc. 26), which are accepted in
pertinent part as true for purposes of resolving the instant motion, 915 SLR owns a parcel of real
estate in Altamonte Springs. On July 12, 2012, the City “imposed a lien” on that property “for
the sum of $27,031.87” as a result of three alleged code violations: “that trash was scattered about
the property at issue; (2) tree removal without a permit; and (3) non-compliance with an alleged
site plan.” (Doc. 26 at 2-3). According to 915 SLR, the City accomplished the imposition of this
lien by way of an “Order Imposing Fine and Lien” (the “Order”). (Doc. 26 at 5). 915 SLR
alleges that the Order is “devoid of findings relating to the gravity of the alleged violations,
Plaintiff’s good-faith actions to repair any violations, and Plaintiff’s record of zero violations.”
(Doc. 26 at 5). “The fine and lien imposed by Defendant are therefore grossly excessive when
compared to the nature of the alleged violations.” (Doc. 26 at 5). 915 SLR does not include any
factual assertions regarding the alleged violations, such as how much trash was scattered about the
property or how many trees were removed. The Amended Complaint also does not include any
allegations as to the value of the property at issue.
II.
Standards
Judgment on the pleadings is appropriate when there are no material facts in dispute, and
judgment may be rendered by considering the substance of the pleadings and any judicially
noticed facts. See Bankers Ins. Co. v. Florida Residential Property and Cas. Joint Underwriting
Ass’n, 137 F.3d 1293, 1295 (11th Cir.1998) (citing Hebert Abstract Co. v. Touchstone Properties,
Ltd., 914 F.2d 74, 76 (5th Cir.1990)); see also Rule 12(c), Fed.R.Civ.P. In deciding a motion for
judgment on the pleadings, the court is obligated to accept the facts in the complaint as true and to
view them in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. See Ortega v. Christian, 85 F.3d
1521, 1524 (11th Cir.1996) (citing Swerdloff v. Miami Nat’l Bank, 584 F.2d 54, 57 (5th
Cir.1978)).
III.
Analysis
915 SLR never actually compares the amount of the lien imposed with the (alleged)
activity that led to its imposition or with the value of the property upon which it was imposed.
The allegation that the lien was “grossly excessive” rests solely on an allegation that the Order
used by the City to impose the lien contained no findings as to the Plaintiff’s conduct. Such an
allegation, even if proven to be true, would not be enough to support a determination that the lien
was so excessive as to violate the Eighth Amendment. And the Plaintiff has alleged nothing else.
-2-
In addition, the City contends in its motion that the amount of the code enforcement fine
underlying the lien fell within the limits set by Florida Statute § 162.09. In its response, 915 SLR
does not dispute this contention. 1 There is a strong presumption that the amount of a fine is not
unconstitutionally excessive if it lies within the range of fines prescribed by the legislature.
Moustakis v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 338 Fed. Appx. 820, 821 (11th Cir. 2009) (dismissing
Section 1983 Eighth Amendment claim where daily amount of fine imposed fell within limits set
by Fla. Stat. §162.09, even though cumulative total of fine was more than triple the value of the
property at issue).
IV.
Conclusion
In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby
ORDERED that the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is GRANTED. The Clerk is
directed to enter judgment in favor of the City of Altamonte Springs and against the Plaintiff as to
Count III and close the file.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, Orlando, Florida on August 1, 2014.
Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record
Unrepresented Party
1
Although the Amended Complaint is silent on this point, the original Verified Complaint
included an assertion that the City had imposed a fine in the amount of $100 per day until the
alleged violations were corrected. (Doc. 2 at 6). Florida Statute § 162.09, which empowers local
governmental entities to impose fines for code violations, provides that fines should not exceed
$250 per day for first offenders.
-3-
-4-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?