HomeMy Public PortalAboutAmend. Cmplt/Defs Mtn to Stay/Defs Mtn to Dismiss Amend. Cmplt/Defs Answer (O'Boyle)LAW OFFICES (/(9
JOHNSON, ANSELMO, MURDOCH, BURKE, PIPER & IIOCHMAN, P.A.
A PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION
DA.MUW H. ALBERT, PA
W. HAMPTON JOHNSON IV
SCOTT O. ALEXANDER, PA
20.55 EAST SUBOULEVARD
J. MARCOS MARTINEZ
CHRISTOPHER AMBROS10, PA
SUITE 1000ISE
FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 73304
ROBERT E MURDOCH
MICHAELC.. BURKE'
MICHAEL R- PIPER'
HUDSON C.
DAVID M. SCHWEIGER, PA.
JEFFREY L. HOCGILLMA , PA
HOCH.W W
CHRMTOPHER L. SMITH
E BRUCE JOHNSON'
(954)467.0700 SO rd
CHRISTOPHER J. STEARNS. PA
(305) 945-2000 Dada
(561)640.74!5 WPB
•ao4nntnlnNm rnu,u¢uanxs
Joanne M. O'Connor, Esq.
Jones, Foster, Johnston & Stubbs
505 South Flagler Drive
Suite 1100, P.O. Box 3475
West Palm Beach, FL 33402
TELECOPIER (954) 463.2444
June 16, 2014
VIA EMAIL
Re: Martin O'Boyle v. Town of Gulf Stream
Claim No.: GC2014077401
Our File NO.: 00640/34107
Case No.:
Dear Ms. O'Connor:
13-cv-80317-DMM
RONALD LD RELMG
BURL F. GEORGE
Enclosed please find a copy of the Motion we filed on behalf of the Defendants requesting
a stay of discovery and a continuance of the trial. The enclosure highlights the unresolved issue of
qualified immunity and requests that the Courtsuspend the proceedings until the qualified immunity
defense raised by William Thrasher and Garrett Ward is adjudicated. The enclosure also requests
an accommodation on the trial scheduling in light of the new issues introduced in this matter by
virtue of the April 24, 2014, First Amended Complaint.
If you have any questions about the enclosure, please call me.
Very truly yours,
Jeffrey ochman
For the irm
JLH/kme
Enclosure
cc: William Thrasher, Town Manager (w/encl.) Via Email
Irma Cohen (w/encl.) Via Email
Garrett Ward (w/encl.) Via Email
IOU Pp1OgS'dIaAIJ30dSar'a3t,Od Jo Jatt,O OT Pug raf?uLWu-'A(U atlt'PJrM Pug ragszuU'sa!1!roglnu
osatp Aq Pazm;Ioaat sV '4,661 't!J'of 1),ZS'IZ5 P£.t, SO 'Pa-15U-011'A 'I`-011uqvJP0 q(,661
n0 tp[ 1) 011 `9,I [ P£'3 8Z ` ^!ufl 11 V gutggglV taussu I `•(,OOZ't!O tDl1) tSZI `6,Z1 Pf-d
99£ 'DTI ' u!al.vaSaaty uaatO -A 03u!1S a; S •asunjop.tt!untuun pagjg.nb ag1 Jo uopvu!tnratap
9mpmd tuapunlip Ignp!A!pul tm of su padnis oq pptogs dtonons!p juW plot, ,Cltuats!suoa
Rai unor!O gtuana18 aq.L -Ps'A1 Puu tagsgrg,L Xq pauassg it!unwtu! paJ!Ipnb Jo osuaJop
aql Jo uo!lgrap!suoa s,t.mo0 agt 8u!puad paduts aq X aAons!p ImpJs'g slu-epuaJaQ xLL
kmol140N.LNl
:Piens p!nom Pug '101-n agt Jo aounnupuoo u
tsanbat oslr'SPIS agt roJ tsonb.0 at,t Jo Igl!I u! 'pug Miunwun po!jlrnb of tuatuapnuo s,Plvr11 Pun
ragsgtgl Jo uo!lnunuratap s, tmo, agl ilu!puad:Ctanons!p BmF,gtsrapr0 uaJo.47ua Isanbar `s:famolle
PauB!srapun ttagl tpnolgt pug ,Cq '(„stugpu33a(l..) XIPA!taa1ionl U11VM t9111iV) pug
(„tagsgrtLL:•)1I9HSV'd1LI. I1 VI'I'II,"A `(..ts�ot,.ilfiV31LLS 37f1rJ:10N 110.L'slurpttalatl
"IVIiI.L.d :gONV11Nl.iN 02IO�UNVA,LINI11VL1ti
U8I31`IV,7b 30 NOI.LVNn4 mad.ilU OK, 1UNqd
Alf3AODSIU AV.LS O.L NOI LOIV Q.31j177.9;4 SSNVUNfldaU
stucpuaJaQ
`dHI ISV HHJ. I11 M-IIA1 Pug
'WV91LLS.1"7110 30 MA01
'SA
;11!tulgid
`:T1A08.0 vl.Ll!VIV
XT IU -MOS -so-, I I :'ON 8SVO
VUI1I0'I3 m .LORI.LSIU Nugmf10S
lulloo .LOi1i.LSIU SUV.LS U3 LINi1
TT to T abed VTOZIET/901@ OOCI OSI:i uo patalu3 Tq Iuawnoo0 W6V0-LTE0S-A0-Vj:6ase0
Case 9:14-cv-80317-DMM Document 41 Entered on FLSD Docket 0611312014 Page 2 of 11
O'Doyle V. Town of Cull Stream, ct al.
Case Na: 1:14-cv-80317-U3iD1
be forced to provide testimony of the Town's behalf when their statements could potentially be used
against them in the individual claims seeking personal liability.
The Defendants also ask that the trial be continued to a later date so that any delay in the
discovery process will not result in prejudice, like the inability to complete discovery and to move
for summary judgment. Trial is currently scheduled during the two-week trial period commencing
on December], 2014, with a discovery cutoff date of August 25, 2014. Ilowevcr, the Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss, which raised the qualified immunity defense on behalf of Thrasher and Ward,
is not yet ripe because the Plaintiff has yet to file arespone. Based on this scheduling, inadequate
time remains to resolve the qualified immunity issue and to complete discovery before the August
25, 2014, deadline. As a result, the Defendants request that the trial and corresponding deadlines
be continued to It later date.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
1. On March 5, 2014, the Plaintiff, MARTIN O'BOYLE ('O'Boyle'), tiled a single
count complaint for emergency injunctive reliefagainst the Town and the Town Manager, Thrasher,
for an alleged violation of the Plaintiffs right to "free speech." ('Original Complaint"), DEL The
Original Complaint only addressed the posting of campaign signs in the lead up to the Town's
March 11, 2014, municipal election. DE I at T 3.
2. In the Original Complaint, O'Boyle asked the Court to (1) '[s]trike Town code sec.
66-446(5) as facially unconstitutional," (2) "[e]njoin Thrasher and the Town from continuing to
enforce Town code sec. 66-446(5) and, including but not limited to, the policies, customs, or usages
isuornrlrpuoaun ^lfs!ae; u,ro luauraaagrua (r:) (I lunop) umgL aql wmggm lumupuaury lsl!a aql
Japan gaaods aaJd of lqurJ sdlrlululd agl,lo uogalore (l) Jour sugela Pappg lmejduro0 paPuaury lsJr3
agL 'SMI 'PmA1'aa.IodJo3algo pappu-dlmau aql pus'Ja6nuvVj umo,L ogI'umoL aql 35ars'ou
nisi algls pus lsJapal Japan Auisrzs srunoo aluredas aura olur Ja utw.W umo 1, pus umoy oql lsuruh
lanoa alSurs oql Suruuopuml 6q uoauS!ill aql jo adoas oql papuedxo .Cl3sa& luraldmop papuaw'g•
wlclog,L'SZHQ'lursrduaDluampuouiyislI srgparBaiLo6.O'4IOZ'4Zrvdyup •6
•lmuldmo:)lsururrpaglssrursrpolpanomJagsaJgypasumo1aql'VIOZ'oi1!JdVuO '8
SZ HQ 'Vl0'c ' I JagmaaaQ uo SmauauJuroa pound foul gaa+L
oml aql SarJnp 1Sul Jo3 DSLo aql Suglas Jap.[p uu paaalua lJnop aql `Vl OZ `h ipdV u0 L
'IZ3Q 'JagsmIll.
pug umo•L agl Jo3 s tuollo se JapsuJ agl ul aouareodds us paimuo log (•yd'tmtxriaol-I purr '.radii
'a)lmg'gaopmW'eagasuy'uosugot) uug mer pmdi!;iopun aqi `V10Z'VZ gaJsW uO 9
'9I HQ 'VIOZ 'o l games uo,rapaJ onttaun(ur Jol uor1otu
.SauaSJama s ,ardog,O paruap unop aql 'SuLm 6.rsnuapino us gin anpuoo JagV s
'ZI
HQ 'NOZ'L gaJspl uo aopom AouaSJaura aql of papuodsaJJagswU puu umo,L DILL p
'1: fiQ JOWU aures oql Surpos
uorrocu .;=ulnas rre pa13'J[Aoq,p `lursrdurop lenrSup srq parg oq fep agues oql
'6-L le I HQ 'Jagsuq.L
Joseuuyy umgL lsurs2e sa8emep kMJ nuow ardog,p PJemu (£) Pns „'aauuurpJo legl utog Surmoil
b0 WQ-L3f08-^a-63: r :'04 3983
'le la'raea.uSJinO Jo u.Nol •A atfofl.0
TT 10 E a62d VTOZ/ET/9019>fao0 OSId uo pa1atu3 SV luawn000 WWa-LTE08-Ao-VT:6 aS12O
Case 9:14-cv-80317-DMM Document 41 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/13/2014 Page 4 of 11
O'Bayle v. Town of Gulf Stream, et at.
Case No.: 1:14cv-80317-DMM
content -based sign ordinance under the First Amendment against the Town (Count 10, (3)
enforcement of a facially unconstitutional content -based sip ordinance under the Florida
Constitution against the Town (Count 111), (4) threatening to remove O'Boyle's campaign truck in
violation of the First Amendment against the Town (Count IV), (5) threatening to remove O' Iioyle's
campaign truck in violation ofthe Florida Constitution against the Town (Count V), (6) enforcement
of a facially unconstitutional content -based sign ordinance tinder the First Amendment against
Thrasher (Count VD, (7) enforcement of a facially unconstitutional content -based sign ordinance
under the Florida Constitution against Thrasher (Count VE), (8) violation of his right to equal
protection against Thrasher (Count VIII), (9) violation of his tight to free speech on election day
under the First Amendment against the Town (Count W, and (10) violation of his right to free
speech under the First Amendment against Chief Ward (Count X). DE 28.
10. In addition to adding claims and parties, the FirstAmended Complaint also expanded
the factual scope of the case. Instead of focusing only upon die posting of campaign signs prior to
the election, the First Amended Complaint turned its attention to the various alleged events on
election day. DE 28.
11. On May 28, 2014, the Defendants moved to dismiss the First Amended Complaint.
DE 35. With respect to the personal claims asserted against the individuals, Thrasher and Ward
asserted qualified immunity as a defense. DE 35.
12, On June 9, 2014, the Magistrate Judge conducted the scheduling conference.
Following the scheduling conference, the Magistrate Judge issued an Order setting the pretrial
4
Inpiaid ftmpnlaut `uops;Itltl of luupuolls suapmq am'uaq of Smnuq Ovoid inq 'pati purrs of 8m wq
uloid dluo lou s[rmwo wautataao$ sioalotd,fipmaug pagijenb io uSlatanos jo asuajap ag[ij., •irgt
8utiou)'(t00Z nD gi10 bSZI '6tZT PE'd 99£ `SII molntaS aaty Uag.ID "a oaullEl !(,iianoastp
01 teed pan[osat aq p[nogs Limnwuit pagtlrnb mp 9upmaaP) (L861) KOE '13 "S LO[ '£Z5 PZ
'P? "I L6'9'u 9b9'S£9'S'n E8h uoi tatD "n uostapti'QrtalUo aqi roj assn alp pua uea dirunurwr
31 tiianoastp;sategr Rutproap) (1661) 68LI 'i) 'S III 'LLZ PZ "P., "I blT °EE-IEZ '9ZZ 'S'f1
OOS `, all!UT-10-19T3 —jS osis aas :(pp pps stsrgdma) tZ5 I PE'd SElunop i`� S o11rgrJvO.4anoostp
8utntops aiojaq Cittmaimt pagip;nb jo onssi atp anlosat Am unon r. `,(ltuonbosuoD„ '((Z861)
96£ PZ T21 "I EL'8£LZ'LZLZ'13 'S ZO I '81-L 19'008 'S71LSb `Pira nt�P�fl Butita) (b66I
110 till 1) tZ9'iZ5 PE'd SE paisuoll n lraopusS-ollrgetaj ,; kl3AOastp 8utgara.[ puotq jo suaPJnq
ogi puu lutii joisoo aqi wog slrtogjo ivawtuano8laaiotd of q.-;oslitunwmt paggun[oj„ •s39rwup
.CMlau0w.10j 9.-M!mduo lunptntput itagl ut pans atu wogm jo gioq 'PmA4 pun jagsr.RU .(q pasni
,Cnantmm pagtp:nb jo asuadap aqi jo uolmutaualop a Ruipuod pa.(sis oq ptnogs ,QanoastQ
4luntuml PaUgtind jo unpeuluuata(l
2utpuad paSr1S aq PlnogS ,(aanoas!(I •1
nwl Jo iananiraolvalu
•uotiepoutwoaas us uanbm puu'iuirldwoJ papuowV Isitd aqi jo
iuoluoa ntau aqi vants snoiitgwe ooi are saut[prap asagi irtp itmgns siuepuajaQ ag"L '01
'0b FIG 'VI OZ 'O£ aunf $u!Pnlaui pus of do sstwst(i of votlolAJ aq) of puodsoi of awii jo
uotsuaixayaam-wAistojisinbais,jjpumldagipa)=AunoZ)agi`t[OZlot aunfu0 'EI
L£ HQ •su0tiow antls'0ds1P 101
autlPuaP `tIOZ `8 tagwaldaS r pur Ga,tnastp to; aur.IpaP'bIOZ'S6 isnontt mi 8urpaiaul sautlPuaP
WNW-URS-ha-M:I VON asuo
•ie to'moaliSJte)Jo maoi, "n Womo
TT 10 S aOad bTOZ/ET/90 1ag0oQ OSid uo PaJaiu3 Tb ivawnooQ In1WO-LTE08-n0-17T:6GSP3
Case 9:14-cv-80317-DMM Document 41 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/13/2014 Page 6 of 11
O'Boyle Y. Town of Gulf Stream, et at.
Case No.: 1:1 4-cv-80317-DM61
discovery."); Lassiter c. Alabama A&M liaiv., 28 Fad 1146, 114x1 (11th Cir. 1994) (cn bane)
(stating that "qualified immunityproteets government officials performing discretionary functions
Nm civil trial (and the other burdens of litigation, including discovery) ......
).
A stay of discovery is appropriate for several reasons. First, qualified immunity protects
individuals from the costs of trial including the burdens of discovery. As a result, qualified immunity
should be determined before discovery is conducted. In this case, a stay of discovery should be
granted to protect Thrasher and Ward from having to subject themselves personally to discovery
until the Court determines that they are not entitled to the protections of qualified immunity.
Second, a stay of discovery pending the outcome of the Court's determination of qualified
immunity will protect Thrasher and Ward as contemplated under federal law. Both are parties to
the litigation and both are key witnesses to the incidents raised in the First Amended Complain(.
Therefore, evert deposition testimony from Thrasher and Ward creaws risks related to their personal
exposure. Thrasher and Ward should not be forced to answer questions while they remain uncertain
whether their answers to those questions may give rise to personal liability.
Third, the Town remains limited in its ability to defend against the Plaintiffs claims until
the qualified immunity issue is resolved, Unless discovery is stayed as to all parties, the Town will
not be able to present the testimony of two individual who are alleged to have participated in the
significant matters raised in the First Amended Complaint without Wringing on their rights to
immunity. As a result, all discovery should be stayed pending a determination of qualified
immunity.
'lumridulo',) pap=Uzd lszld agl Su!moliol 'luepu-4pp innptnipui saglouu uc lg9norq pue `slat[ .Hau
paonpozlu! 'sm!elo nld!llnru pappa lu!eldmoZ)papuawy Isi13 agl'zanaMoll •,vanoas!p pol!urri Sluo
.103 paau a palsa68ns joule pmatj a ganS •aauurnpzo u8!s s,amoy aql jo ooej aq7 uo paseq Cia3iel
'zagsezgl, puu u,»oj,agl;sumne unt[a aldu!.q a payasse 6luo pt[[ alio£I.O'painpagos sea juin am!l
ag1lV 'zapzo leaf agl;o illus aql anu's.Siluna Jnrd[s pa3uega oneq simmsumaz!o agl'uiLniV
'aiup jjoino izanoosip 'b iou `Sz isngnv oql ozojoq ,Szanons!p alaldmoa of alnnbape anrq lou
IJFA sa!l led agl'pojapq ,(Ilnd oq of lo,f anss! aql qi!m 'azall •pap!ont ,Silnjarna aq pinogs sasodmd
Aullnpogos zoj poog!jots oq Am l! legl uo!ldaazad aql sang •saa{oldwo apgnd loolozd ipmgm
zouem luryodmi ue si Xirunwlui pag!ienb jo onssr aql, •,4ano3s1p lanpuoa of acus alenbape %-A
sa[l.1td nql ap!nozd of ((-)put pajauq -Sllnj la:S lou s! zallelu all matin+ asuajap .Slllmmai! pa fqunb aql
Jo uo!lraap!suoo alenbope uv mol[e of (I) pnisonbaz q altp irgl all jo aautnu!luoa u 'azol[
'(£OoZ
'ifI s!OIn(I-ISmH'^'aul 8-OQ naolouyaay lam •paluez;I
uoaq Slsnprnazd stq aautnunuoa t zaglagel. zap!sum osle suno0 '(80OZ '11,3 rp [ 1) OZ£( EOE I
PE'd ZSS of PuumumUO n ozawog zajjns II!M rilzud 9u!nom agl legs rmeti aql (b) pim :paluezo
aq aoutnu!luoo aqi pinogs panuauadxa lltAt .flied 8u!soddo aqi puu unoo aill aaua!u.,euoau! jo
Ianal aql (£) :1! zoj paau aql..{pawaz lI!m oautnu!lum aqi 8utumz8ltyl P�ggazlt[ aql (Z) `.uo!lemdazd
asBa nr ooua8!pp s,,fyltd Sutnom all ([) :�urpnlau! [ern a jo aaatnu!luoa a zoj slsanbaz 8u!ltnp;.�a u!
stoloej moj zap!suoa slmo7 ' fi!unwullpail!p:nb jo uo!uasse s,piu A puuzagsRigy uan!9 X[ietaadsa
kr.,Aoos!p lanpuoa of su!e[uaz awil alenbnpeui asneoaq papaau s[ juin jo aauenugaoo V
panu!luo0 aq pinogS Itla.i. 'iI
GVA'Q-LIEOR-+J-Y1:I :'oy aerj
'1e ra'wcaalsSlnOio nmol �A al4n9,0
TT to L abed 17TOZ/ET/901az!aod 4S-13 uo paaalu3 TV luawnoo0 WW4-LTEOS-^o-VT 6 ase0
Case 9:14-cv-80317-DMM Document 41 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/13/2014 Page 8 of 11
O'Boyle i. Town of Gulf Streant, at at.
