CopyCited 37 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 2016 WL 1055826
...Although the Martinezes’ claims have been settled or resolved, Blue
Martini has appealed the district court’s order granting summary judgment to the
County on the County’s indemnification claim against Blue Martini. The district
court concluded that Fla. Stat. § 30.2905 -- which makes a private employer
“responsible for the acts or omissions of the deputy sheriff while performing
services for that employer while off duty” -- imposed a strict-liability indemnity
obligation on Blue Martini.
Bl...
...Because we are satisfied that the constitutional question raised is purely a legal
one, and an easy one at that, and because the matter is likely to arise again, we
exercise our discretion to entertain the claim.
After thorough review, we hold that Fla. Stat. § 30.2905 reasonably serves a
variety of legitimate governmental interests, easily passes rational basis scrutiny,
and, therefore, does not violate the due process clause....
...motions for summary judgment. Most significantly for our present purposes,
Miami-Dade County filed a cross-claim for indemnity against Blue Martini,
arguing that “[t]he County is not responsible for the acts of Officers Huerta and
Fleites because Florida Statutes Section 30.2905 provides that the party contracting
for the officers’ off-regular-duty services is responsible for the officers’ acts or
omissions.” The cross-claim asserted that the officers were providing security
services for Blue Martini pursuant to § 30.2905 and thus were acting as agents of
Blue Martini, making Blue Martini vicariously responsible for any wrongdoing by
the officers. Section 30.2905 provides in relevant part that:
5
Case: 14-13722 Date Filed: 03/17/2016 Page: 6 of 17
(1) A sheriff may operate or administer a program to...
...puty
sheriff shall be responsible for the acts or omissions of
the deputy sheriff while performing services for that
employer while off duty, including workers’
compensation benefits.
Fla. Stat. § 30.2905.
Blue Martini moved to dismiss the cross-claim, arguing that the statute does
not require indemnification and, even if it did, it would not apply to the facts of the
case....
...highlighting that Blue Martini had not offered a plausible alternative reading of the
statute.
As the litigation progressed, Blue Martini and the County cross-moved for
summary judgment against one another. In these motions, the parties disputed
whether § 30.2905 imposed strict liability on private parties who contracted for
off-duty police services....
...indemnification for acts or omissions taken by the officers while providing off-
duty services to Blue Martini.” In as much as it was undisputed that the officers’
actions occurred in the breezeway area they had been contracted to patrol, the trial
court held that § 30.2905 entitled the County to summary judgment....
...Thus, Blue
Martini was responsible for indemnifying the County for the settlement amount
with the Martinez siblings and for reasonable attorney’s fees -- a total of $35,575.
Blue Martini filed this timely appeal, raising only one issue -- that § 30.2905
is unconstitutional and, thus, the district court’s judgment should be reversed.
7
Case: 14-13722 Date Filed: 03/17/2016 Page: 8 of 17
Notably, Blue Martini does not a...
...the statute or, indeed, that she committed any error at all apart from applying an
allegedly unconstitutional statute.
II.
Since the County has argued in its brief that Blue Martini lacks standing to
challenge the constitutionality of § 30.2905, we are obliged to first consider whether
the claim is justiciable....
...caused by the challenged conduct; and (3) there is a likelihood the injury could be
redressed by a favorable decision. Id. at 560–61.
As we see it, there is little question that Blue Martini has standing. First, if
we accept the district court’s interpretation of § 30.2905 (and there is no dispute
about this), Blue Martini will be required to indemnify the County in the amount of
$35,575. This is an actual and concrete injury. Moreover, the required payment is
compelled by § 30.2905....
...Blue Martini’s injury would be redressed by a favorable decision. The
bulk of the County’s arguments to the contrary are based on an apparent
misapprehension about the basis of Blue Martini’s claim. Indeed, at oral argument,
the County conceded that Blue Martini has standing to challenge § 30.2905.
III.
The second preliminary question is whether to hear Blue Martini’s
constitutional challenge to § 30.2905....
