Verdicts by Practice Area: Government Liability

After a 4 day trial in federal court, the jury returned a verdict of $1.00 on November 10, 2021 in an excessive force matter styled Slayden v. Castro, et al. 

Ft. Lauderdale Managing Partner Dorsey Miller and Senior Partner Frank Sato obtained this favorable verdict in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The Plaintiff, an inmate at the Broward County Main Jail, alleged that he was attacked by two BSO deputies in the early morning hours of August 7, 2018. The Plaintiff claimed that approximately 3 hours before the incident, one of the deputies covered one of two windows on his cell to conceal the attack from the surveillance cameras. Conversely, the Defendant deputies argued that the Plaintiff’s window was covered because he had exposed himself through that window to female officers working in the Control Booth of Plaintiff’s unit on multiple occasions, including the evening before the alleged incident. In retaliation, the Plaintiff attempted to flood his cell with water. After shutting the water off, the officers entered Plaintiff’s cell, at which point they were attacked by the Plaintiff. The officers defended themselves by using strikes and O.C. pepper foam and were ultimately able to subdue Plaintiff and handcuff him. He was then escorted to the vestibule area where he was treated for minor injuries. No other force was used and the deputies were not injured.

The Defendants argued that the force used was not excessive and that they were fully justified in their use of reasonable force based upon BSO policy and procedure and applicable provisions of Florida law. Defendants also argued that any alleged injuries sustained by Plaintiff resulted from his use of violence in resisting the aforementioned lawful actions of the Defendants, and/or from several subsequent altercations in which Plaintiff was involved. Based upon Plaintiff’s testimony on direct examination, the Defendants were able to introduce evidence that Plaintiff had a prior felony conviction for resisting arrest with violence and that he continued to expose himself even after the alleged incident. Defendants also argued that the Plaintiff sustained no permanent injuries as a result of the alleged incident, nor any sequelae from those alleged injuries. After six and a half hours of deliberation, the jury returned a verdict of $1.00. Read more

Orlando Managing Partner Anthony Merendino, Esq., obtained a dismissal in the matter styled Craig Brown, Pro Se Plaintiff, Plaintiff, v. Fidelity National Title Group et al. Plaintiff sued the Defendant, Town of Rockport, Maine, in the Middle District of Florida, alleging four (4) causes of action against the Defendant: (1) Violation of Constitutional Rights by Rockport per 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985; (2) Retaliation against a Crime Victim by Rockport under 18 U.S.C. § 1513 (18 U.S.C. § 1961); (3) Obstruction of Justice by Rockport under 18 U.S.C. § 1503 (18 U.S.C. § 1961); and (4) Extortion, Violation of the Hobbs Act under 18 U.S.C. § 1951.  Plaintiff’s claims arose out of an eighteen (18) year old property boundary line dispute between Plaintiff and his neighbor on Plaintiff’s real property located in Camden, Maine (the “Property”).  Specifically, Plaintiff alleged that his neighbor improperly erected a fence on Plaintiff’s adjacent Property, relying on a fraudulent survey in support.  Plaintiff further alleged he engaged in self-help to remove the fence and was “falsely” convicted of criminal mischief as a result. Plaintiff alleged a criminal/civil conspiracy involving the erection of the fence and the lot lines for his Property by all of the Defendants in this litigation.  In the instant case, the District Court Judge granted the Defendant Town Of Rockport, Maine’s Motion to Dismiss on the grounds that there was a lack of personal jurisdiction and that the court did not have subject matter jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Read more