Case No.: 1:t4-cv-80317-DIVJM,
the parties only had 123 days to conduct discovery into the newly raised claims and facts. 11te
Defendants submit, therefore, that there is inadequate time to have the issue of qualified immunity
determined and for the parties to conduct discovery into the newly -raised claims and allegations in
the First Amended Complaint. For these regions, the Defendants request a continuance of trial and
issuance of new scheduling order.
In addition, all of the relevant factors support granting a continuance of the trial in this case.
The Defendants have moved for the continuance within a short time of the filing of the First
Amended Complaint, which expanded the claims and facts, and of the filing of the Motion to
Dismiss, which raised the defense of qualified immunity. Granting the continuance will allow the
parties adequate time to have Ute issue of qualified immunity determined and to conduct discovery.
Neither the parties nor the Court will be sigtufieantly inconvenienced if continuance is granted as
more than five months remain before the currently scheduled trial docket. Finally, the Plaintif i'will
not be prejudiced by the requested continuance as the election only occurred in March 2014, the case
was only recently filed, and the Plaintiff has yet to respond to the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.
Local Rule 7.1(a)f3): The undersigned (Hudson C. Gill, Esquire) conferred with the attorney
for the Plaintiff(Ryan L. Witmer, Esquire) regarding the relief sought in this motion, and can advise
that the Plaintiff objects to some of the relief requested and intends to file a response.
WHEREFORE, Defendants, TOWN OF GULF STREAM, IWIL A 4 THRASHER, and
GARRET WARD, request entry of an Order (1) staying discovery pending a ruling on the defense
of qualified immunity and (2) continuing the trial to a later trial to allow adequate time for
discovery, together with such additional relief the Court deems just and proper.
W wN�Yi+tiY inJOHRI
:sandag uorss.iwuroO SW
j} n of fgnd trelolq StIH MVS ilYJ1d
��03 umo�siad sI oq,� `-I-II'J'O i\OSQIII I ^q
`bIOZ `aunt jo .fepsrgl aur ojojaq pa9p2j.moLgao SBM;nJRIj
Wm 9tno2a7oj aq f
—14F
THO'O NOSQf1H
�.'��—�" '1HJ.'lt+td FLLIt+S .L[�'igd'd li'3HS2Ift3
'neap asnua of dlduns ao asodmd radordurr loj apalu outaq lou sr IE!4 jo oauunurluoo a aoj lsanbas
sluepuajaQ aql lagl Pau agpolmouy Lw jo lsoq aql ox alernooe pus and am .Golsrq luanpaaord
pus slaaj anoga aql Imp SCmfrad jo .Stlsuad mpan irwas .Sgataq `"171( 'O .NOSCInH `I
NOLLVOrdillaA
XINa-LI£11"i'I:I *'ON+BB,
'to 7a4mBallgjln`JJo unwy •n al,£olr.0
TT 10 6 abed VTOZ/ET/90 mcma asld uo palalu3 Tb luOulnDOQ WWO-LTE08-AO-tiT:6 8SeO
Case 9:14-cv-80317-DMM Document 41 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/1312014 Page 10 of 11
O'Boyle v. Town of Cuff Stream, tt al.
Case No.: 1:14-cs-80317-DIVINI
CE
MIFICATE OF SERVICE
I IIERF.BY CERTIFY that on this 13th day of June, 2014, 1 electronically filed die
foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/LCF. 1 also certify that the foregoing
document is being served this day on all counsel of record identified on the attached Service List
in the maturer specified via transmission of Notice of Electronic Filing generated by CYUECI'.
JOHNSON, ANSHI.h40, MURDOCH,
BURKE, PIPER & HOCHMAN, P.A.
Attorneys for Defendant
2455 East Sunrise Boulevard, Suite 1000
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33304
Telephone: (954) 463-0100
Facsimile: (954) 463-2444 .
A/ lludson C. Gill
JEFFREY L. HOCHMAN
Florida Bar Number: 902098
HUDSON C. GILL
Florida -Bar Number: 15274
10
Ii
woo•9qum@j%nwgaoll :11umH
6VVZ-£9V (V56) :allmisand
0010•£9V (b56) :auoydala,I,
sluepua;ao tql S,fawouV
VO£££ BPPold'alalumirl uod
0001 almS'p.meolnog esLnmg mg SSVZ
'V'd `NVWHJOH w dadri `mna
'IIJOCrdfM 'OYV-I3SNV 'NOSNHOf
g2i osa'Nwimool['-I'madaf
woo•.lajsoi-soua, n iouu ao, :lcnwH
00£S-OS9 (19S) :"d
000£-659 (195):auogd
ZOVEE T:I'gonag wP'd MAN
SLPE Xog 'o'd'OOT I onnS
oAuG aalRuld 91uoS 50S
SMUS W NOISIKHOf 'ii3ISOd'SJNOf
-bsa'2iO1' 'OJ.O'W 3NNVOf
.LS['I HJ A
ItiINQ-Lf£08-Aa•f•i T"N asap
'le Ia'wwijSil@olo uMo,L •A al.(og.O
oruurµ�vlal ogo�nnsaw :llewg
588"LS(K6):auogd
ZVV££'Id'9anag PlalhaaQ
anuQ.falua,7:POdAADN jSOAk g8ZI
'J'd KM- A1VT HTAOg,O aHI
'bSH 'VSHW INVAOIO
0o uui3mrlal. oqo Tull :lluwH
5889115(VS6) auoyd
J3pumid aoi bacuouV
ZVVEE Td `yonagplagiaaQ
aerrQ saluaO yodmaN Iso/A 98Z 1
'J'd IAMIJ 14AVI 3'IAOffA 31I.L
'Osa `- aw ua -I NVxx
na•ouys v#ffff99wEl:Enwg
LOSO-09£ (V56) :Xvd
SILE-OLS (M)MOM
JPlululdIojSOUIO V
ZbV££'m kIovaII PlauiaaQ
0AII(I t IIWO godaa,, l Isa& 08Z 1
"JNI'dnowD aDmIkIWO7
'Osa'VNM+Ii SfITIA1-LLawww
IT Io TT a6sd bTOZIET(9018�000 OSId uo palalu3 TV Iuawnoo0 WWO-LT£08-no-VT:6asst
LAW OFFICES
JOHNSON, ANSELMO, MURDOCH, BURKE, PIPER & HOCHMAN, P.A.
A PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION
DAMIAN H. ALBERT, PA.
J. MARCOS MARTINEZ
SCOTT D. ALEXANDER, PA
2455 EAST SUNRISE BOULEVARD
ROBERT E. MURDOCH
MICHAEL T. BURKE •1
SUITE 1000
MICHAEL R. PIPER'
R. PIPE
HUDSON C. GILL
FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33304
MICHAEL GER.PA.
ESMITH
JEFFREY L. HOCHMAN, PA.
CHRISTOPHER
E BRUCE JOHNSON'
CHRISTOPHER J. SMITH
P.A.
W. HAMPTON JOHNSON, IV
(115,)453,0,00 Bm rl
,
(305)9452DDO Dade
•eauwffFnil(n colt TlG[uxTY.tf
(561)UG-7448 WPB
unnru
RONALD P, ANSELMO
TELECOPIER (954) 483-2444
BURL F. GEORGE
January 16, 2015
Irma Cohen VIA EMAIL
Florida League of Cities
PO Box 538135
Orlando, FL 32853-8135
Re: Martin O'Boyle v. William Thrasher, et al.
Claim No.: GC2014079013
Our File No.: 00640/34359
Case No.: 14 -CV -81248
Dear Ms. Cohen:
Enclosed please find a copy of the Motion to Dismiss that we filed on behalf of William
Thrasher, Garrett Ward, and the Town of Gulf Stream in the above -referenced matter. The enclosure
attacks each of the claims asserted by the Plaintiff and requests that the Court dismiss each claim
with prejudice.
Please note that we have also prepared a motion seeking to impose sanctions against the
Plaintiff and his attorneys for engaging in frivolous litigation. We intend to serve that motion within
the next several days.
If you have any questions about the enclosure, please call me.
JLH/kme
Very truly yours,
0/f
Z MU4,
Jeffrey Hochman
For the Firm
Enclosure
cc: William Thrasher, Via Email, w/encl.
Garrett Ward, Via Email, w/encl.
Case 9:14-cv-81248-DTKH Document 20 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/14/2015 Page 1 of 18
MARTIN O'BOYLE,
Plaintiff,
V.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 9:14-cv-81248-DTKH
WILLIAM H. THRASHER (INDIVIDUALLY),
GARRET WARD (INDIVIDUALLY),
TOWN OF GULF STREAM,
Defendants.
DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED
COMPLAINT AND INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW
Defendants, TOWN OF GULF STREAM ("Town"), WILLIAM THRASHER ("Town
Manager Thrasher"), and GARRET WARD ("Chief Ward") (collectively "Defendants"), by and
through their undersigned attorneys and pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b), move for
entry of an Order dismissing the Amended Complaint filed by the Plaintiff, MARTIN O'BOYLE
("O'Boyle"), and state as follows:
1. MOTION
1. In this case, O'Boyle, a Town resident with a history of suing the Town and its
employees, attempts to converttwo brief interactions with Town Manager Thrasher and Chief Ward
into (1) a federal case by claiming Constitutional violations under the Fourth Amendment and (2)
a basis for establishing personal liability against Thrasher and Ward under state law for conduct that
occurred in the scope of their employment with the City. An analysis of the allegations contained
in the Amended Complaint [DE 16] ', establish as a matter of law, that the alleged conduct at issue
simply does not present a valid federal claim under the Fourth Amendment or provide any basis for
suing Town Manager Thrasher and Chief Ward in their individual capacities given Florida's
'O'Boyle's allegations in his Amended Complaint [DE 16] are nearly identical to his
allegations in his Complaint [DE 1-2].
is
'91lu 8Z ga `WWG-LI £o8 -A3
-4i •lu;a uiuo4S3lng3o umo•I• •A aI og,0 •aotlod3o3atg0 otp st pxuM iuupua32Q L
'S 1 3u 8Z gQ `WW(I-LI £08 -^o -ti
•Iu;a muaxlS3ln`J3o umoy •A aI og,0 •.taSuuuW umoy agi st.tagstnty;uupua3aQ •9
'b 1 lu 91 HG •3puo13 `J4uno0 gouag wttd ut pa;uool Altludtotunw u st umoy aqy 'S
sayaud aqy
SlJv3 a3931W ally AHO.ISIH `I Ma3302Id 'll
.tadoid puu;snl swaap ltno0 aq;
3atlai iaglm3 qons q;tm iaq;aSo; `g'IAOg,O 'g M.LaVW `33Rutuld aqi Aq Pal3 `9I gQ `;uteldwo0
papuauty aq; aotpnCazd q;tm Sutsstwstp .tapi0 uu 3o fqua;sanbai ,CIIn};aadsai `QgdM ygggd0
PUB `daHSVUH.L WVI IIIM `WVR-d.LS JJnD 30 NMOL `s;uupua3a0 `HHOJU I3HM
sa;ttitiS tPFold `(6)8Z'89L uotioas.tapun saaioldwa Itdtonmui o; paua3uoo
,Citunwwt ,Sxainit;s aq; awoaiano o; Itt3 iuttldwo0 oq; ut suot;uSallu aqy (t)
mosum 5utmollo3 oq; io3 passtwstp aq pinogs laanuq
puu;Inusse io3 pxuM3atg0 pus iagsuagy aaSuuuyg umoy;sultse swtulo a;u;s aqy y
'f,itltqutl ludtotunw Sutgsgquisa io3 stseq ou st aaagy (q)
put `.;uawpuawy gltno3 ag; a;utote;ou pip;onpuoa paSallu s.PitM3atg0 (u)
:suosuai 5utmollo3 aq; jo3 passtwstp aq pinogs ivawpuauty gltnod
aq; 3o not;Mote ut (IA;unoO) uostad put (A ;uno0) ivawnoop s,21iog,0 3o sainztas iadoidwt
AIP9210119 aq; .to3 £861 § 'O•S'f1 Zb npun umoy aq; isutuSO swtuto Itiap93 aqy £
•,Citunwwt pagtltnb o; Pal;Rua st PiuM 3atg0 (q)
put `.ivawpuauty ql nod aq; a;utote;ou ptp ;onpuoa paSallt s,piuM 3atg0 (u)
:suostai 2?utmollo3 aq; io3 passtwstp aq pinogs ;uawpuawy gltno3
agi JO uot;ttote ut (Al;uno0) uosaad puu ()II;unoO);uawnoop s,al,fog,O3o sainztas .tadoidwt
,CIP32allt atR .to3 £861 § 'O'S,fl Zb lopun piuM 3atg0 ;sutuSt swtuta Ittapa3 aqy Z
•aotpnfold q;tm iututdwo0 aq; sstwstp put -- saaColdwa
sit puu umgl, aq; ssexuq put;tnsmul u aw;ot3nuuw o; apiog,0 ,Cq uo33a aagiout -- st it;ugm ao3
utuldwoOpapuatttyagiaztaooaipinogs�mo0aqy•saatoldwa;uaunuae02103f4tunwwifao;tgt;s
gT 10 Z 962d STOZ/bT/TO 1aI000 CIS -H u0 p9aalu3 OZ;uawn0o4 HNl4-8bZT8-AO-qT:6 aseO
Case 9:14-cv-81248-DTKH Document 20 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/14/2015 Page 3 of 18
8. O'Boyle is a resident of the Town. O'Boyle v. Town of Gulf Stream, et al.,
14-cv-81250-KAM, DE 16 at 13.
The Plaintiff's Litigation History with the Town
9. Since May2013, O'Boyle has initiated, including the current proceeding, at leastfour
federal lawsuits against the Town or its employees and elected officials. In O'Boyle v. Town of Gulf
Stream, 13-cv-80530-DMM ("O'Boyle P'), O'Boyle sued the Town claiming that certain political
paintings on his home constituted protected speech and that the Town's efforts to enforce its code
of ordinances as to the paintings violated his rights under the First Amendment. See 13-cv-80530-
DMM, DE 1. After the Court denied O'Boyle's motion for a preliminary injunction and a temporary
restraining order, see 13-cv-80530-DMM, DE 28, the parties filed a stipulation for dismissal, and
the Court dismissed the case with prejudice. 13-cv-80530-DMM, DE 45, 47.
10. In O'Boyle v. Town of Gulf Stream, et al., 14-cv-80317-DMM ("O'Boyle
O'Boyle sued the Town, Town Manager Thrasher, and Chief Ward under federal and state law based
upon the Town's efforts to enforce its sign ordinance against campaign signs during O'Boyle's
unsuccessful attempt to secure a seat on the Town commission. 14-cv-80317-DMM, DE 28. In
O'Boyle 11 the Honorable Donald M. Middlebrooks granted the motion to stay discovery filed by
the Town, Town Manager Thrasher, and Chief Ward pending a ruling on their motion to dismiss
which asserted qualified immunity on behalf of Town Manager Thrasher and Chief Ward. 14-cv-
80317-DMM, DE 48. On November 24, 2014, Judge Middlebrooks granted Chief Ward and Town
Manager Thrasher's motion to dismiss on the basis of qualified immunity stating, "To hold Thrasher
personally liable for acting well within the scope of his discretional authority in this context would
induce precisely the harm qualified immunity is designed to prevent." See 14-cv-80317-DMM, DE
49 at 27.
11. On September 12, 2014, O'Boyle filed suit against Town Mayor Scott Morgan and
an attorney hired to represent the Town, Robert A. Sweetapple, Esquire. O'Boyle v. Morgan, et al.,
14-cv-81250-KAM ("O'Boyle '),In O'Boyle III, O'Boyle asserted claims against Mayor Morgan
and Sweetapple for slander, libel, First Amendment retaliation, "civil conspiracy," conspiracy to
commit slander, and conspiracy to commit First Amendment retaliation, 14-cv-81250-KAM, DE 1-2.
Mayor Morgan and Mr. Sweetapple have filed motions to dismiss.
b
LI I le 91 3Q .: eaae outgoeui Mm oql woxj,I3t;utuld aql pappFo Xlgtoao;
pue spueq glop [ppm mogla pue lsum lg8u s jjquteld PaggeiS uagl„ PjeM 3atg0 OZ
'(PaPPu
stsegduia) 91 � Ie 91 g(I ,-asap dgxeau a;o saSpo dings aql oluo unq Suptoomt lsowle Apoq ologm
stq gltm [apCog,O] pangs„ pue lasdn outeoaq paeM3atgO `aldog,O of SwpxoaoV 6I
9I SI ILIL Iu 9I 3(I 'Iuownoop oql qu.>$ of pueq gal oo4 stq pasn alSog,O
lnq ,'Iuownoop aql Sutnaupt wog [wtq] luanaid of uuuato3 pue Isum puuq-lgJu„ s,aldog,O
PagquA piuM;atgO `iatdoo agl3o ino luawnoop aqT azul of paldwallu oIXog,O sV '8I
'SI `ZI 6le
9I gQ •patdoo sum It axolaq.tapiO oql DA9143J XIluotsXgd of poldwauu pue „`pawtgai pue poloadsut
dluo `patdoo luawnoop oql aneq of Iuasuoo lou p[p aq legl [p.teM 3a[gO] polotulsut Alleoontnbaun
puu ,tlalutpawwt„ apiog,O `japiO aql Moo of Tuam pmAk 3atgO uagm °ianamoH 'LI
I I ) Ie 9I 3Q 'Iuawnoop agl wtq
PaPngPuu,,[wtq]PaStlgo33tluiuldagl„`aapxOaqlloodstuolpailsePreM3atgOiaBV '9I
6-8
Z le g l gQ (,Ctap.[O„ saguutaiaq) „•sSutpltnq otlgnd ut oltgm odeloaptn of f,1tltqu [stq] Sutuioouoo
Aosta f mapl',ClunoO oquullV wog aapto lino e„ 3o,Cdn a paonpoid apiog,O `llt:H umoy ut suosaad
paooa[ oaptn ol,Cluoglnu s,al iog,O to3 umo,I, ogl,Cq slsonboi snotnaid of asuodsoi uI 'Si
'6 &W
9I 3Q 'satlintloe stq wlg „aletoosse„ ue peq apiog,O `wolsn stq Alluasedde st sV 171
'6I `S 11 le 9I 3Q .: soldwes ite a3lel„ „uetotugoal i[u uealo„ a Sutneq
;o asodand agl ao3 aoWo s,31aa1O s,umol agl paialuo al,fo&O `bIOZ SI (Inf uO '£I
luaplaul aatdoO aq,I,
Sutpaaaoad lua i mO aql of Sululnaad slae3 paSallV
111 11Iu Z -I gQ III a` I H „'mu -I spiooa-d otlgnd ag13o suotlulotn
paSalle of Sutlulai umoy aql IsuteSu sltnsmel Z ut paSeSua Alluann„ SEM `bIOZ `6 aagwaldaS3o se
puu „`mu -I sptooa-d otlgnd atp jo suotlelo[n paSalle io3 umoy otp IsuteSe sltnsmel 6Z,il3luw[xoxdde„
palg seq `uotss[wpt: umo stq ,Sq 'olAog,O `som leiapa3 agl of leuoi4!ppu ul 'Zi
8T Io b abed STOZ/bT/TO Ia>ioo4 OS -1d uo paialu3 OZ IuawnOG HHld-8bZT8-n3-bT:6 aseO
Case 9:14-cv-81248-DTKH Document 20 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/14/2015 Page 5 of 18
21. Chief Ward advised O'Boyle "that he was being disruptive and that he would be
arrested if he did not immediately leave the building." DE 16 at 118.