... Case: 14-13722 Date Filed: 03/17/2016 Page: 11 of 17
public concern) exceptions of the test. Turning to the first one, we agree the issue
raised is purely a matter of law. Blue Martini has asked us to examine the
constitutionality of § 30.2905....
...Blue Martini is a significant one having a general impact. While not, perhaps, of
“transcending public importance,” In re Worldwide Web Sys., Inc.,
328 F.3d 1291,
1301 (11th Cir. 2003), the matter here nonetheless implicates important matters.
The constitutional validity of §
30.2905 as interpreted by the district court affects
the obligations and rights of many employers -- be they nightclubs, religious
organizations, or any others -- in a large metropolitan area that regularly hire...
...03/17/2016 Page: 13 of 17
moonlighting officers. Thus, there is an important interest validated by settling the
law on the issue now.
IV.
Turning then to the merits, Blue Martini argues that § 30.2905 violates the
14th Amendment’s due process clause because there is no legitimate governmental
interest “in shifting liability for the actions of its off-duty police officers
exclusively onto the private employer without regard for wh...
...rnment interest and be found
unconstitutional under rational basis scrutiny.” Williams,
240 F.3d at 948.
Blue Martini cannot overcome this heavy presumption of statutory validity.
There are many legitimate governmental interests served by §
30.2905 -- most
related to the idea that the public should not bear the cost of police actions for
which a private party has contracted....
...that may arise.
15
Case: 14-13722 Date Filed: 03/17/2016 Page: 16 of 17
The County has posited several other legitimate interests that rationally
support the codification of § 30.2905....
...advantage of outside employment opportunities that local governments would not
otherwise be able to afford. Each of these interests is legitimate, and each is
rationally served by the statute. There is more than enough to uphold the
constitutionality of § 30.2905....
...as a ‘moonlighting’ Pennsauken police officer.” Bowman,
709 F. Supp. at 1350. In contrast, the statute here addresses only “the acts or omissions of the
deputy sheriff while performing services for that employer while off duty.” Fla. Stat. §
30.2905
(emphasis added)....
...The County’s application further provides that “an officer taking police
16
Case: 14-13722 Date Filed: 03/17/2016 Page: 17 of 17
The long and short of it is that Blue Martini’s challenge to the
constitutionality of Fla. Stat. § 30.2905 fails under rational basis scrutiny.
Accordingly, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
action outside the purview of the permit, or off the permit holder’s premises, will revert to an on-
duty status.” Thus, while the New Orleans and New...
CopyCited 1 times | Published | District Court, S.D. Florida | 2014 WL 3591595, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98709
...e filed a cross-claim against Blue Martini seeking indemnification and contribution. Prior to filing the cross-claim, the County demanded that Blue *1236 Martini Kendall, LLC indemnify the County in accordance with the provisions of Florida Statute, section 30.2905....
...is dismissed and the.only claim remaining for adjudication is Miami-Dade’s claim for indemnity against Blue Martini Kendall, LLC. i. Blue Martini Kendall, LLC is Obligated By Statute to Indemnify Miami-Dade County Based on the language of Florida Statute, section 30.2905 and of the permit, Miami-Dade is entitled to summary judgment on its indemnity claim. Florida Statute, section 30.2905 states, in relevant part: (1) A sheriff may operate or administer a program to contract for the employment of sheriffs deputies, during off-duty hours, for public or private security services....
...entitled to summary judgment on its indemnity claim against Blue Martini Kendall, LLC. *1241 Blue Martini Kendall, LLC counters that an opinion of the Florida Attorney General, 1990 Fla. Op. Atty. Gen 186 (1990), is directly on point and states that section 30.2905 is not a strict liability statute and that liability should be decided on a case-by-case basis, using the standard master/servant analysis for vicarious liability....
...essing of such action.” There is no question that the incident occurred in the breeze way area and that the officers were performing police services when they approached Plaintiffs and the incident ensued. Thus, under the terms of Florida Statute, section 30.2905, Blue Martini Kendall, LLC, as the permit holder, is liable to Miami-Dade County for indemnity....
