[PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 19-10474

____________________

STEVEN J. PINCUS, 

an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

AMERICAN TRAFFIC SOLUTIONS, INC, 

a Kansas corporation, 

Defendant-Appellee.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

D.C. Docket No. 9:18-cv-80864-DMM

____________________

USCA11 Case: 19-10474 Date Filed: 02/17/2022 Page: 1 of 4
2 Opinion of the Court 19-10474

Before ROSENBAUM, JILL PRYOR, and BRANCH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

After plaintiff Steven Pincus’s vehicle was photographed 

running a red light in the City of North Miami Beach, he received 

a notice of violation in the mail, informing him that he had violated Florida law and owed a statutory penalty of $158. The notice 

directed that Pincus could pay the penalty online, by phone, or by 

mailing a check or money order. The notice advised that if Pincus 

paid online or by the phone, he would be charged an additional 

convenience fee. Because Pincus paid online with a credit card, he 

was required to pay both the statutory penalty and the convenience fee.

Pincus brought a putative class action against American 

Traffic Solutions, Inc. (“ATS”), the vendor that operated the city’s

red light photo enforcement program. He alleged that several 

Florida statutes barred ATS from charging the convenience fee 

and that ATS was unjustly enriched by retaining the fee. The district court dismissed Pincus’s complaint, concluding that he failed 

to state a claim for relief.

On appeal, we recognized that Pincus’s complaint raised 

several unresolved questions of Florida law. We certified the following questions to the Supreme Court of Florida:

USCA11 Case: 19-10474 Date Filed: 02/17/2022 Page: 2 of 4
19-10474 Opinion of the Court 3

(1) Did ATS violate Florida law when it imposed a five percent 

fee on individuals who chose to pay their red light traffic 

ticket with a credit card? In particular:

a. Does the challenged fee constitute a “commission from 

any revenue collected from violations detected through 

the use of a traffic infraction detector” under Fla. Stat. 

§ 316.0083(1)(b)(4)?

b. Was the fee assessed under Chapter 318 and therefore 

subject to § 318.121’s surcharge prohibition?

c. Was ATS a “money transmitter” that was required to be 

licensed under Fla. Stat. § 560.204(1)?

(2) If there was a violation of a Florida statute, can that violation support a claim for unjust enrichment? In particular:

a. Does Pincus’s unjust enrichment claim fail because the 

statutes at issue provide no private right of action?

b. Does Pincus’s unjust enrichment claim fail because he 

received adequate consideration in exchange for the 

challenged fee when he took advantage of the privilege 

of using his credit card to pay the penalty?

See Pincus v. Am. Traffic Sols. Inc., 986 F.3d 1305, 1320–21(11th 

Cir. 2021).

The Supreme Court of Florida has now answered the last

question, (2)(b), in the affirmative. See Pincus v. Am. Traffic Sols., 

Inc., No. SC21-159, So. 3d , 2022 WL 324706 (Fla. Feb. 3, 

USCA11 Case: 19-10474 Date Filed: 02/17/2022 Page: 3 of 4
4 Opinion of the Court 19-10474

2022). The Court explained that to state a claim for unjust enrichment under Florida law, Pincus had to allege, among other 

things, that “it was inequitable for ATS to retain” the convenience 

fee. Id. at *2. Even assuming Florida law barred ATS from charging the convenience fee, the Court concluded, it was “not inequitable” for ATS to retain the fee because it had given Pincus “value 

in exchange” for the fee. Id. The value that Pincus received in exchange for the convenience fee included: (1) not having to procure postage and a check or money order; (2) being able to pay 

the balance over time; (3) avoiding the risk of payment being delayed, stolen, or lost en route; (4) being afforded more time to 

make the payment because it would be received instantaneously; 

and (5) receiving immediate confirmation that ATS received the 

payment. Id.

The Supreme Court of Florida declined to answer our other questions because its answer to the last question was “determinative of the other questions.” Id. Applying Florida law as the 

State’s highest appellate court has explicated it for us, we conclude that Pincus failed to state a claim for unjust enrichment. Accordingly, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.

USCA11 Case: 19-10474 Date Filed: 02/17/2022 Page: 4 of 4