The Camera Incident
22. On September 8, 2014, O'Boyle entered the Town hall "to conduct pubic business,
mainly inspect and/or attempt to retrieve public records." DE 16 at 156.
23. As usual, O'Boyle "was accompanied by his associate who filmed the interaction."
DE 16 at 157.
24. According to O'Boyle, Town Manger Thrasher "became irate with Plaintiffregarding
a discussion about public records." DE 16 at 158.
25. O'Boyle claims that "[alt one point, [Town Manager Thrasher] took an aggressive
'pre -combat' stance and extended his arm towards [O'Boyle's] chest as if he were going to push and
make contact with [O'Bolye's] left breast." DE 16 at 159.
26. After O'Boyle began filming Thrasher with the video camera, "[s]uddenly, [Town
Manager] stuck is nose into the camera making contact with the camera and thus [O'Boyle]." DE
16 at 163.
III. MEMORANDUM OF LAW
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) requires that a complaint contain "a short and plain
statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). While
Rule 8(a) does not require "detailed factual allegations," it "requires more than labels and
conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." Bell Atl.
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations omitted). "Factual allegations must be
enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level, on the assumption that all the allegations
in the complaint are true ... " Id. at 555 (citations and footnote omitted).
In Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009), the Supreme Court explained that mere
speculation is insufficient under Rule 8:
[T]he pleading standard Rule 8 announces does not require "detailed
factual allegations," but it demands more than an unadorned, the -
defendant -unlawfully -harmed -me accusation. A pleading that offers
"labels and conclusions" or "formulaic recitation of the elements of
a cause of action will not do." Nor does a complaint suffice if it
tenders "naked assertion[s]" devoid of"further factual enhancement."
E
'((ZOOZ'1t0 q1t I) b61I `8811 P£'d
b8Z oieuad •A aa -1 Sutlonb) (OIOZ'i!O qll I) ££L `bZL P£'d 809 all!AslanH3o AJID •A mmoxg ,„'M9I
Iuxapa3 ag; 8ut;ulotA Sigutmoml st oqm auo .to;ua;admoout ,Clutuld aq;;nq 119;tns moij 8ut;oa;oid
`uot;u8tgt 8utssuauq ao 4!1!qu!I I9uosiad;o na3 ag;;noq;tm saunp,Ciuuot;aiostp.ttogl;no Kum o;
slut3Wo;uautwan08 Mollu, o; popua;ut st ;ms utoz f4pnunut Pag!luno,, '((Z861) 96£ PZ -Pg "I £L
LZLZ';O'S ZOI `8I8 `008'S'fl LSb P[uia z)td •AMoIx9g8ut;onb) (60OZ) 999 PZ 'PEI "I ZLI `808';O
'S 6ZI`I£Z`£ZZ'S'fl999 uuqullu` O'Auosivad,,-uAiotnjanugp;nomuosiada1quosuaiugotgM;o
s;qSu luuot;nit;suoo.to,C.to;tqu;s pagstlqu;sa,iltua13 a;u101A;ou s2op;onpuo3.ttag; su.tujosut sa89mup
I!A!o S03 S;!I!g911 mog, slu13[jj0;uautuiano8 sloolcud C;tunutmt pagtlunb3o ouu;oop agZ„
,C;!unmml PaB!luna o; PaIIRug PiBM3a!g0 '1
'14!I!qutl Indtotunm
io; stsuq ou st azaq; (£) pu9 `[4tuntumt paggunb o; pal pua st pmM 3a!g0 (Z) 1uopn;!suo0 aq;
a;ulotA lou saop;onpuoo pa8a[Ie oq; (l) asnuoaq posstmstp oq pinogs smtulo Iuaapa3 s,alLog,o 'SS
-8Z jj lu 9I IIQ '(IA puu Al s;uno0) ;uauiAom luotsSgd stq;oa.ttp ao;o!4sai o; iapzo ut Mogla puu
;sty [s,alLog,O] [8ut]quj2„ s,PiuM3a!g0 (Z) Pau `(A puu lH sluno0) „`[l!] gotuos o; PIuM botgD]
jo3;uasuoostgpa;uutuua;„aldog,0iagu;uoumoops,al,Cog,Ouin;aidla;u[pttututo;amltu; pa5allu
s,ptuM;atgO (1) io3;uampuautV glmod aq;3o not;ulotA ut sainztas ltgMulun io3 IA puu `A `Al
`III s4uno0 ut umol aql puu ptuM3atg0;sutu89 £861 §.tapun smtulo luiopa3 suassu oIXog,O
stu1910 18-1311ad P!IuA ON -V
'(800Z'i!O III I I) bL6 `SS6 PE'd 9I9'losuo0 ro0 ugnog
ulo0-9300 •A stAvU :(pagtmo not;u;onb Iuuia;ut) SSS lu 'S -f1 OSSIq`� , sisal;! g3tgM
uodn spunoiS aq; puu st uuulo aq;;ugM3o oogou nu3;uupua;ap ay; an18„;snm;ut9ldutoo u `119ian0
'6L -8L9 lu 'PI ,*SuotsnlOuoo uutp atom 8utg1ou q;tM pammjp;utuld u ao3 Stan03s1P 3o sloop aq;
3loolun;ou saop„ (u)8 aln-d '8L9;E'S'fI 995 l`� ,: pogolp, lonpuoostm oq;.to3 alg9tl st;uupuajap
aq; ;uq; amonjut o14uuosum aq; Amp o; l moo ag; smollu ;uq; ;ua;uoo lutgou; spuald .Ilt;utuld
aq; uagm f4!j!gtsn9ld lutouj s9q un913 V„ '(9961 lu '13 -S LZI `OLS;E 'S'fI 05Slq`� 8ut;onb)
8L9 19 'S'fl 999 I` uT ,,,-aouj s;t uo algcsn9ld st;9g;3at!ax o; tuplo u a;u;s, o; `azul su pa;d0009
`.tagum lutgo93;uatogjns muluoo;snm;utulduloo 9 `sstutstp o; uot;om 9 antAins o[l]„ `sngy
•(pagtm0 su0t;u;to I9ma;ut) 8L9;u'S'f195S l
8T 10 9 abed STOZ/bT/TO laMa00 OSId uo paia;u3 OZ;uautn30G HA-LCJ-8bZT8-A3-bT:6 ase0
Case 9:14-cv-81248-DTKH Document 20 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/14/2015 Page 7 of 18
To establish eligibility for qualified immunity, "a government official first must show that
he was performing a discretionary function at the time the alleged violation of federal law occurred."
Hawthorne v. Sheriff ofBroward Cnty., 212 F. App'x 943, 946 (11th Cir. 2007). The discretionary
function inquiry is focused on whether the acts in question "are of a type that fell within the
employee's job responsibilities." Holloman ex rel. Holloman v. Harland, 370 F.3d 1252,1265 (11th
Cir. 2004). Courts must determine "whether the government employee was (a) performing a
legitimate job-related function (that is, pursuing a job-related goal), (b) through means that were
within his power to utilize." Id. The Court must consider the general nature of the actions in
question, temporarily disregarding an allegedly unconstitutional purpose. Id. at 1266; see also Gray
ex rel. Alexander v. Bostic, 458 F.3d 1295,1303 (11th Cir. 2006) ("'[A] court must ask whether the
act complained of, if done for a proper purpose, would be within, or reasonably related to, the outer
perimeter of an official's discretionary duties."').
Defendant Ward, the Town's Chief of Police, was clearly operating within his discretionary
authority. As a law enforcement officer, Chief Ward has the authority to engage in lawful seizures
of persons or documents, apply force when necessary, and to maintain order on Town property. As
a result, the complained of conduct (i.e., the alleged seizure of the Order and O'Boyle) during an
encounter relating to O'Boyle's effort to take air samples in the Clerk's Office is within the scope
of Chief Ward's discretionary authority.
Where the government official has demonstrated the performance ofa discretionary function,
the burden shifts to the plaintiff to demonstrate "that the official is not entitled to qualified immunity
by showing (1) that the defendant has committed a constitutional violation and (2) that the
constitutional right the defendant violated was 'clearly established' at the time the violation
occurred." Hawthorne, 212 F. App'x at 946 (quoting Crosby v. Monroe Cnty., 394 F.3d 1328,1332
(11th Cir. 2004)). These two factors can be considered by district courts in either order. Pearson.
555 U.S. at 236.
a. No Constitutional Violation
L No Unreasonable Seizure of the Order
Chief Ward's temporary "seizure" of O'Boyle's Order after O'Boyle "withdrew" his consent
does not violate the Fourth Amendment. Clearly, "seizures of property are subject to Fourth
FA
sa;ej;suomap sjo;ae;;uenalaj arp;o Suloueleq a `;uauipuauiy q;jnod aqI japan ajnzias lueag!als
LIIeSaI a pa;nipsuoo ;onpuoa s,pieM 3aigD Iegl pug o; ajam IjnOj ag; 3i uana `puoaaS
•;uaUupuauid yino3 uiq;rm pa[pogma suogo;)Iojd
;umgiuSis aql azilumn q pinom asmioglo pug oy •axe;s;e sisaja;ui oq;3o ssalpjeSaj uorleigrn
Iuampuaury gunod a 30 lanai aqI o; asu lou scop 6ldmis umejpglim Xllegjan uaaq aneq;uasuoa
jags spuoaas 3o jauem a jo3 ;uamnaop a 3o uolssassod SuineH •japj0 agl3o uolssassod uleS-aj
o; Ijoyla Irgssaaans al Sog,O pus luasuoa siq gucmeapq;!m sem aq;eq;;uacua;e;s s,al Cog,O uaam;aq
pasdela goigm oun;;o lunome;auq aqI jo3 japj0 aqI 3o uolssassod pauielaj ,iluo pjeM 3aig0
paidoa sum ;i aio;aq;uamnoop aq; anau;ai o; alge sem ag;eg; sagaile aI Sog,0 aautS ' I £ I lu 9I dQ
,; Palau [oq] uagm jaded aq; SftgMoa umj3,teme spuoaas Z ueq; ssal sem„ 3aig0;egl sailaile al,Sog,0
;uampuamd gajno3 aq; a;¢loinIou pip `spuoaas mai a Aluo panlonui aneq o; paSalle si legm jo3
`japj0 aq;3o uoqua;aj kmluamom s,pjeAk3aiga;eq;;luigns s;uepua3aQ aq; `;uauipuamd ql mo3 aqI
aleloin,iem ajnzias kiL,joduia; a uana,Sjoarli 1e8a13o anssi ajnd a su lugl anu si li oligm `Is.n3
pI ,; sosodmd asogl
alenloayla o; papaau,ilgeuoseaj anvil aqI„ of se osis;nq `;uouiaajgjuo mel jo spaau arp;o IgSil ul
,iluo lou pa;enlena aq;snui;mp „ Idaauoo algixag„ a si f4j2dojd leuosjad;o uoilualop ag13o glSual
aql asneoaq `(pappe sisegduia) (9891¢ 'S'fl OLb `ate Suilla) LZS le P£'3 Oib ;1 auva g „`uolaidsns
algeuoseaj uo pagilsnf aq uea ajnzias a jaq;agm Suimuua;ap ui Sax si ,s;sajalai luampuaury q4jno3
s,lenpinipui aql;o voisenui ag13o fSlinajq ay[y]•(pauluio suoi;e;onb) SZI;e 'S'fl 99b uasgoou f
,; uoisn4ui ag; ,S3ilsnC of paSalie s;sajalui le;uammanoS ag; 3o aoueljodmi„ agl ;smeSe lenpinipm
agl uo „uoisnjlul aql jo fSulenb pus ojnleu„ arg aaueleq Isnui lino a `sngy •(pauimo suollelonb) •pl
slsajalui alenud pus leluaunuanoS;o Suloueleq In}ama„ u Aq pouimjalap si ssaualgeuosea d
LIEe'S'f1905 lePioSSugmas Ievoilnli;suoa
aninjns llim;i `algeuoseaj si ajnzias a se Suoi os `janamoH '(£861) 01 I PZ'Pd "ILL `L£9Z';D 'S £OI
`969'S'fl Z9b aaeld •n sa;e1S Pallufl P]gaae `•(b86l) S8 PZ'Pd * I08 `ZS9l '10'S b0i `£1I `601 'S'fl
99b uasgoael• •n sa;elS pa;lull ,-Isojolut fjossassod s,lenpinipui ue q;im a3uaja3jalui lrgSulu¢am
amos„ si ajagl se Suol os `luampuamy yuno3 ag;;o adoos aqI uig;im aje sajnzias Almodmal uana
`janoajoN '(Z661) OSB PZ'Pd "I IZI `8£9 ID *S £II `89 `9S'S'fl 909 IlI ' u0 xooD •n lePioS
aoeld uaxeI segluatupuourV arp jo Suluuaui aql uig;im gojeas ou gSnogl uana,iullnjas Iuampuamy
8110 8 abed STOZ/bT/TO 101000 OS'1d uo pajalu3 OZ;uawnaoQ HA-LG-8bZT8-n3-17T:6 aseO
Case 9:14-cv-81248-DTKH Document 20 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/14/2015 Page 9 of 18
that Chief Ward's conduct was reasonable. Here, O'Boyle had no expectation of privacy in the
Order. He alleges that the document was a copy of an order from a court in Atlantic County, New
Jersey pertaining to filming in public buildings. DE 16 at $ 10. O'Boyle brought the Order to Town
hall for the very purpose of demonstratine his authority to video record. DE 16 at $ 9. In fact,
O'Boyle showed its contents to the Town clerk and, when asked, also showed the Order to Chief
Ward for his inspection. DE 16 at % 10-11. O'Boyle's willingness to publish the Order's contents
to the Town clerk and Chief Ward for inspection negates any expectation of privacy needed to
support a valid claim under the Fourth Amendment.
In addition, Chief Ward would have been justified in whatever minimal intrusion occurred
during the several seconds that he retained the document. O'Boyle alleges that Chief Ward's entire
purpose for retaining the document was to make a copy of it, an entirely reasonable act given
O'Boyle's reliance upon the Order as his justification for uninterrupted video recording while in
Town Hall. Chief Ward's seconds -long seizure of the Order for purposes of making a copy certainly
outweighs O'Boyle's virtually non-existent expectation of privacy in a document that is -- according
to the Amended Complaint — a copy of a public record. This balancing of interests establishes that
Chief Ward did not violate O'Boyle's Fourth Amendmentrightwhen he brieflyretained a document
which O'Boyle intended Chief Ward to read and rely upon in his official capacity.
ii. O'Boyle was Never Seized
Chief Ward never seized the Plaintiff. "When the actions of the police do not show an
unambiguous intent to restrain ... a seizure occurs if, `in view of all of the circumstances
surrounding the incident, a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave."'
Brendlin v. California 551 U.S. 249, 255, 127 S. Ct. 2400, 168 L. Ed. 2d 132 (2007) (quoting
United States v. Mendenhall 446 U.S. 544, 554, 100 S. Ct. 1870, 64 L. Ed. 2d 497 (1980))
(punctuation revised). "This is necessarily an imprecise test." United States v. De La Rosa, 922
F.2d 675, 678 (11th Cir. 1991). Courts consider "whether a citizen's path is blocked or impeded;
whether identification is retained; the suspect's age, education and intelligence; the length of the
suspect's detention and questioning; the number of police officers present; the display of weapons;
any physical touching of the suspect, and the language and tone of voice of the police." Id. (citing
United States v. Puslisi, 723 F.2d 779,783 (11th Cir. 1984)). The "ultimate inquiry" is whether the
2
0l
•luaupuauy gljno3 oq; jopun pjuM3aig0 ,Cq pazlas janau
sum aq `oAual o; aaq s,iumlu sum oIXog,O aaulS •pa8ujnooua 8uiaq sum oAual o; uopaag siq;uq;
lnq `auiq Sue lu anual o; aag sum altog,0luq;,Cluo lou suuguoa uaju agl 3Au01;ou pip 3g31 pa;sauu
aq Plnom olAog,0lugl luowaluls s,PjsM3aig0 '8I I lu 91 gQ ,: ifuiplmq aql anual,Slaluipauui
jou pip aq 3i palsauu aq pinom aq luq; pus anildwsip 8uiaq sum aq lugl„ 2iiog.0 Plol PjuM
3aig0 `oifog,0 o; 8uipl000y -ouit uu;s anual o; aaij sum aq luq; panailaq anuq pinom uol;lsod
s,3lXog,0 ut uosjad olquuosuaj y •;uampuauiy gljnol aql spun ainzias u auuilsuoo lou ptp
Iluq umoy oq; uiog oiXog,O 8uiljo3so pus ;sum s,al iog,O3o 8uigquj8 pa8allu s,PjuM3aig0
(uoi;slolA;uaupuauy glu03ljno•3
pa8alls o; 8uwajoi) (ZOOZ 'ji0 qli I) 81701 `S170I P£'3170£ sAvingasmH •A slsoosd •uoilnlgsuo0
aq; Aq;ou „mul [aluls] dq pouajuoo sl kiauuq u Bons mo.g aaj3 oq o; 4g8u„ aql luq; paululdxo suq
;mono gluanalg aql uang •0££-6Z£ It x,ddy •3 I8I aaS •,Smfui iluulnsw oql puu julujlsaj lsols qd
;auq aql 8uipuulsglimlou „`ajnzias u;ou sum mogla s,q;tug 8utgquj8 Apiuluawou3o lou KMI!los
aql„ lugl8uiploq `pauugju linojTO Pj?ql aql '6. 19 ['IM] `919917 SIXH-1 I CI -S'fl 90OZ •oouosoid
s,luua8jas aql anual pus aag 31uaiq o; alqu Alldwojd sumgilululd aq; luq; a;ndsip ou 8uipug ja{Iu
sluupuajap oql of luaui8pnfkmwwns 8uilusj8 `omzias u ss llnussu aql;o uoi;uzualosiugo siq pa;oafaj
lino lai4siP aqL '(90OZ 'JI0 P£) LZ£ x,ddy •3 181 `Pd3s '(SOOZ ud Clhl) Z* lu `909E95I 'IM
SOOZ `9IS917 SIXH'I'IsIQ'S'f1 SOOZ `L660 AO 170:I'AIO'OK nuajng aoilod loll u0 •ud snjaS •uai)
3o 1, a� Q •A q;IuiS •;uauluag luolpaw 3o sgluou puu japinogs poulujds u uI Sulllnsal `wi palulaq
put: moqla siq pagqui8;uua8ias ooilod u uaqm pazlas sum aq paululo ui a uluunl,Csuuad u `alduuxa
jo3 •(snolosuooun jii;ululd oq; pajapuai,ilusjodwal puaq aql of molq wogm alnzios 8uipug) (90OZ
'ji.7 ML) SZL `IZL P£'3 LSb qja;us0 •A opanaod glim `(uOl;uala;ls IuaisAgd jal.lu Aumu p2311 um
,,Sja;uipouui„ lootgjo putiggululd ajagm ajnzias ou 8uipug oiojaq ,,,aajo3 luois iqd jo uoiluoilddu
lsalgS!ls aql, glim sm000 amzias„ lugl luawaju 8uiloafal) (£OOZ 'jI.7 glL) 90-509 1009 P£'3
Ib£ uosuju`� oj� •luawpuouy gllno3 aq; aluoildui lou scop aaio3 Iuaisxgd jo asn
gutloog aql--uoiluolap;o u!oipui luiluulswnojio laq;oAuu;o aouasqu ui—lugl oziu800aj slmo0
'85ZI is P£'3 8Sb jalliLQ „•an931
o; oal3;ou sum aq loa3 [I3llululd aql] ajluu pinom;scp uolonoo„3o suuau u su oojo; pasn jao33o
8T 10 OT abed STOENT/TO l DOCI CIS -H uo pajalu3 OZ luawnoo0 Hila-8bZT8-A3-17T:6 aseO
Case 9:14-cv-81248-DTKH Document 20 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/14/2015 Page 11 of 18
Moreover, Chief Ward's alleged use of minimal physical contact to escort O'Boyle from the
copy machine area does not convert Chief Ward's conduct into a seizure. As the Eleventh Circuit
explained, the "right to be free from such a battery is conferred by [state] law," not by the
Constitution and therefore would not establish a constitutional violation. See Dacosta, 304 F.3d at
1048; see also McCoy, 341 17.3d at 605-06; Smith, No. Civ.1:04 CV 0997, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
46516, 2005 WL 1563505, at *2, *9; Smith, affil, 181 F. App'x at 329-330. For these reasons,
O'Boyle has failed to allege any conduct by Chief Ward that violated the Fourth Amendment.
b. Not Clearly Established
Even if the Court were to find that O'Boyle had arguably alleged that Chief Ward violated
his constitutional rights, Chief Ward remains entitled to qualified immunity. In assessing qualified
immunity, courts must determine "whether the state of the law ... gave [the officers] fair warning
that their alleged treatment ... was unconstitutional." Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730, 741 (2002).
