FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT A pr i l 23, 2008 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 07- 11903 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 0 5 - 0 0 2 6 3 - CV - FTM - 2 9 - SPC A L E X Z I V O J I N O V I C H , P l ai nt i ff -C ou nt er - D e f

e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t, J U S T I N Z I V O J I N O V I C H , M I C H E L L E Z I V O J I N O V I C H , P la in tif f s - A p p e lla n ts ,

v ersu s FRA N K BA RN ER, R I T Z - C A R L T O N H O T E L C O M P A N Y , L .L .C ., d . b . a. R i t z C arl t o n N ap l es, D efen d an t s-A p p el l ees, C H R I S T O P H E R K N O T T , S C O T T R U S S E L L , AMY S T AN F OR D, D ef

endant s- C ou nt er - C la im a n ts - A p p e lle e s .Michelle Z ivojinovich’s name also a ppear s on the plaintiffs’ brie f, but it does not 1 c ontain a ny c ontenti on s o f error

that re lateto t

heon ec laim s hebrought, whic h w a s f or false arrest. It is unclear whether she intended to a

ppeal the grant of summar y judgment to the defendants on her c laim, but, if she did, she has waived the appe al by failingto put forward any argumentsin t

hisCourt . Se eF la

nig an’ s Enters . v . Fulton

County, 2 42 F .3 d 9 76 , 9 87 n. 16 (1 1th Cir . 2 00 1) (h oldingthat when a brie f “ fail[s] to e la

bo ra teor prov ideany

c itatio n o f a

uth ority in support of . . . [an] allegation,” the issue is waived) ; Davis v. Hill Eng’ g , Inc., 549 F .2d 314, 324 (5th Cir. 1977) (holdingthat mere ly mentioning in a brief that the district c ourt erred, absent any specificargument as to how the c ourt erred, waives the issue on appe al). 2 _______________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( A p r i l23, 2008) B efo re B IR C H , D U B IN A an d C A RN E S , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: T hi s i s J us t i n a nd A l e x Z i voj i novi c h’ s appe a l of the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s gr a ntof s um m a ry j udgm e ntt o the de f e nda nt s on the i r§ 1983 e xc e s s i ve f or c e a nd n eg l i g en ce cl ai m s. 1 I. T he f ol l ow i ng a r e the f

a c t s vi e w e d i n the l i ghtm os tf a vor abl e t o the Z i voj i novi c hs , w hi c h i s how w e a r e r e qui r e d t o vi e w the m a tthi s s t a ge of the p r o c e e d in g s . S e e T in k e rv . B e a s le y , 4 2 9 F .3 d 1 3 2 4 , 1 3 2 6 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) ; S h o tz v . C ity o f

P la n ta tio n , F la ., 3 4 4 F .3 d 1 1 6 1 , 1 1 6 4 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) ; s e e a ls o C o ttr e ll v. C a l dw e l l , 85 F . 3d 1480, 1486 ( 11th C i r . 1996) ( “ [ W ] ha ti s c ons i de r e d t o be theWil liam “Count” Ba sie (1904–1984) w as a jazzbandleader a nd piano player. During 2 his deposition, Justin said that the comment was intende d as a c ompliment, although he w as personally

unfamiliar with B asie’s music. 3 ‘ f a c t s ’ a tthe s um m a ry j udgm e nts t a ge m a y notturn outt o be the a c tua l f a c t s i f the c a s e goe s t o tr i a l , butthos e a r e the f a c t s a tthi s s t a ge of

the pr oc e e di ng f

or sum m ary j ud gm entpu rposes . ”) . O n D e c e m b e r3 1 , 2 0 0 3 , J u s tin Z iv o jin o v ic h , h is w if

e , M ic h e lle , a n d h is f a th e r , A le x , a tte n d e d ab la c k - tie N e w Y e a r ’s E v e p a r ty a t th e R itz - C a r lto n H o te l in N apl es , F l ori da. T he dance fl oo r of the bal l room w here the party t oo k p l ac e w as s u rr o u n d e d b y d in n e rtab le s o n th r e e s id e s a n d h a d as m a ll s ta g e o n th e f o u r th s id e . T he tw o ba nds tha tha d be e n hi r e d t o pl a y tha tni ghtw e r e a l t e rna t i ng us i ng the s t a ge . A tabout10: 30 p. m . , J us t i n be ga n da nc i ng boi s t e r ous l y . H e c i r c l e d the da nc e f l oorundul a t i ng hi s a rm s , da nc e d w i th f ourw om e n s i m ul t a ne ous l y , a nd e v e n tu a lly s h o v e d ap a r t ac o u p le w h o w e r e d a n c in g a n d , w ith o u t a s k in g , b e g a n to da nc e w i th the w om a n. I m m e di a t e l y the r e a f t e r , J us t i n s t e ppe d ont o the s t a ge uni nvi t e d a nd s a i d “ T ha nk y ou, tha nk y ou. L e t ’ s gi ve i tup f orthe ba nd, the ne xt C o u n tB a s i e . Hap p y Ne w Y e a r ’ s e v e ry o n e , l e t ’ s h a v e aHap p y Ne w Y e a r ’ s . ” He