"The applicable law is clearly established if the preexisting law dictates, that is, truly compels, the
conclusion for all reasonable, similarly situated public officials that what Defendant was doing
violated Plaintiffs' federal rights in the circumstances." Evans v. Stephens, 407 F.3d 1272, 1282
(11th Cir. 2005) (alteration and internal quotes omitted) (emphasis added). "It must be judged from
the perspective of a reasonable officer on scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight."
Estate of Kesinger v. Herrington , 381 F.3d 1243, 1248 (1 lth Cir. 2004).
A government official may still have qualified immunity if he or she violates the
constitutional rights of another. Chesser v. Sparks, 248 F.3d 1117 (11th Cir. 2001). Once a
government official establishes that he was exercising his discretionary authority in performing a
contested act, "the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that qualified immunity is not appropriate."
Lee 284 F.3d at 1194; Montoute v. Can 114 F.3d 181, 184 (11th Cir. 1997). Qualified immunity
"gives ample room for mistaken judgments by protecting all but the plainly incompetent and those
who knowingly violate the law." Hunter v. Bryant, 502 U.S. 224, 229 (1991); Jackson v. Sauls. 206
F.3d 1156,1164 (11th Cir. 2000)("qualified immunity shields a § 1983 defendant from discretionary
acts, as long as the discretionary acts do not violate clearly established federal or statutory or
constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.'.
11
ZI
aqs 3o 3lugaq uo 2ut;ou oq o; plus aq p;noo aqs ao aq ;uq; 3luux guns 3o Iutogjo uv Aq pa;uaao
.to `,t;tludtotunui aq;,Cq pa;dopu Allutogjo st;ug; uotstoap u s! ,(otlod V„ •uoslad sillio npi0 all;3o
sainzios iadosdun ut 2ut2u2ua3o Aoilod u pa;dopu umoy oq;;uq; a2allu;ou scop al iog,0 •;onpuoo
pa2allu s,piuM 3atg0 io; ,tit;tqutl ludiotunui 2utgst;quisa io3 stsuq ou st aiaq; 'puooaS
£861 § iapun,ut;tqutl ludtotunut ou aq uuo axag; `oot;ulotn luuot;tqusuoo
2upfuapun ou St atatg 20u[S quampuamV gtmo3 all; a;ulotn sou saop ;onpuoo pa2allu s,pxuM
3atg0 `anoqu pautuldxa su `;sn3 •suosuat DAM ;sualIT! io; IRJ stutulo £861 § s,91Ao9,0
•IZI IE'S•fl S8t, 5[t� ojujd .,-[f;tludioiunui] aqs io; m3luunCatlod
luug u 3o s;oe pa;uadai all; g2nottl; ttmoys [Uqudtotunm] all; 3o aououid .m uto;sno lutog;oun
un (Z) io Sotlod [ludtommu] pa;u2;nutoid Allutag;o au (;) tag;ta A3t;uapt :dotlod [s,A;qudtotunut]
e gst;qu;sa o; gotgm fq spog;am om; sug 33t;tnuld V>, •(L66I lt0 glil) 68b `88b P£'3
LII uo;;tmug a3lu-13o umo•1• •n IlamaS `•(SOOZ •it0 a,i I) ZSI I P£•3 LOb `0puulz030I0 •n opuo1aW
`•b69 lu •SYl 9£b IlauOW ,; danfut aqs s;otgut `,Sotlod IupWo ;uasaxdai o; plus aq Slnu3 ,Cute
ssou io s;otpa osogm osogl Aq xo sio3luutmul s;t,Cq apum taq;agm `wo)sna io Xotlod s,;uaumxan02 u;o
not;noaxa uagm,,,Cluo £861 § iapunalqutl st,ipog;u3mua3n02lu301V '(500Z'ii0 qli I) IZZI `80ZI
P£•3 £Ob uotII!C •n is o00 ,; mo;sno.to S3god;uamuian02luto33o uu jo;Insw u su paumao s;g2u
luuot;tgt;suoo J0 uot;unudap u;uq; mogs o; uopmq aqs suq jputuld alp„ `£86l § lapun,ugudtotunut
L, ans o1, '(IOOZ) LOU `96ZI P£•3 I9Z E3100 -1-E O3o t0 •n ug3u0 •iouadns;uapuodsai;o
stsuq ay; uo £861 § iapun alqutl aq `.tanamoq `1011,Cu11111 '(8L61) 169 `899 -S-fl 90, 9-s192S IutooS
;o •; aQ •n Ilauoyq •s;g2u lumptit;suoo Im3pa; stq jo jjt;utuld u sanudap satogod io smo;sno s;t
3o auo 3o not;noaxa aq;3l £861 § tapun alqutl aq dluo Avut f4gudt3tuntu V •SS -£b J& Iu 91 gCl aaS
•;onpuoo pa2aliu s,PjuM3atg0 ao3 um0I 3q) Put £861 § iapun smtulo spassu alSog,O
,4tllqui'1 ludtalunW iq3 sisug ort 'Z
•,4tunmutt pagtlunb o; paliquo sutumai piuM 3atg0 `sat;uog;nu
pagst;gn;sa-Ilam asaq; uan10 •;uoutpuautV quno3 aqs a;ulotn lou pip piuM3atg0;uq; sa;Eusuoutap
anoqu pasta mul asEo all;3o lit? `,Cxuiuoo aqs oy •;uatupuautV gllno3 aqs pa;ulotn Eaiu outgoutu,Cdoo
aqs ulog cutq 2utiooso altgm aldog,0 g;im;ou;uoo luots,Cgd3auq puE;uasuoo sty matpq;tm,Cllugaan
apCog,O i2gE.t3pt0 OLD JO not;ua;ai,Ciu;uawotn s,pxuM3at90;ug; 2utmogs;uapaoaad tut;stxaoid
,Cuu Apluapt;ouuuo olAog,0 osnuoaq,C;tunutmt pagtlunb o; palipua suputw ptuM3atg0
8T 10 ZT @Bad STOZ/bT/TO 1@1000] GSld uo pata;u3 OZ;uawnaOQ HAiG-8bZT8-n3-bT:6 ase0
Case 9:14-cv-81248-DTKH Document 20 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/14/2015 Page 13 of 18
municipality." Sewell, 117 F.3d at 489. Generally, no single incident establishes a policy. Artubel
v. Colonial Bank Group, Inc., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60781 at *33 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 8, 2008)). Here,
O'Boyle is not claiming that the Town commission formally adopted a policy ofviolating the Fourth
Amendment's prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures. See DE 16.
O'Boyle has not sufficiently alleged that Chief Ward was a policy maker. The question of
who has final policymaking authority for a municipality is determined as a matter of state law. Jett
v. Dallas Indep. Sch. Dist., 491 U.S. 701737, 109 S. Ct. 2702, 105 L. Ed. 2d 598 (1989)(citing
Prapromik, 485 U.S. at 123). "Policymaking authority is not conferred by the mere delegation of
authority to a subordinate to exercise discretion." Wilson v. Miami -Dade County, No. 04 -23250 -
CIV -MOORS, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38875, at * 8 (S.D. Fla. Sept 19, 2005).
The allegations in the Amended Complaint are wholly conclusory and do not support the
contention that Chief Ward was responsible for establishing final city policy with respect to the
alleged seizure of documents and persons. See Hudson v. City of Riviera Beach, 982 F. Supp. 2d
1318, 1328 (S.D. Fla. 2013). That Chief Ward may have been a decision and policy maker as to
"public safety functions" for the Town "does not, without more, give rise to municipal liability based
on an exercise of that discretion." Pembaur 475 U.S. at 481-82. For the Town to be liable for Chief
Ward's alleged conduct, O'Boyle must allege that Chief Ward was "responsible for establishing final
policy with respect to the subject matter in question." Id. at 483. The Amended Complaint's failure
to include such allegations renders it fatally defective.
Moreover, the allegations in the Amended Complaint do not establish that the Town had a
custom of violating the Fourth Amendment where O'Boyle claim is based on two unique allegedly
improper seizures. "A custom is a practice that is so settled and permanent that it takes the force of
law," Sewell, 117 F.3d at 489, that is "shown through the repeated acts of a final policymaker for
the [city]." Grech v. Clayton County, Ga., 335 F.3d 1326, 1329 (11th Cir. 2003). A single incident
is not so pervasive as to be a custom or practice. City of Oklahoma v. Tuttle, 471 U.S. 808, 823-24,
85 L. Ed. 2d 791, 105 S. Ct. 2427 (1985) (plurality) (stating that when establishing liability for a
custom or practice, "proof of a single incident of unconstitutional activity is not sufficient to impose
liability under Monell."); Grech, 335 F.3d at 1330 n6; Artubel, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60781 at
*33; Criswell, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7517 at *15 ("No matter how egregious, evidence of
13
bi
(,; sstwsip o; uoilow u antnms of luaiogjnsut
alo3aiaq; puufiosnlouoo st glie3 puq ut pue Alsnomilem poloo muZnaoWo jugl uoue lags„ ,s33tluield
aql Iegl Rulplotl) (EIOZ 'IED gl1l) L08 `b08 'xddd 'Pa3 Sb5 me'l '' g `.(,'aogjns lou op
`s;uawaluls fnosnlouoo aiaw fq palioddns `uoilou3o asnuo u3o sluawalo 3gl3o slultaai aiegpuaigy„)
8L9 le 'S'fl 999 TL�ql TOS 'Iesstwstp antnins pue fltunwwt (L)(6)8Z'89L notlaas awoaiano
ol;uaiogjnsui ane piuSaisip Pt3lltm pue uoluum pue `glte3 peq `oatlew3o suoilu8allu p`,allioddnsun
pue fnosnlouoo gans `IanamoH 'SL `OL `99 `9Z `ZZ A le 91 3Q .,-fla3es pue s3g8tl uumnq
Io3 piegaisEP Itt3lltn% pue uoluum BuRtgtgxa nauuuw u ui pue `osodind snomiluw gltm `glte3 peq ut
flleuotlualut Palau„ PneM pue nagseigy sluupua3aQ oql legl `a8unSuul oleldialEoq lu3tluaP! AlletUntn
glim pue wtela mel a1e1s goua ui `sagolle olfog,o `iagsungy lailuuuW umol pue pieM3aigD se gons
saafoldwo Iudiotunw 01 paptnond fltunwwt fioltquls aql ptonu ol;dwalle luanedsung u UI
'IBIS *UH `(e)(6)8Z'89L §
'flnadoid io ',r4a3es `slg8u uuwng3o p uOaistp
Itt3lllm pue uoluum 2utliglgx2 Iouuew a ui Io asodmd snotoilew gum Io gliu3
peq ui poloe;ua8u io aafoldwa `Iaog;o gons ssalun `uot;oun3 Io;uatuSoldwa siq Io
iag3o adoos otp ut uotloe3o uotsstwo Io `;uana `;ae fue3o;lnsai a se pana33ns aJewep
no fnnCm fue Io3 uogou fuu ut;uepua3ap flied u se pawuu no liol ut alquil fpuuosnad
plaq aq llegs suotstntpgns slt3o fuu3o io olels agl3o;ua8u no `aafoldwa `Iaawo o[u]
:sa;els (e)(6)8Z'89L u0E333S alnlelS ePFold 'fial;uq pue llnusse mel alels io31agseig3, 138uueyq
umo,L puu pleM jai ]Sul On scatula sliasse alfog,p `}Cl pue `)� `� `ll `l slunoo ul
mu7 alulS iapun pauM pue iagseiq,L lsulu;lu f1!llgnill io3 sisug oM •g
'lonpuoo po0alle s,pneM 3atgD no3 olqutl umo ,
oql ploq o; siseq fuu pa8allu lou suq alfog,o `llnsoi a sy 'wolsno ledtatunw a awooaq o; se os
luammind puu paluas os st 1ug1 aogouid a gsilqulso louuuo alfog,p `suual Ieiaua8 avow ut sainzias
iadondwt iag;o o; gupulai suot;¢Sall¢ leuoilippu awos3o oauosqu aq; ul 'nalunoaua awes aql Suunp
8utnm000 flp28alle qloq (uosiad sig3o auo pue napip agl3o auo) samzias nadonduit flpa8alle 3o
slae loutlsip oml fluo pa8allu suq olfog,p `umol aql lsuiugu swtulo sigio3 not;epuno3 agl sy
(,; Imaua8 ut smumo 141adoid3o luawssenug3o wolsno
puaidsoptm puu lualsisnade3o aauolstxa aql gstlqu)so lou scop naumo fliadoid abuts e3o luawssuneq
8T to t7T abed STOZ/bT/TO laMooa OS -H uo paialu3 OZ luawnoo0 H>ila-8t7ZT8-n3-qT:6ase3
Case 9:14-cv-81248-DTKH Document 20 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/14/2015 Page 15 of 18
Moreover, the limited factual allegations alleged in the Amended Complaint demonstrate that
Chief Ward and Town Manager Thrasher did not act with the requisite bad faith, malice, and wanton
and willful disregard need to overcome section 768.28 immunity. The phrase "wanton and willful"
"connotes conduct much more reprehensible and unacceptable than mere intentional conduct."
Maybin v. Thompson, 514 So. 2d 1129, 1131 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987) (citing Richardson v. City of
Pompano Beach, 511 So. 2d 1121, 1123 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987).
O'Boyle has failed to provide any factual allegations beyond those which purport to establish
a prima facie case for assault and battery. DE 16. However, state law assault and battery are not the
type of torts which inherently or necessarily involve bad faith, malice, and wanton and willful
disregard so as to overcome statutory immunity conferred under section 768.28(9). See Sullivan v.
Atlantic Fed. Savings & Loan Assoc., 454 So.2d 52, 54 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984) (providing elements
of assault and battery). O'Boyle fails to allege any facts demonstrating the kind of extraordinary
conduct by Chief Ward and Town Manager Thrasher needed to under Florida law to overcome
768.28(9) immunity. Besides O'Boyle's conclusions, none of the facts presented show conduct
amounting to bad faith, malice, or wilfulness. As result, the state law claims against Town Manager
Thrasher and Chief Ward should be dismissed. See Richardson, 511 So. 2d at 1124 (explaining that
claims for state law excessive force and false arrest do not inherently or necessarily involve those
elements which would overcome statutory immunity under section 768.28(9)).
15
31
uioo• qme. li! H
uioo quie, ueaxgooH
"t7Z-£9b-b96 :ted
00I0 -£9b1756 :191
b0£££ Z3 `alepiapne7 poi
0001 allnS °•pnlg asuunS .g SSbZ
Vd `NVWH00H 38 -IHdld `g3ME[
`H000IIf W `OW'IEISNV `NOSNHOf
s;uepua;a(l io; sAauxopV
bLZS I 'ON ZIVS 'V'I-4
THD *D NOSQfIH
860Z06 'ON �IVg 'V I3
NVWHOOH "I ABZIddHf
IIID 'O uospngIsI
•sluedcocped d0g/L�IO aAUoe qe put, fue o; 30g/yg0 Iq pa;eiauaJ 8m113 oluopoalg
3o 30IloN3o uolsslmsueu ece pavas sem luamnoop SuloJaio3 aq; io/pue s;uedlolped 30aM0 uou
Xue o; I!uw sselo;sig Aq guil!3 o[uouoolg 3o aailoN aq; pue;uawnoop 8uio8aio; aq; pallem iagpla
I ;eq; Xjgjoo iogpn3 I •wa;sAs 30TwD ag; 8ulsn Xq pno0 3o )IialO aq; gltm;uamnoop 8ulo8aio3
aq1 Palg AIlealuopaalo I `SIOZ Ajenuef;o ,Cep glbi sigl uo Imp AAI. Haj )LUHHHH I
HOIAZIHS AO HIV3I3I.LZIH3
8T )0 9T OOud STOZ/t7T/T0 101004 OSId uo paJolu3 OZ luawnaoQ H>IlO-8bZT8-A3-bT:6 asa0
Case 9:14-cv-81248-DTKH Document 20 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/14/2015 Page 17 of 18
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 14"' day of January, 2015, I electronically filed the
foregoing document with the Clerk of Court by using the CM/ECF system. I further certify that I
either mailed the foregoing document and the Notice of Electronic Filing by first class mail to any
non CM/ECF participants and/or the foregoing document was served via transmission of Notice of
Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF to any and all active CM/ECF participants.
/s/Hudson C. Gill
JEFFREY L. HOCHMAN
FLA. BAR NO. 902098
HUDSON C. GILL
FLA. BAR NO. 15274
Attorneys for Defendants
JOHNSON, ANSELMO, MURDOCH,
BURKE, PIPER & HOCHMAN, PA
2455 E. Sunrise Blvd., Suite 1000
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33304
Tel: 954-463-0100
Fax: 954463-2444
Hochman(&iamba.com
Hail1Qiambg.com
17
m
utoo quiu, 11• q
uioO qmu, uuuigaoq
21imIsOu3 - "K -£9b (bS6)
auogdalal - 00I0 -£9b 0756)
h0£££ UpU011 `alupiapnul poi
0001 a1?nS
piunalnog asuunS Isug SSbZ
'd'd `MVWHJOH V 2Igdld `HMdng
`HOOQZIM `OW-19SMV `NOSMHOf
•bsg `ll!D 'J uospnH
•bsg `uuuigOOH •-I AQ4JQ f
:s;uupua3aQ ao3 ssaluouv
auogdala•L - 9889-b/.S (b56)
WOO•uugmulal oqo sooplmooal oqo
woO•uugtAulal oqo ucuoA
Zbb££ upp013 `gOuag PlagJaaQ
PAUQ ialuaJ IiodM2M IsaM 98ZI
'J•d `WRIId Md I 2MOELO 81I L
•bsg `uiuJ upuaiA
33yuiuld .ao3 sdauaonv
ISI'I 3JIAH3S
8T 10 8T a6ed STOZ/bT/TO IaMOOO OSId UO paJalu3 OZ IuawnOOQ HL(]-8bZT8-AD-bT:6 aseJ
LAW OFFICES
JOHNSON9 ANSELMO, MURDOCH, BURKE, PIPER & HOCDMAN9 P.A.
A PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION
DAMIAN H. ALBERT, PA
J. MARCOS MARTINEZ
SCOTTO-ALEXANDER, PA
2455 EAST SUNRISE BOULEVARD
ROSERTE.MURDOCH
MICHAEL T. BURKE't
SUITE 1000
MICHAEL R. PIPER'
HUDSON C. GILL
FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33304
DAVID M. SCHWEIGER, P.A.
JEFFREY L HOCHMAN. P.A.
CHRISTOPHER L SMITH
E. BRUCE JOHNSON'
CHRISTOPHER J. STEARNS, PA
W. HAMPTON JOHNSON, IV
(954)463-0100 &award
(305)4452000 Dade
'dDA4Dl.'FAIiFlF�C/1]LTRIALGIIYELS
(051)6407448 WPB
RONALD P. ANSELMO `
TELECOPIER (954) 463-2444
BURL F. GEORGE
December 29, 2014
William Thrasher
Town Manager
Town of Gulf Stream
100 Sea Road
Gulf Stream, FL 33483
Re: Martin O'Boyle v. Town of Gulf Stream
Claim No.: GC2014077401
Our File No.: 00640/34107
Case No.: 13-cv-80317-DMM
Dear Mr. Thrasher:
VIA EMAIL
Enclosed please find a copy of the Amended Answer and Defenses that we served on behalf of the
Town of Gulf Stream in the above -referenced matter. In light of the Town's potential adoption of an
,amended sign ordinance, we have advised the court that at least a portion of the Plaintiffs claims (those
seeking to invalidate the existing sign ordinance), may be rendered moot by the summary judgment
deadline on February 9, 2015, or by the date of trial on April 6, 2015:
1 would ask that you keep my office advised about the. status of the proposed amended ordinance.
Very truly yours,
2k 4
JeHochman
For the Firm
JLH/emf
Enclosure
cc: Joanne M. O'Connor, Esq., Via Email
Irma Cohen, Via Email
" u l a i a g l p a l r a s s E s u o p E B o l l u a y ; s l l u r p e u m o l a q l ' S g d E 3 d ` ��E I E d o f s V
" 8
" a l a i a g l p a u a s s e s u o p E B a l l e a q 1 s l i w p e u m o y a q l ' L g d e i ` a E a u d o 1 s V
" L
- u l w a g l p a p o s s e s u o p e S a l l e a q l s l l w p E u m o y a y 1 ' g g d w & , . m d o 1 s V
" g
. u l a . r a g l p a l . i a s s e s u o p r V a 1 1 n a q 1 s l i w p e u m o y a g l ' s g d e . r 3 e n : d 0 1 s V
" S
" u i o i a y l p a l a a s m s u o j l e 8 a l l e a r p s l l u r p e u m o , l , a y l ' t i g d e a 3 e . m d o f s V
b
m a t a y l p a l x a s s e s o o p e 8 a l i e a y 1 s l i w p e u m o " l , a q l ' � g d e a S r a e d 0 1 s V
�
; o a l a g l 3 o o l d l a u l s s p u u w a p p u e a w e s a g l s a l u a p a i o j a i a y l p u E u l a a a g l p a l r a s s e s u o l l e B a l l E O L D X u a p
r o 1 l u r p e o f o w l s s l g l 1 E n 2 p o l m o " l u 3 l 3 3 3 n s 1 n o g 1 1 m s l u m o y o g l ' Z g d l u S u e d o f s V Z
3 o a i a g l 3 o o i d r o u t s s p u m u o p p u E a w e s o q l s a l u a p a i o 3 a l a g l p u e w a i a g l p a l r a s s n s u o p e ; I a l l e a g l , ( u a p
. t o l i w p E o f a w l l s l g l l e a 8 p a l m o i g l u g p W n s l n o g l r m s l u m o y o q l ' I g d e a 2 e i n d o 1 s V I
a H M S N V " I
: S M 0 1 1 o 3 S E s a l o l s
p u E ' l u l e l d w o o p o p u o u r d l s n d s 3 3 p u ! u l d o f s a s u a 3 a Q p u e r a m s u V s l l s a l g ' s A o u i o l l E p o a l s a a p u n
s 1 1 y 8 n o i g l p u e A q ' C , t L m o l , , a a l l e u l a a a r l ) W V H ��L L S d - m o 3 0 N M O L ' l u e p u a 3 a a
S d S N B d d Q Q N V i I d M S N V Q d Q N a I N V * S l W V d u L S a r m d 0 N M O . L , L N V ( I N 3 a q u
s l u e p u a i a O
' l I H H S V - H l l l W V I - F H M P a e
' W V H l 1 . L S A W I D 3 0 N M O L
' S A
` B u ! E l d
' H 7 C O H < O N I . L d V W
W W I - L I � 0 8 - ^ O - b F 6 : ' O N H S V O
V Q R I O ' l d d O , W H I S I Q N u a H . L f l O S
, L H a 0 j L O R I . L S I Q S H L V . L S Q d , L I N f l
5 Z 1 0 T a 6 z d b T O Z / b Z / Z T l a y O O ( I 4 S l d u o p a a a l u 3 b g l u a w n o o a W W Q - L T � 0 8 - A o - V T : 6 a s e O
Case 9:14-cv-80317-DMM Document 54 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/24/2014 Page 2 of 25
9. As to Paragraph 9, the Town is without sufficient knowledge at this time to admit or
deny the allegations asserted therein and therefore denies the same and demands strictproof thereof.
10. As to Paragraph 10, the Town is without sufficient knowledge at this time to admit
or deny the allegations asserted therein and therefore denies the same and demands strict proof
thereof.
11. As to Paragraph 11, the Town is without sufficient knowledge at this time to admit
or deny die allegations asserted therein and therefore denies the same and demands strict proof
thereof.
12. As to Paragraph 12, the Town is without sufficient knowledge at this time to admit
or deny the allegations asserted therein and therefore denies the same and demands strict proof
thereof.
13. As to Paragraph 13, the Town is without sufficient knowledge at this time to admit
or deny the allegations asserted therein and therefore denies the same and demands strict proof
thereof.
14. As to Paragraph 14, the Town is without sufficient knowledge at this time to admit
or deny the allegations asserted therein and therefore denies the same and demands strict proof
thereof.
15. As to Paragraph 15, the Town is without sufficient knowledge at this time to admit
or deny the allegations asserted therein and therefore denies the same and demands strict proof
thereof.
16. As to Paragraph 16, the Town is without sufficient knowledge at this time to admit
or deny the allegations asserted therein and therefore denies the same and demands strict proof
thereof.
L
;oaiagl
3ooid loons spuewap put amus aql satuap oio3aaagl put utaiogl pauasse suotlu2ollu oql Stop io
ltuipe on amtn sign le a2polmoLq luata93ns lnogltm st umol aql `EZ gdea2eied of sd £Z
3oaaagl
3ooid lapis spuewap put awns aql satuap oto oiogl put uiaaagl pauasst suoilt2ollu 3q1 fuap .io
piupu of a up slgl in o2polmorol luatatWns lnogl[m s[ umol oql `ZZ gdtl2uitd of sd •ZZ
3oalagl
3ooid gaols spuewap put awes agl satuap wo;alagl pun utaaagl palaassn suotlu2allu aqn Suop to
ltmpe of Quip stgl in o2p3lmou3i lawo!Uns lnoiptm si pmol aql `lZ tldni2uaed of sy '[Z
3o2uogl
3oold fouls spuewap put awus aql satuap oiglajaip put otaiogl poliasse suotle2ollu oql Cuop io
nimpe of amtl still ne a2palmouil luatag;ns 7nog1N+ s[ umol aql `OZ gdui2tied of sN 'OZ
;ooiogl
3oold 13u1s spuewap put gums aql satuap aiojwogl pue utaiagl paliossu suotlt2olle aql ,Cusp ao
uwpt of amtl sign It o2polmo" lumog;ns lnogpcm st umol aql `6l gdtjBeaed of sV 61
3oa.iagl
3ooad louts spuemop put amus oql satuap oio•{aaagl put utwogl paliassu suoile2allu aqi ,Cusp jo
liwpu of amp stgl In a2palmouij luatag;ns lnogltm st nmol oql `8I gdej&,ied of sy '8I
joaaagl
3oo.id locals spunwap put ouius aql satuap wojwotp put ataaagl pauasst suotle2alle 0141 Stop to
ltmpe of owtl sail It a2patmouXlu3tag;ns lnogltm sl pmol agl `L[ gdei2taud of sy L[
gZ Io E abed t7TOZ/bZIZT ]allaoa aS-ld uo paaalu3 b5 Iuawnood WwO-LTEO8-n3-qT:6 ase3
Case 9:14-cv-80317-DMM Document 54 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/24/2014 Page 4 of 25
24. As to Paragraph 24, the Town is without sufficient knowledge at this time to admit
or deny the allegations asserted therein and therefore denies the same and demands strict proof
thereof.
25. As to Paragraph 25, the Town is without sufficient knowledge at this time to admit
or deny the allegations asserted therein and therefore denies the same and demands strict proof
thereof.
26. As to Paragraph 26, the Town is without sufficient knowledge at this time to admit
or deny the allegations asserted therein and therefore denies the same and demands strict proof
thereof.
27. As to Paragraph 27, the Town is without sufficient knowledge at this time to admit
or deny the allegations asserted therein and therefore denies the same and demands strict proof
thereof.
28. As to Paragraph 28, the Town admits that Koch previously served as mayor, but is
without sufficient knowledge at this time to admit or deny the remaining allegations and therefore
denies the same and demands strict proof thereof.
29. As to Paragraph 29, the Town admits that Joan Orlhwein served on the Town
commission, but is without sufficient knowledge at this time to admit or deny the remaining
allegations and therefore denies the same and demands strict proof thereof.
30. As to Paragraph 30, the Town admits the allegations asserted therein.
31. As to Paragraph 31, the Town denies the allegations asserted therein and demands
strict proof thereof.
rd
s
-suogs23118
2ululuwau lip satuap pus `lualuoo pun uuoj;o suual uT }loslT Joj gpods lT lugl slTwgns Umo L
aql uT a2uu2is of suTulPad 9V6-99 uoTloaS Imp sumps umo,l, oql `6£ gduJ2pJud of sV '6£
*joauagl3ooJd 1olus spauwap pus suoTls2allu 2ucuTpwau lin saivap pun `lualuoo pun
uuod slT;o suuol aT;laslT Jo3 sxuods liodai luopTouT ail lugl slTwgns `bIOZ `LI tiuruga3 no godoi
luopTouT up palu= (olosvH -12S umo,l, lugl sliwps umoy aql `g£ gdnt2nund 01 SV 'g£
3oauagl
3omd lapis spupwap pun awus aql satuap aaojoiotp pun uiolagl palJassu suoilu2apu aql Xuap Jo
lTwpu oP awTl siLp In a2palmouN luaiagjns lnoqum sT umos 041'LE gdm2nJud of sV 'L£
3oaJagl
jooid louts spuuwap pun awus aql satuap oto3atagl pun ucauagl pauassu suollu2ollu oql Xuap Jo
1Tutpp 01 awI1 STEP 1e o2pol,tmouN luoioyjns lnotpyA sl umoy atg `g£ gdvBtuud of sV 9£
•3oaJagl
3ooJd lapis spunwap pup awus atg satuap aJo;auagl pus uTaJagl pauassu suopU2311p aql .Cusp Jo
1!wpu of awTl s!ql In oSpalmouX luaiagjns lnoqum sj umoy aql `S£ gdvAplud 01 stl 'S£
•uTauagl palJasse suotle2alln aql sllwpa umoy oql `V£ gdmBuaud o1 sV 'V£
;loauagl
;ooud laws spumop pun awes aEl satuap auo3aaagl pup utauagl pauassu suoTlpdalln alp (uop Jo
lTwps of awp sTgl 1n o2palmouN luoiog}ns lnoqum sT umoZ oql `££ gduJ2um l of sd ££
3oaJagl joold
Pauls spupwap pun suolln2app 2umtuwau llu satuap lnq uoiloala `V 10Z 111 gollaw alp uT uoTssTunuoo
umoy Joj unJ of paJalsl23J33nuleld oql wql slluPps umoy aql `Z£ gdw2mud of sV 'Z£
SZ 10 S abed VTOZ/VZ/ZT )@Nool] (JSd=j uo paialu3 VS luawnooa INW4-LTEo8-AO-bT:6 esa3
Case 9:14-cv-80317-DMM Document 54 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/24/2014 Page 6 of 25
40. As to Paragraph 40, the Town admits that Section 66-446 pertains to signage in the
Town, submits that it speaks for itself in terms of form and content, and denies all remaining
allegations.
41. As to Paragraph 41, the Town admits that Section 66-446 pertains to signage in the
Town, submits that it speaks for itself in terms of form and content, and denies all remaining
allegations.
42. As to Paragraph 42, the Town admits that Section 66-1 defines the term "sign",
submits that it speaks for itself in terms of its form and content, and denies all remaining allegations.
43. As to Paragraph 43, the Town admits that Section 66-447 pertains to real estate
signage and that Section 66-448 pertains to approval of signage, submits that Sections 66-447 an
66-448 speak for themselves in terms of their form and content, and denies all remaining allegations.
44. ' As to Paragraph 44, the Town is without sufficient knowledge at this time to admit
or deny the allegations asserted therein and therefore denies the same and demands strict proof
thereof.
45. As to Paragraph 45, the Town is without sufficient knowledge at this time to admit
or deny the allegations asserted therein and therefore denies the same and demands strict proof
thereof.
46. As to Paragraph 46, the Town is without sufficient knowledge at this time to admit
or deny the allegations asserted therein and therefore denies the same and demands strict proof
thereof.
47. As to Paragraph 47, the Town is without sufficient knowledge at this time to admit
or deny the allegations asserted therein and therefore denies the same and demands strict proof
thereof.
M
;oa.tatg
3ooid lops spuuwop puu aures aql satuap aio3aaagl pue utajagl pauasse suotlu2alle aql Xuap io
ltwpe of awp stgl It a2palmou:l luato93ns lnogltm st umo L aql `9S gduAeied of sV '99
3ooiagl
3owd loons spuewop pue awes a741 satuap aio;atagl pue utologl pauasse suotle2ollu aql Cuop to
ltwpe of awtl stgi le a2palmotn[ Iua[3y3ns lnoglim st umoy 3111 `SS gdei2wed of sy SS
;loaaagl
potd 13tps spuswap pus awes oql satuap wo3aiagl pue utatagl pauasse suotle2allu aql 6uap io
ltmpe of autl stgl lu z2polmotq luatagjns lnogltm st umoy 3ql `b5 gduj2utud of sd b5
Itoaaagl
;ooid l3pls spuuwap pue aures nql satuap oiojoiogl pue utatagl pauasse suotlm2alle 3111 ,Cusp to
ltutpu of awtl. stgl ie a2pa[mou)l luatotgjns nnogltm st umoy oql `ES gdu.Bu.ted of sd ES
'OS gduBuJud of osuodsat gas `ZS gdet2uied 01 sd 75
'05 gdui2mj of osuodsaa gas `IS gdw2e.tud of sy '15
•suotlu2ape 2utu1ewat [In satuap pus `lu31u03
pue uuo3 sl! jo suual ut J[nslt iqj steads 1! lmgl sl[wgns `b[OZ `bZ Xlenigad polup oouapuodsouo3
BIlutuld aql lugs 13gsunly.ta2euuw umoy lugl sltwpe umoy aql OS gdui2eisd of sy '09
3oatagl
;ooid lapis spuuwap puu gums 3111 satuap woplagl pug utaaagl pauasse suotlm2alle aql ,Cnap 10
ltutpu of awtl stgl le o2palmou)l lu3totgjns lnogltm st umoy oql `6b gdet2eied of sy '6b
}oaiogl
;oad lapis spuuwap pue awes oql satuap alojatagl pue utaiagl pauassm suotle2ollu aql 6uop .to
ltutpu of autl stgl lu o2polmouA luatogjns lnogltm st umoy oql `gti gdei2ezed of sd *8v
SZ do L abed 17TOZ/bZ/ZT la>loo4 4Sld uo palalu3 tiS luawnooa WW4-LTEO8-no-bT:6 aseO
Case 9:14-cv-80317-DMM Document 54 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/24/2014 Page 8 of 25
57. As to Paragraph 57, the Town admits that Town manager Thrasher sent the Plaintiff
correspondence dated February 24, 2014, regarding "a truck with political signs [being] parked on
Town property," submits that the February 24, 2014, correspondence speaks for itself in terms of
its form and content, denies all remaining allegations and demands strict proof thereof.
58. As to Paragraph 58, the Town is without sufficient knowledge at this time to admit
or deny the allegations asserted therein and therefore denies the same and demands strict proof
thereof.
59. As to Paragraph 59, the Town is without sufficient knowledge at this time to admit
or deny the allegations asserted therein and therefore denies the same and demands strict proof
thereof.
60. As to Paragraph 60, the Town is without sufficient knowledge at this time to admit
or deny the allegations asserted therein and therefore denies the same and demands strict proof
thereof.
61. As to Paragraph 61, the Town is without sufficient knowledge at this time to admit
or deny the allegations asserted therein and therefore denies the same and demands strict proof
thereof.
62. As to Paragraph 62, the Town is without sufficient knowledge at this time to admit
or deny the allegations asserted therein and therefore denies the same and demands strict proof
thereof.
63. As to Paragraph 63, the Town is without sufficient knowledge at this time to admit
or deny the allegations asserted therein and therefore denies the same and demands strict proof
thereof.
3oalagl;ooidlaTns
spuewap pun ulaiagl pauasse suoile8alle oql saluap umo L agl `I L gdex3uind of sy • l L
3oaragl
3oosd lapis spuewap pae awns app saluap aiojojagl pue uiajagl pauasse suonedalle aql Auop to
Icurpn of awn sigl Ie o9palmouN lualoWns lnoglrm si umoy ail `OL q&J. ?MTed 01 sd 'OL
-}oalagl
3ooad louts spuewap pue awns aql saluap aro3aaagl pue ufaaagl palam suopegalle ail Xuop ao
ltwpe of aunt slgl le o2palmoml lualoWns lnoil!m sl umoy ail `69 gdeji?esed 01 sd '69
•3oa.ragl jooid joins
spuewap pun wajagl paljasse suoiltRolle aql saluap umoy aql 189 4dull`dend of sd '89
;oalagl
3ooad pours spuewap pue awns oqp saruap aio3aragl pue ulatail pauasse suopegalp: aTll ,Cusp to
Itwpe of amp slgl Ie afpolmoml luatoUlns pnogllm si umoy aql `L9 gdndlnsed of sV 'L9
goa.raql
3ootd lapis spuewap pun awns agl saluap alojI nql pun ulaTagi pauasse suoilegalle agl ,Cusp Jo
lcwpn of awrl snp lu o2polmouN lumo jUns Inogllm sl umo,l, ogl '99 idnigmud of sy '99
3oaiagl
;ooid louts spuewap pun awes aql saruap aro3aiagl pue urazagl pauasse suone8alle aql ,Cusp zo
lcurpe of awn srgl lu a8palmoml luataTWns Inogllm si umoy oql `S9 gde.13ejed of sy '99
3oalagl
3ooid lours spuuwap pun awes 0111 saluap aio;aaagl pen uraiaLg pauasse suoile20T1e aq1 ,Cusp ao
llurpe of owll sigl Ie a8paimou3l lualog;ns pnogplm sl umo 1, ail `b9 gdn.fuan j of sy 179
5Z 10 6 abed bTOZ/VZ/ZT l8llo04 OSId uo paaalu3 b5luawnooa VTNC3-LTE08-n3-tiT:6 aseO
Case 9:14-cv-80317-DMM Document 54 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/24/2014 Page 10 of 25
72. As to Paragraph 72, the Town denies the allegations asserted therein and demands
strict proof thereof.
73. As to Paragraph 73, the Town is without sufficient knowledge at this time to admit
or deny the allegations asserted therein and therefore denies the same and demands strict proof
thereof.
74. As to Paragraph 74, the Town is without sufficient knowledge at this time to admit
or deny the allegations asserted therein and therefore denies the same and demands strict proof
thereof.
75. As to Paragraph 75, the Town denies the allegations asserted therein and demands
strict proof thereof.
76. As to Paragraph 76, the Town is without sufficient knowledge at this time to admit
or deny the allegations asserted therein and therefore denies the same and demands strict proof
thereof.
77. As to Paragraph 77, the Town is without sufficient knowledge at this time to admit
or deny the allegations asserted therein and therefore denies the same and demands strict proof
thereof.
78. As to Paragraph 78, the Town is without sufficient knowledge at this time to admit
or deny the allegations asserted therein and therefore denies the same and demands strict proof
thereof.
79. As to Paragraph 79, the Town is without sufficient knowledge at this time to admit
or deny the allegations asserted therein and therefore denies the same and demands strict proof
thereof.
10
ll
•3ooaagl
;ooad lapis spunaap pun aures aql satuap aaoj;)Jagl pue utalatp paWasse suotle$alle ayl fuap ao
ltwpe of awq stgl In aSpalmoual luatogjns lnogltm st umoL agl'L8 gdna8nand al sV L8
3oaaagl
jowd lapis spuewap pun awns aql satuap aao3aaagl pun utaaagl poposse suotln2311e oql Xuap ao
ltwpe of awul sugl le aSpalmoul luotoWns lnogltm st umoL ogl'9S gdw Ouxud of sV '98
•3oaaagl
3ooad lapis spuewap pun awes oql satuap aao3aaogl pun utaaagl polaasse suotledallu gill Auap ao
ltwpe of awtsgmacgu9
3owagl jooad lapis
spunwap pun maaagl palaasse suotle8alle aql satuap umoL oql '}78 gdca8caed of sV •b8
;oaaagl
;owd lapis spuewap pun awes aql satuap aao3aaagl pun utaaagl palaasse su011e2311c aql Xuap ao
Itwpe of awtl still In a8polmomil luatag;ns lnogltm st umoL ogl'£8 gdea3emd of sV 'ES
3oaaagl
3ooad lapis spunwap pun awns oql satuap a3o3aaagl pun uuaaagl poumse suotleSalle aql Cuop ao
ltwpe of Paul stgl In o5palmot3l luatogjns lnotptm st umoL Qq) 'ZS gduiRmed of sV 78
;oaaagl
3ooad louts spuewap pue owns aql satuap aao;aaagl pun utaaagl pauasse suotleSallu agl ,Cusp ao
ltutpe of nuip st In a8palmoml luatagjns lnogltm st umoL oql '18 gdwOujed of sV '18
•3ogaagl
;ooad louts spunwap pun awes aql satuap oao1aaagl pun utaaatll palaasse suotle8allu aql Auap ao
ltutpe of gain stgl In a8palmmg luatotglns lnogltm st umoL oql '08 gdea2uled of sV '08
SZ }o TT abed 17TOZ/bZ/ZT Ialloo(1 OSId uo paaalu3 t7S luawnood WWQ-LTEO8-AD-t7T=6 ase3
Case 9:14-cv-80317-DMM Document 54 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/24/2014 Page 12 of 25
88. As to Paragraph 88, the Town is without sufficient knowledge at this time to admit
or deny the allegations asserted therein and therefore denies the same and demands strict proof
thereof.
89. As to Paragraph 89, the Town is without sufficient knowledge at this time to admit
or deny the allegations asserted therein and therefore denies the same and demands strict proof
thereof.
90. As to Paragraph 90, the Town is without sufficient knowledge at this time to admit
or deny the allegations asserted therein and therefore denies the same and demands strict proof
thereof.
91. As to Paragraph 91, the Town is without sufficient knowledge at this time to admit
or deny the allegations asserted therein and therefore denies the same and demands strict proof
thereof.
92. As to Paragraph 92, the Town is without sufficient knowledge at this time to admit
or deny the allegations asserted therein and therefore denies the same and demands strict proof
thereof.
93. As to Paragraph 93, the Town is without sufficient knowledge at this time to admit
or deny the allegations asserted therein and therefore denies the same and demands strict proof
thereof.
94. As to Paragraph 94, the Town is without sufficient knowledge at this time to admit
or deny the allegations asserted therein and therefore denies the same and demands strict proof
thereof.
12
El
•}oaiagljowd lauls
spuewap pus aiaaagl pauasse suoildo[[u aql saivap umoL aql `ZOI gdsa3eced of sV 'Z01
;owacg3oosd loins
spuewap pun wa.iagl pauasse suoilu3allu all saivap whol all `101 gduAund of sV • I0 [
3oatagl
•ioocd lams spuewap pus aunts ail saivap aio3alagl pus uiaiagl palcasw suoile3alle oil] Xuap io
liWpe of owil sigl lu a3polmoa)ilua[ag;ns lnogllm sc umol aql `Oo [ gde.Ssjed of sV '001
}oaiogl
;oozd;aids spuuwap pun awns aql sacuap oio3aiagl pun uiajall pauasse suoiie3allu agl Auop to
liwpu of awil sigl In a3polma" luaiaglns woglim s[ umoL all `66 gdea2e.ced of sV '66
3ooiogl
;owd louts spuewap pus awns oq; saivap ajojaiagl pun uiacagl pauassu suoilu3311e oql Auop io
liwps of a up sill In a3polmou4 luoiog;ns lnoglln+ s1 umoL aql `86 gdeJ3ewd 01 sV '86
3oalagl joold tarts
spuswap pue waiagl palaasse suoile3al[e all saivap um01 aql `L6 gdua3nznd of sV 'L6
3owagl
;ooid tains spuuwap pun awes all saivap aio3aloll pus uiajagl paliasse suoile3al[e Oql fuap io
;iucps 01 awil sill it a3polmoml luaiag;ns woglim si umoL aql `96 gdui3naed of sV '96
loaiagl
lowd;ouls spuuwap pun awns oql saivap aco3ajagl pun uiajagl pauasse suoile3311e oql luop io
liwps of awil scc[l is a3polmoml luoioglns moglim si umoL oql `56 gdeamej of s V 56
SZ 10 61 aged 17TOZ/17Z/ZT laliooa GS -I3 uo paialu3 179 ivawnaoa [n[[nla-LT£08-nu-171:6 asl?Z)
Case 9:14-cv-80317-DMM Document 54 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/24/2014 Page 14 of 25
103. As to Paragraph 103, the Town is without sufficient knowledge at this time to admit
or deny the allegations asserted therein and therefore denies the same and demands strict proof
thereof.
104. As to Paragraph 104, the Town is without sufficient knowledge at this time to admit
or deny the allegations asserted therein and therefore denies the same and demands strict proof
thereof.
105. As to Paragraph 105, the Town is without sufficient knowledge at this time to admit
or deny the allegations asserted therein and therefore denies the same and demands strict proof
thereof.
106. As to Paragraph 106, the Town is without sufficient knowledge at this time to admit
or deny the allegations asserted therein and therefore denies the same and demands strict proof
thereof.
107. As to Paragraph 107, the Town denies the allegations asserted therein and demands
strict proof thereof.
108. As to Paragraph 108, the Town denies the allegations asserted therein and demands
strict proof thereof.
109. As to Paragraph 109, the Town is without sufficient knowledge at this time to admit
or deny the allegations asserted therein and therefore denies the same and demands strict proof
thereof.
110. As to Paragraph 110, the Town is without sufficient knowledge at this time to admit
or deny the allegations asserted therein and therefore denies the same and demands strict proof
thereof.
14
Sl
•3oaaagl
jowd huts spuewap puu aures an saiuop aaojologl pue ulaaagl pauasse suollu2311e aqi Auap ao
plwpe of owll sigl le a2polmotg lumgjns lnogllm si umo1, oql `81 [ gdw2eaed of sV -Sl[
-3oo iagl
jowd poufs spuewap pue awes atl saluap aao;aaagp pue ulaaagl pauassu suopaolle aqj Auap ao
nwpu of awll slgl le o2palmoml lumag;ns lnoqum st umoy aqi `L I I gdeu4exed of sV 'Ll I
••{oo.aaqu
3ooad pouls spuewap pue awus aqi saluap 3103aaaclp puu ulaaagp pauasse su0i1e2911u aqi Xuop ao
llucpe of awq slgp le o2palmou)l lumgjns pnocplm sl umo 1, aqi `q l I gdea2uaed op sV '911
3oaaagl;owd lows
spuuwop puu waaaqu polaasse suoqu8ollu oip saluap umo,l, aqi `S I I gdua2ued of sV 'c l [
jowd louts spuewap pue awus acll saluap aaolaaagl pue utwogl pauasse suope2011u aqi fuop ao
lcwpe w awll slgl lu o2polmomi luacogjns lnogplm sl umoy aqi `tbl I gderouaed of sV 'bi I
jowd soups spuewap pue awes oql soiuop aao3aaagl puu ulaaagl pauasse suopuSallu aqp Xuop ao
llwpu of awil stgl in a2polmo" pualogjns lnogilm sl umoy atp `E I I gduisuiud of sV 'Ell
;oaaatl
jowd jalaps spuewap puu awus agp saluap aao3aaa p puu womill pauasse suolle0olln aqi Auap io
icwpu of awe slgl Ie o2palmoual luaiogjns lnoglcm sl mmol aqi `ZI I gdua2eaed of sV •ZI [
•loaaagl
jowd fouls spuewap puu owns aqi saluap aao;aaagl puu ulaaagp pauasse suoqu2alle aqi ,Cusp ao
liwpu of awll situ le a2polmocq ivaia!jjns inoqulm sl umoy aqi `l I I gdw9eaud of sV ' I I [
SZ to ST a62d VTOZ/bZ/ZT la>looCIOSl3 uo paJalu3 bS luaulnoo(i WW4-LT£O8-A3-bT:6 ase3
Case 9:14-cv-80317-DMM Document 54 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/24/2014 Page 16 of 25
119. As to Paragraph 119, the Town is without sufficient knowledge at this time to admit
or deny the allegations asserted therein and therefore denies the same and demands strict proof
thereof.
120. As to Paragraph 120, the Town is without sufficient knowledge at this time to admit
or deny the allegations asserted therein and therefore denies the same and demands strict proof
thereof.
121. As to Paragraph 121, the Town is without sufficient knowledge at this time to admit
or deny the allegations asserted therein and therefore denies the same and demands strict proof
thereof.
122. As to Paragraph 122, the Town is without sufficient knowledge at this time to admit
or deny the allegations asserted therein and therefore denies the same and demands strict proof
thereof.
123. As to Paragraph 123, the Town is without sufficient knowledge at this time to admit
or deny the allegations asserted therein and therefore denies the same and demands strict proof
thereof.
124. As to Paragraph 124, the Town is without sufficient knowledge at this time to admit
or deny the allegations asserted therein and therefore denies the same and demands strict proof
thereof.
125. As to Paragraph 125, the Town is without sufficient knowledge at this time to admit
or deny the allegations asserted therein and therefore denies the same and demands strict proof
thereof.
16
LI
3oatagl;ooadlargs
spuewap pue u1010gl palaasse suo[lu$a[[u 3g1 sacuap uMOL aql `6£ I gduBsaud 01 sV '6£ [
•3oatagl jooad locals
spuewap puu u[aaagl paltasse suoila:)Ile oql satuop umo,L oql `g£I gde6eaed of sV -SEI
3oaaagl,looad lapis
spuewap puu watagl paltasse suoileRalle aql sanlap uMoy aql `L£ I gdua8eaed of sV -LEI
-joaaagljootdlouls
spuewap pue watagl pallasse suoueSalle aql saivap umo,L agl `9£ I gdu.Be,Ed of sV '9£ I
•3ootagl jootd bills
spuuwop puu ulatagl paltasse suoile2allu oql saluap umoL aql `S£ I gde.zdeled of sV -SC[
•3oatagl;ootd lo[als
spuuwop puu umoill pauassu suotlu8a[[e oql somop umoL oql `t E I gdea2eaed of sV 'bE l
;ootagl jowd souls
spuewap pue uiatagl paliossu suo[lega[Iu aql saluap umoL agl `££ [ gdeAuted of sV '££ I
;oatagl jootd louts
spuewap puu umatagl polaassu suoilugallu oql sa[uap umo L aql `Z£ I gde.w`eted of sV 'Z£ I
gowotp 3ooad souls
spuewap puu amaaagl polaassu suoclu5alle mp sa[uop umoL oql `I E[ gdec2uaud of sV ' I £
•anoge quof las se 16 g8notgl I s gdut;letud
of sasuodsaa sl! solwodaoocn-aa pue soRal[u-at umoL og1 `OEI Ildc.duted of sV •0£I
3owayjooad louts spuuwop pue uiaaagl pauasse suoileoalle
agl smuop umoL aql Tounbat sc osuodsaa, uu lualxa aql oL •papaau on sasuodsaa ou `aaojolagl
`puelanoDoql lgpassiwsipuaaqseqleqllunooeoluieltadsgdut�fumdnsagL '6Z[ -9Z[
5Z 10 LT abed 17TOZ/bZ/ZT IGNOOCI CIS -1=1 uo paaalu3 b5 luawnoo4 WWQ-LTEO8-n3-riT:6 9se3
Case 9:14-cv-80317-DMM Document 54 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/24/2014 Page 18 of 25
140. As to Paragraph 140, the Town is without sufficient knowledge at this time to admit
or deny the allegations asserted therein and therefore denies the same and demands strict proof
thereof.
141. As to Paragraph 141, the Town is without sufficient knowledge at this time to admit
or deny the allegations asserted therein and therefore denies the same and demands strict proof
thereof.
142. As to Paragraph 142, the Town re -alleges and re -incorporates by reference its
responses to Paragraph 1 through 91 as set forth above.
143. As to Paragraph 143, the Town denies the allegations asserted therein and demands
strict proof thereof.
144. As to Paragraph 144, the Town denies the allegations asserted therein and demands
strict proof thereof.
145. As to Paragraph 145, the Town denies the allegations asserted therein and demands
strict proof thereof.
146. As to Paragraph 146, the Town denies the allegations asserted therein and demands
strict proof thereof.
147. As to Paragraph 147, the Town denies the allegations asserted therein and demands
strict proof thereof.
148. As to Paragraph 148, the Town denies the allegations asserted therein and demands
strict proof thereof.
149. As to Paragraph 149, the Town denies the allegations asserted therein and demands
strict proof thereof.
18
Case 9:14-cv-80317-DMM Document 54 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/24/2014 Page 19 of 25
150. As to Paragraph 150, the Town denies the allegations asserted therein and demands
strict proof thereof.
151. As to Paragraph 151, the Town denies the allegations asserted therein and demands
strict proof thereof.
152. As to Paragraph 152, the Town is without sufficient knowledge at this time to admit
or deny the allegations asserted therein and therefore denies the same and demands strict proof
thereof.
153. As to Paragraph 153, the Town is without sufficient knowledge at this time to admit
or deny the allegations asserted therein and therefore denies the same and demands strict proof
thereof.
154. As to Paragraph 154, the Town re -alleges and re -incorporates by reference its
responses to Paragraph 9 through 31, 53 through 58, and 80 through 83 as set forth above.
155. As to Paragraph 155, the Town denies the allegations asserted therein and demands
strict proof thereof.
156. As to Paragraph 156, the Town denies the allegations asserted therein and demands
strict proof thereof.
157. As to Paragraph 157, the Town is without sufficient knowledge at this time to admit
or deny the allegations asserted therein and therefore denies the same and demands strict proof
thereof.
158. As to Paragraph 158, the Town is without sufficient knowledge at this time to admit
or deny the allegations asserted therein and therefore denies the same and demands strict proof
thereof.
19
Case 9:14-cv-80317-DMM Document 54 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/24/2014 Page 20 of 25
159. As to Paragraph 159, the Town is without sufficient knowledge at this time to admit
or deny the allegations asserted therein and therefore denies the same and demands strict proof
thereof.
160. As to Paragraph 160, the Town is without sufficient knowledge at this time to admit
or deny the allegations asserted therein and therefore denies the same and demands strict proof
thereof.
161. As to Paragraph 161, the Town re -alleges and re -incorporates by reference its
responses to Paragraphs 9 through 31, 53 through 58, and 80 through 83 as set forth above.
162. As to Paragraph 162, the Town denies the allegations asserted therein and demands
strict proof thereof.
163. As to Paragraph 163, the Town denies the allegations asserted therein and demands
strict proof thereof.
164. As to Paragraph 164, the Town is without sufficient knowledge at this time to admit
or deny the allegations asserted therein and therefore denies the same and demands strict proof
thereof.
165. As to Paragraph 165, the Town is without sufficient knowledge at this time to admit
or deny the allegations asserted therein and therefore denies the same and demands strict proof
thereof.
166. As to Paragraph 166, the Town is without sufficient knowledge at this time to admit
or deny the allegations asserted therein and therefore denies the same and demands strict proof
thereof.
911
Case 9:14-cv-80317-DMM Document 54 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/24/2014 Page 21 of 25
167. As to Paragraph 167, the Town is without sufficient knowledge at this time to admit
or deny the allegations asserted therein and therefore denies the same and demands strict proof
thereof.
168-193. These paragraphs pertain to Counts which have been dismissed by the Court
and, therefore, require no response by the Town. To the extent a response is required, the Town
denies the allegations asserted therein and demands strict proof thereof.
194. As to Paragraph 194, the Town re -alleges and re -incorporates its responses to
Paragraphs 9 through 31, 53 through 58, 80 through 83, and 90 through 125 as set forth above.
195. As to Paragraph 195, the Town denies the allegations asserted therein and demands
strict proof thereof.
196. As to Paragraph 196, the Town denies the allegations asserted therein and demands
strict proof thereof.
197. As to Paragraph 197, the Town is without sufficient knowledge at this time to admit
or deny the allegations asserted therein and therefore denies the same and demands strict proof
thereof.
198. As to Paragraph 198, the Town is without sufficient knowledge at this time to admit
or deny the allegations asserted therein and therefore denies the same and demands strict proof
thereof.
199. As to Paragraph 199, the Town is without sufficient knowledge at this time to admit
or deny the allegations asserted therein and therefore denies the same and demands strict proof
thereof.
200. As to Paragraph 200, the Town denies the allegations asserted therein and demands
strict proof thereof.
21
Case 9:14-cv-80317-DMM Document 54 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/24/2014 Page 22 of 25
201. As to Paragraph 201, the Town denies the allegations asserted therein and demands
strict proof thereof.
202. As to Paragraph 202, the Town denies the allegations asserted therein and demands
strict proof thereof.
203. As to Paragraph 203, the Town denies the allegations asserted therein and demands
strict proof thereof.
204. As to Paragraph 204, the Town denies the allegations asserted therein and demands
strict proof thereof.
205. As to Paragraph 205, the Town is without sufficient knowledge at this time to admit
or deny the allegations asserted therein and therefore denies the same and demands strict proof
thereof.
206-220. These paragraphs pertain to Counts which have been dismissed by the Court
and, therefore, require no response from the Town. To the extent that these paragraphs require a
response from the Town, the Town denies the allegations asserted therein and demands strict proof
thereof.
221. The Town denies each and every allegation asserted in the complaint unless
specifically admitted to herein.
H. AFFiRMATivE DEFENSES
222. The Town's ordinances pertaining to signs are constitutional.
223. The Town's ordinances pertaining to signs are content -neutral time, place, and
manner regulations, are narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest, and leave
open ample alternative channels for communication of the information.
22
Case 9:14-cv-80317-DMM Document 54 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/24/2014 Page 23 of 25
224. The Town's ordinances pertaining to signs are narrowly tailored to serve a
compelling state interests.
225. The Plaintiff has not suffered any damages
226. The Plaintiff has failed to mitigate his damages.
227. Some or all of the Plaintiff's claims may be mooted by the time of trial based on
repeal, amendment, or alteration of the Town's ordinances pertaining to signs.
11I. DEMAND FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES
228. The Plaintiff has sued the Town pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
229. The Town has been required to retain the undersigned attorneys to represent it in this
matter and to pay a reasonable fee.
230. The Plaintiff's claim are frivolous, unreasonable, and without foundation.
231. Pursuant to42 U.S.C. §1988, the Town is entitled to recover its reasonable attorneys'
fees in this action.
Demand for Jury Trial
232. The Town demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable as a matter of right.
WHEREFORE, Defendant, TOWN OF GULF STREAM, hereby demands entry of a
judgment in its favor, entry of an order allowing it to go hence without day, entry of an award of
costs, attorney's fees, and such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.
23
Case 9:14-cv-80317-DMM Document 54 Entered on FISD Docket 12124/2014 Page 24 of 25
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 24th day of December, 2014, I electronically filed the
foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing
document is being served this day on all counsel of record identified on the attached Service List
in the manner specified via transmission of Notice of Electronic Fiting generated by CMIECF.
JOHNSON, ANSELMO, MURDOCH,
BURKE, PIPER & HOCHMAN, P.A.
Attorneys for Defendant
2455 East Sunrise Boulevard, Suite 1000
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33304
Telephone: (954) 463-0100
Facsimile: (954) 463-2444
/s/Hudson C. Gill
JEFFREY L. HOCHMAN
Florida Bar Number: 902098
HUDSON C. GILL
Florida Bar Number. 15274
24
Case 9:14-cv-80317-DMM Document 54 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/24/2014 Page 25 of 25'
SERVICE LIST
MARRETT WILLIS HANNA, ESQ.
COMMERCE GROUP, INC.
1280 West Newport Center Drive,
Deerfield Beach, FL 33442
Attorney for Plaintiff
Phone: (954) 570-3718
Fax: (954) 360-0807
Email: f3mhannaQyahoo.com
RYAN L. W1TMER ESQ.
THE O'BOYLE LAW FIRM P.C.
1286 West Newport Center Drive
Deerfield Beach, FL 33442
Attorney for Plaintiff
Phone: (954) 574-6885
Email: rwitmer(@oboylelawfirm.com
GIOVANI MESA, ESQ.
THE O'BOYLE LAW FIRM P.C.
1286 West Newport Center Drive
Deerfield Beach, FL 33442
Phone: (954) 574-6885
Email: gmesana,oboy)elawfirm.com
JOANNE M. O'CONNOR, ESQ.
JONES, FOSTER, JOHNSTON & STUBBS
505 South Flagler Drive
Suite 1100, P.O. Box 3475
West Pahn Beach, FL 33402
Phone: (561) 659-3000
Email: joconnor a,iones-foster.com
JEFFREY L. HOCHMAN, ESQ.
HUDSON C. GILL, ESQ.
JOHNSON, ANSELMO, MURDOCH,
BURKE, PIPER & HOCHMAN, P.A.
2455 East Sunrise Boulevard, Suite 1000
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33304
Attorneys for Defendants
Telephone: (954) 463-0100
Email: Hochman@jambg.com
E -Mail: hgill(a)iambg.com
25
LAW OFFICES
JOHNSON, ANSELMO, MURDOCH, BURKE, PIPER & HOCHMAN, P.A.
A PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION
DAMUW H. ALBERT, PA.
W. HAMPTON JOHNSON, IV
SCOTT O. ALEXANDER, PA
2455 EAST SUNRISE BOULEVARD
J. MARCOS MARTINEZ
CHRISTOPHER AMBROSIO
SURE 1000
ROBERT E. MURDOCH
MICHAEL T. SURKE'1
FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33304
MICHAEL R. PIPER •
HUDSON C. GILL
DAVID M. SCHWEIGER, P.A.
JEFFREY L. HOCHMAN, PA.
CHRISTOPHER L. SMITH
E. BRUCE JOHNSON •
(9-A)463-0100 Bm d
CHRISTOPHER J. STEARNS, PA.
(705)945-2000 Dade
(561)640-7440 WPB
11t'lJRllt
•4u.wuerwnnTvcn�e ruu+.lar5u
TELECOPIER (954) 463-2444
RONALD P. ANSELMO
BURL F. GEORGE
December 31, 2014
Irma Cohen VIA EMAIL
Florida League of Cities
PO Box 538135
Orlando, FL 32853-8135
Re: Martin O'Boyle v. William Thrasher, et al.
Claim No.: GC2014079013
Our File No.: 00640/34359
Case No.: 14 -CV -81248
Dear Ms. Cohen:
Enclosed please find a copy of the Amended Complaint filed by the Plaintiff in the above -
referenced matter.
The enclosure includes no allegations which are significantly different from the allegations
in the prior pleading. As a result, we will be filing a Motion to Dismiss on behalf of Garrett Ward,
William Thrasher, and the Town of Gulf Stream.
If you have any questions about the enclosure, please call me.
V f4 yours
Jeffrey .Hochman
JLH/kme For the Firm
Enclosure
cc: William Thrasher, Via Email, w/encl.
Garrett Ward, Via Email, w/encl.
" , Q u n o O
g o e a g w l e d u t s a p t s a i o q , a l u a P ! s a a e p u o 1 3 a s l ( , d 3 ! l u I e l d ) a l , C o g , O " g u l l l u W ' �
H f l N g A ( I N V N O I . L O I Q S R I I I f ' S g I J H V d
3 3 g a j o l q u p n b o p u e k i o l e a e l o o p s ��a a s u o g o e s i y y " Z
w o w p u a w e X q l o l e l A i o l l o j
o f u o p o e d o s a s n e o l o V s w [ e l O u o " L " m e l u o w w o o e P P o l 3 P U e � 8 6 1 � D - S - f l Z h o f l u e n s m d
s 1 g 8 u l [ A c a s , H p u t n l d 3 o u o l l e l o I A , s l u e p u a 3 a Q a y l 3 o y o e a s w o o u o o u o u o e s t g w ' I
: s a l e l s p u e ( s l u e p u o j o Q ) W V j ' d L S d ' I f l O
A O N M O L Q N V ' Q H V A . J - L g H H V O ` H H H S V H H i " H W V I - I I I I A s o n s X g a j a q ` l a s u n o o
p o u s t s l a p u n a y g 2 n o l y l p u e , C q ` ( , d 3 u u l e l d ) ' g " I A O H ' H N I J 2 T V W ` J 3 ! u n e l d a g L
, L N I V ' I d W O J Q g Q N g W V
I
s l u e p u a 3 a Q
' W V 9 ' d l S d " I f l ' J A O M V W . 1
' ( A " 1 7 I V n ( I I A I ( I N I ) C F H V M . 1 3 - 8 R I V O
` ( T I V A G I A I Q N I ) H H H S V I I H . I ' H N I V I T I I M
H } L L Q - 8 b Z 1 8 - A O - b I : 6 : " O N H S V O
A
` j l l l u f e l d
g 1 A O 9 , O ' g N I L d V W
V Q I H O 7 d
J O . L O I N I S I Q N H g H L f l O S F I H I H O 3 D M O O . L O I I U S I Q S g . I V L S G E I I I N f l H H . L N I
L T ) o T @ b e d b T O Z 1 6 Z I Z T l a l i a o Q Q S I d u o p a a a l u d 9 T l u a w n u o Q H N 1 Q - 8 b Z T 8 - A 3 - b T : 6 a s > ? O
Case 9:14-cv-81248-DTKH Document 16 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/29/2014 Page 2 of 17
4. The individual defendants both reside and are employed in Palm Beach County at the
Town of Gulf Stream which is a Florida municipal government.
5. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 as this case
arises under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. For state law claims, this court may exercise pendant jurisdiction
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
6. This Court is the appropriate venue for the vindication of the Plaintiffs civil rights
because the Defendants both live and work in Palm Beach County and the incidents complained
of occurred in Palm Beach County which lies in the United States Southern District of Florida.
7. All conditions precedent to this action have occurred or have been excused or waived.
FACTS RELEVANT TO COUNTS AGAINST GARRET WARD
8. On July 15`s, 2014, the Plaintiff was in Town Hall, specifically in Town Clerk Rita
Taylor's office with Clerk Taylor and Garret Ward, who works as the Town's Police Chief.
9. The Plaintiffs associate was filming with the Plaintiff while in Town Hall. The Town
of Gulf Stream had previously demanded that the Plaintiff produce any authority which purports
to allow Plaintiff to videotape in a public building.
10. The Plaintiff showed Town Clerk Taylor a court order from Atlantic County, New
Jersey concerning Plaintiffs ability to videotape while in public buildings. The Town Clerk
copied the docket number and other information so that the court document could be sufficiently
identified and retrieved through a public records request.
11. Garret Ward also requested to inspect the Plaintiffs New Jersey court order and the
Plaintiff obliged Mr. Ward.
12. Mr. Ward then seized Plaintiffs document and told the Plaintiff that he was going to
copy it, thereby seizing the document to seize the information which was against the Plaintiffs
2
s!q J! NNS9JJ9u!rld uogM •saldwes Jte olid of ,(up leg] IIrH umo,l, o1JJ!1u!rld palurdw000e puq
wogm uelo!ugoal i!u uealo aqi of Autuslp passaidxa pauM -iW 'aowl solnulw maJ d '61
-2u!plmq oql aneal ,Clalr!paww1 lou p!p aqi! palsane
aq P1nom oq lugl pur anudnis!p 2ulaq sem aq iegl JJ!lu!rld aql pag!lou uagl pirM 'IN '8I
-roar oulgouw Xdoo aql woaJJJPu!uld aqi paloofo
Alq!oaoJ pue spueq gloq qi?m moglo pue isum 1112u sdJ!lu1eld paggei2 uagl p1eM '11N 'L I
•oouenaasgo oaaw dq w!q of sno!ngo oslu sem I! 'sansi oouuluq pry
JJ!lu!eld lugs a2palmou4 snolnaad peg,Quo lou piep{ •JlN '4sop AgJuau uJo so2po daegs oql oluo
w!q 2un400tq isowlu Apoq ologm s!g ql!m 3J9u!uld aql panogs pue snounJ awuoaq pauM 'iW
•pa!doo sem l! aaoJaq'pueq gal s!q qpm luawnoop oql panaulaJ C1>(3lnbJJ9ulrld 341'91
luawnaop s!q 2ulnalJloa woJJ JJllu!rld aqi luanaJd of wieaaoJ pue isum puny-lildu sJJllaluid
paggea2 uogl paeM -JIN •pa!doo aq P1noo l! aioJaq luawnaop aglJo uolssassod ager of Idwallu
ue ui ou!gaew ldoo oglJo iapaa; aqi nano puuq lg2u s!q pouop!sodJJ9uleld aq L 'S 1
Japan VnOa aql ana!JIaJ pue j!luap! 01 faessaaau uolu3LUJ0jUl ag1J0110 seg Apeaale X101J umoJ,
oql lugl paeM 'JW pau ioJu! put, au!gaew ,idoo umo L aqi pagoeoiddu JJpu!e1d OLU 'bI
„•ilnpr u0 aNq loe„ of papaau aq 1rgl JJllu!uld aqi of p!rs paeM
IN •pawnlai oq l! lrgl popuewap pue 2ul,CdooJo sasodand aql JoJ luawnaop aglJo uoissassod
s,pJuM •alnl of luasuoa lou p!p oq leg] sawp ]Punas paeM 'IN PIoIJJpu!uld DU 'El
„•dlaadoid Jno,f lou s,legy„ 'paluls uagl
JJ!lu!nld oqj ,,,gstlooj aq l,uoQ„ `JJpu1Bld aqi ploi pue punoa0, pawn] `JJpu!eld aq) qum pa,touue
Apealo pur uueaJg a 2ul,iuua'pnAM IN uodnaaagm aloeq Inwnoop aqi a>(ul of a>I!l P1nom
aq leg] piuM •Jlh pauuoJu! JJ!lwuld aqy •pawnlaa put? paloadsu! Aluo 'pa!doo luawnaop aql aneq
01 luasuoa lou p!p aq legs pieM JN palow)su! Allraon!nboun pue llaleipaww! JJ!lulrld aqy Ipm
LT 10 £ a6ed bTOZ/6Z/ZT i OOG GSgd uo pai91u3 9T luawnaoa HHl4-9bZT9-n3-VT 6 aseD
Case 9:14-cv-81248-DTKH Document 16 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/29/2014 Page 4 of 17
technician would be arrested if he continued to take air samples, so that the Plaintiff could decide
whether to relieve his technician of his contract, Mr. Ward responded, "No, I am not gonna arrest
him. He is a pawn. He is a pawn. I don't arrest people like that."
COUNTI- BATTERY
20. Plaintiff re -alleges and incorporates by reference the above numbered paragraphs I
through 19 as if fully alleged herein.
21. Mr. Ward, acting out of anger, intentionally grabbed the Plaintiffs wrist and arms
and shoved him near the copy machine on July 15, 2014. Such a touching was without consent
and was patently offensive. The Plaintiff is 62 years old with visible balance issues and his
proximity to a sharp metallic filing cabinet created an outrageously dangerous situation. Plaintiff
notes that Mr. Ward's grip was very strong and caused the Plaintiff undue pain.
22. Mr. Ward acted intentionally in bad faith, with malicious purpose, and in a manner
exhibiting wanton and willful disregard for human rights, safety, and property.
23. Plaintiffs believes that Mr. Ward is becoming increasingly irate with him and "short
fused." His verbal abuses are uncalled for and malicious. Plaintiff believes that he should feel
free to conduct public business in Town Hall and within the Town without being in imminent
fear of another battery.
RELIEF REQUESTED
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays this Court:
(a) Declare that the Defendant's action constitutes common law battery;
(b) Enjoin the Defendant from unlawfully battering the Plaintiff in the future;
(c) Award the Plaintiff compensatory damages for: a.) the future cost of hiring a
videographer as a precautionary measure to accompany Plaintiff while in Town Hall so
5
ylnesse uowwoo salnhlsuoo uotlae s,luepuajaQ aql lugs aieloa0 (n)
:lano0 stgi sAtud jj!1u!e1d '9IOd9IHHM
(laISH1lOaH d811aZ1
•11nussu laglouu Jo luaj
woutwwt ut Sutag lnogltm umo L oql utgltm pue 119H uA%O L w ssoutsng otlgnd lonpuoa of gall
laoj pinogs aq leg) sanallagJJ!luteld •snotoguw pue aoj palleaun alu sasnge leglan stH „-pasnU
asogs„ pue wtq ql!m cleat AlSutsewout ;lutwooaq st pj%'11N legl sanatloq sjjllululd 'LZ
'6laadoad put: `Alojus 'slggu uewnq joj piOloistp lnUllim pue uoluem Sutl!q!gxa
aauuew e w pue 'osodind snotatluw ql!m `glteJ Puq ut Slluuotlualut palon pnM -JW '9Z
•laeluoa
leotsXgd Aue of aoud,Saaunq a gans papuagaaddu JJ!luteld oqy •3ntsu33}o ,Clluaied snm pue
luasuoo lnogltm sem Sutgonol u gonS 'bIOZ'SI �inr uo auigouw Xdoo nql luau wtq panogs pun
sawn puu lsum s33tlutuld aql pagquaS Alluuotlualu! 'aa8ue jo uto Supou 'pauM 'aIN 'SZ
'U1313q p383lle AIInJJ! su 61 gSnoagl
t sgdeaSuaud paaagwnu anoge aql aouaaajaa ,Sq saluiodioam puu saSo11u-aa jj!lu!uld 'tbZ
.L'If1VSSV —11 IN1100
logoid opstnbaa uodn
sa8ewep ant]!und Sutpnloui aadoad swaap lano0 aql sn Jatlaa aaglan; gans luw0 (a)
•uotlae
Sup ut paunout sosuodxo pue'slsoo'saaj s,6awouu olgeuoseaa spjjjtluletd plumy (p)
•lsaaalut luautSpnfaad pue'slsoo se Ilam se',Saauuq Jo aeoj pun
luawsstuaegwa `uotleg!wnq'f4!uStp jo ssol'gstnSue lamow of pal!tuq lou Inq Sutpnlout
ssaalstp leuouowa ,Clauen-uapaeS aoj (•q pun ajagl po Soldwa st paeM •ayy se Suol
LT 10 S abed bTOZ/6Z/ZT 101100(l OSId uo paaalud 9T luawnoo0 H)IlC1-8bZT8-AD-bT:6 aS23
Case 9:14-cv-81248-DTKH Document 16 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/29/2014 Page 6 of 17
(b) Enjoin the Defendant from unlawfully assaulting the Plaintiff in the future;
(c) Award the Plaintiff compensatory damages for: a.) the future cost of hiring a
videographer as a precautionary measure to accompany Plaintiff while in Town Hall so
long as Mr. Ward is employed there and b.) for garden-variety emotional distress
including but not limited to mental anguish, loss of dignity, humiliation, embarrassment,
and fear of battery, as well as costs, and prejudgment interest.
(d) Award Plaintiff its reasonable attorney's fees, costs, and expenses incurred in this
action.
(e) Grant such further relief as the Court deems proper including punitive damages
upon requisite proffer.
COUNT III — UNLAWFUL SEIZURE -PAPERS
28. Plaintiff re -alleges and incorporates by reference the above numbered paragraphs I
through 19 as if fully alleged herein.
29. On July 15, 2014, Mr. Ward was acting under color of law, dawning a uniform,
badge, and firearm, the entire time during his encounter with the Plaintiff.
30. Mr. Ward failed to return Plaintiffs papers after Plaintiff terminated his consent for
Mr. Ward to search them.
31. Mr. Ward was less than 2 seconds away from copying the papers when Plaintiff
acted.
32. Mr. Ward violated clearly established Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment law as he
had no warrant, no probable cause, and no reasonable suspicion to detain Plaintiffs papers.
Plaintiff felt that he was not secure in his papers when Mr. Ward's consent to search was
terminated.
io3 luasuoo slg paleuluuaUBululd';)Un stadrd s 1311u1r1d wnlaj of pal!uj pjuA� -1w 'L£
d!uuMd aql gl!m aalunooua snl 8uunp awtl ai!lua agl'uueaty pue'38peq
'w1o3!un a 8ulumup'mu13o.toloo iapun Bullae sem pjuM 'jW `b1OZ `SI XInf u0 '9£
•u!aaaq pa8allr Xllty 3! sr 61 g8nwgl
I sgdu8eiud p3lagwnu anoge ag1 aouaiopi Aq soletodloout pue sa8alle-aj jjpu!eld 'S£
NOSHU-MIMS'IfIAMV'INfl—AIIINJ I00
.1a}}o1d allslnbal uodn
938ewep aAtltund 8utpnlout .ladoid swaap linoo oql se jogai iagl.lty Bons luei0 (a)
s!ql ut pa.unoui sasuadxa pur'slsoo `saa; s,Amolln algeuosuai sl! Jj!lulrld pzrmV (p)
•lsa.lalul luow8pnfoad pue'slsoo se Ilam
se 'l1311eq 3o ae33 pun 'mawssrjlegwa 'uouetltwnq 'X1tu8lp 3o ssol 'gs!n.9ue leluow of pall wll
lou 1ng 8utpnloul ssaals!p leuo!lowa XlaueA-uaple8 3o3 (•q puu alagl paAoldwa s! piuM ''W
sr 8uol os IIuH umoy u! al!gA% JJ!lu!eld Xuedwoaop, of ainsraw fmo!lneowd r sr, i3gdri8onp!A
u 8uu!g3o lsoo wntnq oql ('r :jo•I s38pwrp Ciolpsuodwooplu!rld aq1 pirmV (a)
'.alnpy 3q1 ut sioded s jj!iutrld 8utztas Alln•Imulun wo1g luepu333Q aql ulofuH (q)
:slg8ij
leiapad s jjtlute1d JO uo!lelo!A a palnl!tsuOO notloe s,luepua3aQ 3111 legl oluloaQ (e)
:pnoH sn11 s6ead JJ9uleld `9ZI039NHHM
QH.LSHflaHZI 3HI'm
•uogrlolA leuotltu!lsuoo r palnipsuoo wnz!as
e gans legs maul oqm leuo!ssadoid luawaaaodua mud poouauadxa un sl parts 'jIN '17£
'£861 $'J'S'fl
Zb g8non11 SSalpal sjaas aq pue palelo!A atom slg8u luuotimpsuoo letapa3 sd3uuteld'££
LT to L 06ad 4TOZ/6Z/ZT MOOG CIS -H uo palalu3 9T luawnOOG HNiG-84ZT8-A3-t7T:6 OST30
Case 9:14-cv-81248-DTKH Document 16 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/29/2014 Page 8 of 17
Mr. Ward to search them.
38. Mr. Ward was less than 2 seconds away from copying the papers and thus seizing the
information contained therein when Plaintiff acted.
39. Mr. Ward grabbed Plaintiff with requisite force to inflict pain and to direct Plaintiffs
forward movement.
40. Mr. Ward violated clearly established Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment law as he
had no warrant, no probable cause, and no reasonable suspicion to grab Plaintiffs wrist and
elbow in order to restrict or direct his physical movement.
41. Plaintiff's federal constitutional rights were violated and he seeks redress through 42
U.S.C. § 1983.
42. Mr. Ward is an experienced law enforcement professional who knew that such a
seizure constituted a constitutional violation,
rights;
RELIEF REQUESTED
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays this Court:
(a) Declare that the Defendant's action constituted a violation of Plaintiffs federal
(b) Enjoin the Defendant from unlawfully seizing Plaintiff's papers in the future;
(c) Award the Plaintiff compensatory damages for: a.) the future cost of hiring a
videographer as a precautionary measure to accompany Plaintiff while in Town Hall so long as
Mr. Ward is employed there and b.) for garden-variety emotional distress including but not
limited to mental anguish, loss of dignity, humiliation, embarrassment, and fear of battery, as
well as costs, and prejudgment interest..
(d) Award Plaintiff its reasonable attorney's fees, costs, and expenses incurred in this
A
:pnoO stgl sXwd33!lululd'MdOq9-dflHM
U3lShclbaH 391'13'd
'£861 §'O'S'n
Zb g2natgl ssalpal sxaas aq pue palelolA alam sig2tl leuotlnipsuoo Imapa} s,ddllu1eld 'Sb
•pDlau
.Uqu!eld uagm sladed aql 2ut6doo wo13 ,Came spuooas Z uugl ssal sem p1eM '1W 'Lb
,wagl goieas of p1QM '1W
10} luasuoo sty paleumal,ydllu!eld lallu sladed s,dllluleld wmal of pallet p1eM'1W `11eH unwy
w 2utwlg io3 Xploglnu aplAold of wtq palsu pug nmol Dill osnuooq lg2nolq,Cluo;;l7u!uld Dql
gotgm `1ap10 pnoo 6aslaf malt' s!g aulwexa of p1CM '1W Pam011UPululd aql 1aUV '9b
• Clojus s,otlgnd
aq1 0l onsst ou 2ulaq a1ag1 apdsap '(puH umol aseo stgl ut) s3nds otlgnd ni wIH of 41!1!qu
aql uoslad,Cue DAIS of spodmd gotgm ,Cwoglne3o Joo1d Sdoa luasuoa lnogllm pue Xlglaloj
of sem poluawaldwt ,Cotlod aql '213H -suotloun3 ,Clojes oggnd 2utlnaaxa of p1e231 gum dPloglnV
2utNew,Cogod Iuu!,q sassassod puu weaalS )inD w aagod jo,lantJ aql st pluM -1IN 'Sb
3J!lu!uld oql gllm lalunooua stq 2uunp Dual anlua aq] 'tweaig puu'a2ppq
lumopun a 2utumep mu1 jo lobo iapun 2upou sum p1eM '1W 'bl OZ 'S 1 AInf uo 'bb
-utolaq pa2allu Allnd d! su 61 g9nagl
I sgdm2ulud palagwnu anoge oql Do injo1,Sq salulodlooui puu saSalle-a133tlu1eld '£b
(Allllqutl IudtDlunyll) S*IgdVd-d2If17IdS If13MV 7Nfl —A .I.Nf1OJ
1aljtatd al?smbol uodn
s32ewep antllund Ou!pnlaui lodold swaop pno0 Dill su}agal lagilnj qons utnl[) (a)
•uogoe
LT 10 6 a6ud VTOZ/6Z/ZT 10>t000 OSId uo paJ9lu3 9T luawnaoO H>IlO-8bZTB-Ao-17T:6 aseO
Case 9:14-cv-81248-DTKH Document 16 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/29/2014 Page 10 of 17
(a) Declare that the Defendant's action constituted a violation of Plaintiffs federal
rights;
(b) Enjoin the Defendant from unlawfully seizing Plaintiffs papers in the future;
(c) Award the Plaintiff compensatory damages for: a.) the future cost of hiring a
videographer as a precautionary measure to accompany Plaintiff while in Town Hall so long as
Mr. Ward is employed there and b.) for garden-variety emotional distress including but not
limited to mental anguish, loss of dignity, humiliation, embarrassment, and fear of battery, as
well as costs, and prejudgment interest.
(d) Award Plaintiff its reasonable attorney's fees, costs, and expenses incurred in this
action.
(e) Grant such fiirther relief as the Court deems proper.
COUNT VI — UNLAWFUL SEIZURE -PERSON (Municipal Liability)
49. Plaintiff re -alleges and incorporates by reference the above numbered paragraphs I
through 19 as if fully alleged herein.
50. On July 15, 2014, Mr. Ward was acting under color of law, dawning a uniform,
badge, and firearm, the entire time during his encounter with the Plaintiff. Mr. Ward is the Chief
of Police in Gulf Stream and possesses Final Policymaking Authority with regard to executing
public safety functions. Here, the policy implemented was to forcibly seize any person or
otherwise restrict their movement if they attempted to prevent the Town from copying any
authority which purports to give any person the ability to film in Town Hall, regardless of
consent or criminal activity.
51. Mr. Ward failed to return Plaintiffs papers after Plaintiff terminated his consent for
Mr. Ward to search them.
10
II
1adold swaap uno0 agl se ja!1a11ayunj yaps 1ue10 (a)
slyl ui paunoui sasuodxa pue 'slsoo 'saaj s,6awolle algeuoseal sl! Vlu!eld plemy (p)
-lsalalui luawSpnfald pue'slsoo se. liom
se',Clalleq go leaf PUB 'luawsseuegwa'uo!leg!wnq'41!uSlp go ssol'ys!nguu leluaw of pauw!l
lou inq Sulpnlout sswislp leuo!lowa jQ1IEA-uapleS 1oj (-q pue 'olog1 pa,Coldwa s! p1eM '1tV
se Suol os lleH umoy ut ol!gm jj!lu!eld Auedw000e of amseaw x1mo!lneoawd a se lagdelSoap!n
e Suu!q jo ]soo alnlnj aql (•e :1oj soSewep Aiolesuadwoo jj!lu!eld oql plemy (o)
'alnlnj Qq) u! Bladed sdjlluleld Su!zias,ipnjmelun wolf wupuajacl aql u!ofug (q)
lelapaj s,jj!lu!eld jo uo!lelo!n a palnl!lsuoo uollor. s,luepuajaQ aql my weloaa (e)
:lano0 slgl shad jj!lumld'gHOAFI21gHM
musaflogN agma I
!s1g9u
'ES61 § '3,s,n
Zb gSnonll ssalpal s>[aas ay pue palelo!n alam slgSu leuopnmsuoa lelopaj s jj!luleld -SS
•,Clsnoauellnw!s
)nawaAow leols,Cgd s!q laanp pue 11lawaAow leo!sXgd s!y loulsol as!nuaylo of mogla
Put! ]sum sJJ!lu!eld ger8 of uo!oldsns olgeuoseal ou pue'osneo olgegold ou yumium ou peq
aq se mel luawpuawy gluaaiinod pue quno,q pags!lgelsa KIM010 paleloln p1eM 'IN •b5
amz!as le8all! s,piuM '11N SuTalemgl wotj
jjnu!eld luaAoid of u!ed la!Oui of ooloj al!swbal gum jjllu!eld pagquA pium '1W •£S
•paloe jj!luleld uogm u!wagl pauleluoo uo!leuuojul
aql Su!z!as sngl pue sladed aql Su!xdoa wolf Xume spu000s Z uegl ssal sem p.rnM -11N 'ZS
LT 10 TT abed bTOZ/6Z/ZT MOOD OS -1d uo palalu3 9T luawnao0 H>Il0-gbZT9-no-qT:6 aseO
Case 9:14-cv-81246-DTKH Document 16 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/29/2014 Page 12 of 17
FACTS RELEVANT TO COUNTS AGAINST WILLIAM THRASHER
56. On or about September 8, 2014, the Plaintiff entered the Town Hall of Gulf Stream
("Town Hall") Florida to conduct public business, mainly inspect and/or attempt to retrieve
public records.
57. In the main foyer area of Town Hall, the Plaintiff was met by Kelly Avery, William
Thrasher, and a Town Police Officer. The Plaintiff was accompanied by his associate who
filmed the interaction
58. During the interaction, Mr. Thrasher became irate with Plaintiff regarding a
discussion about public records.
59. At one point, Mr. Thrasher took an aggressive "pre -combat" stance and extended his
arm towards Plaintiff's chest as if he were going to push and make contact with Plaintiff's left
breast. The Plaintiff was apprehensive that a offensive touching would occur.
60. Instead of shoving, Mr. Thrasher extended his finger and brought it close to
Plaintiff's body, within an inch or so of the Plaintiffs chest. Mr. Thrasher asked Plaintiff and the
Plaintiff's associate, who was video recording the interaction, if he was being recorded. Mr.
Thrasher repeatedly asked this in an angry and demanding tone.
61. Mr. Thrasher then began to repeatedly harass Mr. O'Boyle's associate in a rude and
demeaning tone regarding the recording. Mr. O'Boyle attempted to cease the harassment of his
associate by trying to engage Mr. Thrasher in conversation with him instead. At that point, Mr.
Thrasher stated "I am not talking to you!".
12
EI
e 2uulq jo lsoo amin3 aql ('e :mJ sa2ewep kiolesuadwoo JJ!lu!eld aql p1emV (o)
'';)Imr J aql ut JJtlululd agl 2uulnesse wo.y luepunja4 ayl utoCug (q)
ylnesse mel uowwoo salnl!lsuoo uotloe s,luepu33aQ aql legl o loo(I (e)
:lanoO sigl siiuld JJqu!eld `9110-4983HM
Q3,LS3fld32I 33I'I3u
'3!nesse iaglouujo zea; luau!ww! u! 2ulaq lnogl!m ssou!snq o!lgnd lonpuoo of aa1J laaJ pinogs
Qq legl sanagaq JJuuleld 'aiagl paleaol s! aag;o siq se 'iagsenld 'iyg olul utu XION!l uegl aiow
ll!m pue JJOH umoL woy pue of 02 of pannbal oq Ipm oq's2unaayl IluH umoL 2ulpuaile se pam
se sploow oggnd 2ullaadsu! pue 2nIAI0031 u! p32e2ua ,CIaA!las s! JJ!lu!eld asneaag „ pisry wogs„
PUB w!q ql!M aAlssat22e ,(l2u!sealau! 2u!wooaq s! aagsejq_L -1w leyl sana!lagJJ!lu1eld 'L9
'Ala;es pue slga!s uewnq aoJ pau2ais!p pgll!M pue uoluaM 2uil!q!gxa
iauuew a u! pue 'osodlnd sno!a!lew ql!m 'gl!uj peq u! Alleuo!lualut paloe aayselq L 'ayq '99
'laeluoa aA!suaJJo pue JUanllnwi ueJo aA!suagaadde aweaaq
JJNu!eld agl'aouels „legwoa-aid„ a in ol!gm palwJO alels aAlssai22e pue palepnJut luaiedde ue
2u!.mp JJ!lweld spiemol aa2ug siq AIleug pue uue siq papualxo iagseiyL 'lye! ua1IM 'S9
'u!a.laq pa2alle AIR A Se £9-95 PUB L gSnoigl
I sgdei2eied paingwnu anoge aqi aouajaJal Aq saleaocboam pue sa2alle-ea JJ!lu!eld 'b9
.L`InVSSV—IIA LNIlOO
-JJllu!eld 3p sngl pue elaweo ay yuM
laeluoo 2u!llew eaaweo aql jo suol aql olui asou siq Monis jogsulgL -iyq '/CluappnS '£9
•aagsenlJ, UN JO IOIAegaq
olluia ayl paoaaa of lapio ut ale!aosse siq ulaJ eialuea oop!A aql yool uaglJJtlu!eld "Z9
L110 ET a6ad 17TOZ/6Z/ZT 1a1000 QSTd uo paaalu3 9T luawnoo4 HNLO-8bZTg-A3-bT:6 asnO
Case 9:14-cv-81248-DTKH Document 16 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/29/2014 Page 14 of 17
videographer as a precautionary measure to accompany Plaintiff while in Town Hall so
long as Mr. Ward is employed there and b.) for garden-variety emotional distress
including but not limited to mental anguish, loss of dignity, humiliation, embarrassment,
and fear of battery, as well as costs, and prejudgment interest.
(d) Award Plaintiff its reasonable attorney's fees, costs, and expenses incurred in this
action.
(e) Grant such further relief as the Court deems proper including punitive damages
upon requisite proffer.
COUNT VIII — CAMERA ASSAULT
68. Plaintiff re -alleges and incorporates by reference the above numbered paragraphs 1
through 7 and 56-63 as if fully alleged herein.
69. When Mr. Thrasher placed his face into the camera which Plaintiff was holding
closely to his body, the Plaintiff immediately became apprehensive of an immediate and
offensive touching.
70. Mr. Thrasher acted intentionally in bad faith, with malicious purpose, and in a manner
exhibiting wanton and willful disregard for human rights and safety.
71. Plaintiff believes that Mr. Thrasher is becoming increasingly aggressive with him and
"short fused." Because Plaintiff is actively engaged in receiving and inspecting public records as
well as attending Town Hall Meetings, he will have to transit to and from Town Hall and will
necessarily run into Mr. Thrasher. Plaintiff believes that he should feel free to conduct public
business without feeling imminent fear of another assault.
RELIEF REQUESTED
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays this Court:
14
91
IIeH umoy woy puu of llsuen of aneq p!m Qq 's2uilaalnl IIeH umoy 2ulpu011e se Ilam se spaoaas
ollgnd 2ulloadsut pue 2ulA19331 u! pa2e2ua ,Clanpae s! JJtluield asnuoag „ pasnJ hogs„ pue
wiq gltm 0ntss01229 X15tummou! 2utwooaq s! 13gsutl,l,'iW legl sanagoq s jj!1u!cld '9L
Cuadoad
PUB ',paJus'slg2u uewnq aoi pau2alstp pylll,n pue uotuem 2umgtgxa
iauuuw u ui pue'asodtnd snotogew gllm 'gl!uj puq ut Allmo!lualut polos iagsetgy 'iw 'SL
„'spaom 2utlg2g„ of lunoweluei alam suotloe s,aagseigy 'slnl 'bL
'a2upuodde s3Jlluleld Jo lied se polon woweo aql se 2wgono) qons of wt)otn llaJ
lnq 2unlonol aAlsuaJJo pue aletpaww! uv papuogalddu 6luo lou JJtluield aql 'Apoq s!q of ,Clasolo
2wploq semJJlluteld gotq,,A momm agl olui noel s!q paoeld jagseaq,L -1W uagm '£L
'ulajag pa23llu XllnJ J! se £9-95 Pur. L g2noigl
I sgdui8uaud poaagwnu anoge aql aouaaa;oi Aq saleiodmout pue s3231[e-aaJJtlutuld 'ZL
A2I'd.LIVg — XI ,LNflOJ
-jaJJad apswboj uodn
SZSewep antllund 2ulpnl3u! aadoad swaap unoj aql se Jatlaj jaqunJ Bons lup. D (a)
slgl ut palinout sosuodxa Poo 'slsoo'saaJ s,Aoulolle algeuoseaa sllJJ!luteld piumV (p)
'lsaaalui luow2pnfaod pue'slsoa se pam se',Caalleq Jo luaJ put!
'luawsseuegwa'uogP..11lwnq',glu2ip jo ssol'gsln2ue leluaut of pal!w!I lou lnq 2ulpnlau!
SsallstP Ieuonowa XlauuA-uapie2 10J ('q pue alagl pa,Coldwa st pirA1 'iN se 2uol
os IIeH umoZ u! allgmJJllutuld Auudwoom of amseow Anuollneoaid a se.tagdul2oap!A
e 2uutq Jo lsoo almnJ oql ('e aoJ sa2ewep fjolesuadwoo Jltlululd aql plemV (o)
!wtuttJ oql ut JJllululd oql 2utllnussu woiJ luepua}aQ aql utofug (q)
'•llnessu mel uotuwoo salnlllsuoa uopoe s,luepuaJaQ aql imp a.teloaQ (e)
LT 10 ST abed VTOZ/6Z/ZT l OOG pggd uo paaalu3 gT luawn00Q HN-LG-8bZT8-A3-t7T 6 asa0
Case 9:14-cv-81248-DTKH Document 16 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/29/2014 Page 16 of 17
and will necessarily run into Mr. Thrasher. Plaintiff believes that he should feel free to conduct
public business without being in imminent fear of another assault.
RELIEF REQUESTED
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays this Court:
(a) Declare that the Defendant's action constitutes common law battery;
(b) Enjoin the Defendant from assaulting the Plaintiff in the future;
(c) Award the Plaintiff compensatory damages for: a.) the future cost of hiring a
videographer as a precautionary measure to accompany Plaintiff while in Town Hall so
long as Mr. Ward is employed there and b.) for garden-variety emotional distress
including but not limited to mental anguish, loss of dignity, humiliation, embarrassment,
and fear of battery, as well as costs, and prejudgment interest.
(d) Award Plaintiff its reasonable attorney's fees, costs, and expenses incurred in this
action.
(c) Grant such further relief as the Court deems proper including punitive damages
upon requisite proffer.
JURY TRIAL REQUESTED ON ALL ISSUES SO TRIABLE
Respectfully submitted,
16
Li
woo•uugAwjal oqo weoA
£tr9Sb00H 19H BP11OI3
•bsg `u!eO epualA
u!eO epualA /s/ :AEI
woo • Liu gaslal ogomsoopllnooal oqo
:sluawnoo(I unoO;o aalnlaS log
LOSO-09E 4,96) :allwlsouj
61 Zb-Z I Z (bSL) :auogdalay
ZbbEE'Td `gasag ploglaaQ
anuQ laluaO 11odmoN IsaM 98ZI
iillu!eld 10,1 s4oulow
'O'd `WMA MYI 9'IAOg.O 9H.L bIOZ 6Z� lagwaaaQ :PalaQ
LT 10 LT abed bTOZ16Z/ZT 1@000 QSIJ UO paUalu3 9T luawnaoO HNiG-8bZT8-n3-bT:6 aseO