2 then returned t o h i s t abl e. A t ab o u t 1 1 :1 5 p .m ., J u s tin b e g a n d a n c in g a g a in , th is tim e w ith am a le f r i e nd. T he R i t z ’ s ni ghts hi f tm a na ge ron duty , F r a nk B a rne r , s a w J us t i n da nc i ng4

agai n and deci ded t o cal l the sher i ff’ s off i ce t o h ave deput i es com e t o i ss ue a tr e s pa s s w a rni ng a nd e s c or tJ us t i n of f the R i t z ’ s pr ope r ty . H e r a di oe d the f r ont d es kan d to ldA zu re S o rr ell, th e e m p lo ye e w o rk in g th er e, to ca ll th e s h er iff’s of f i c e . T he n, t o be s ur e tha ta l l of the r e l e va nti nf

orm a t i on w a s c onve y e d, he c a lle d th e C o llie rC o u n ty S h e r if f’s O f f ic e h im s e lf

. B a rne rt ol d the di s pa t c he rtha tthe r e w e r e “ ac oupl e of s ubj e c t s be i ng di sorder l y, ” “ sc re am i ng [, ] and yel l i ng . ” B arner c l ai m ed thatthe subj ec t s “ j um ped up on as t a ge , ” tr i e d “ t o c om m a nde e rthe ba nds t a nd, ” a nd “ w e r e gi vi ng . . . the b a n d m e m b e r s ah a r d tim e .” B a rn e ra ls o to ld th e d is p a tc h e rth a t w h e n h e “tr ie d to ex p l ai n t o [Ju st i n ] th ath e co u l d n ’ td o th at , h e st art ed yel l i n g p ro fan i t i es, s c r e a m in g , y e llin g a n d c a rry in g o n .” I n r e a lity , B a rn e rh a d n o t y e t s p o k e n to J u s tin . D e p u tie s S c o tt R u s s e ll a n d C h r is K n o tt s e p a r a te ly r e s p o n d e d to th e c a ll. T he y w e r e t ol d onl y tha tthe r e w a s adi s turba nc e of s om e ki nd a tthe R i t z i nvol vi ng tw o m e n w h o w e r e b e in g u n ru ly , r e f u s in g to c o o p e r a te , a n d g e ttin g o n to th e s ta g e . A ft erhear i ng thattw o d eput i es had g on e t o the R i t z, D eputy A m y S t anford de c i de d t o go the r e a s w e l l t o pr ovi de ba c k up. W h e n S o rr e ll s p o k e to th e d is p a tc h e r , s h e r e q u e s te d th a t d e p u tie s c o m e to r e m o v e “s o m e d is o r d e r ly p e o p le ” w h o w e r e “ju s t b a s ic a lly tr a s h in g th e p la c e . . .5

j um pi ng on furni ture, ri pp i ng thi ng s apart ” a nd w ho m R i t z s ec uri ty per sonn el c oul d notc ontr ol . T hi s w a s nottrue , butS orr e l l ’ s r e por tw a s notr e l a y e d t o a ny of th e d e p u tie s w h o w e n t to th e R itz to d e a l w ith th e s itu a tio n . A f t e rda nc i ng f

oraw hi l e , J us t i n a nd hi s f r i e nd gotup on s t a ge w hi l e one of the ba nds w a s pl a y i ng. J us t i n’ s f r i e nd da nc e d a r ound w hi l e J us t i n w e ntt o the m i cr op ho ne. A l ex, w ho had b ee n d anci ng w i th h i s w i fe , j oi ned them . A l ex t apped on ac ongadrum i n t i m e w i th the m us i c f oraboutt e n s e c onds be f or e l e a vi ng the s ta g e . A m e m b e ro f

th e b a n d w h o w a s n o t p la y in g a t th a t tim e a n g r ily to ld J u s tin to g e t o f f th e s ta g e , b u t J u s tin d id n o t n o tic e h im . J u s tin tap p e d th e m ic r o p h o n e to s e e if it w a s o n . I t w a s n o t, a n d h e a n d h is f r ie n d s te p p e d o f

f th e s ta g e . A s he w al ked b ac k t o h i s t abl e, Just i n m ade a n exagg er at ed bo w t o the other g u e s ts . O n e o f

th e m d e s c r ib e d it a s m o o n in g th e b a n d w ith h is c lo th e s o n . A t th is poi nt , B a rne rappr oa c he d J us t i n. B a rne rt ol d J us t i n tha the w a s nota l l ow e d t o go up on the s t a ge w he r e the ba nd w a s pl a y i ng a nd tha t , i f he di d i ta ga i n, he w oul d be r e m ove d f

r om the pr ope r ty a nd c ha r ge d w i th tr e s pa s s i ng. J us t i n r e pl i e d by a s ki ng hi m “ W hat , no fun? ” butre turned t o h i s t abl e. W hi l e s i tt i ng there , Just i n fel tas though B a rne rw a s c ont i nui ng t o w a t c h hi m . S o, he turne d t o l ook a tB a rne ra nd m outhe d the w or ds “ W hy don’ ty ou j us tf uc ki ng l e a ve us a l one ? ” be f or e r e turni ng to h is m e a l.6

A r o u n d th is tim e , a ll th r e e d e p u tie s a rr iv e d in th e b a llr o o m . D e p u ty K n o tt, w h o h ad o n ce w o rk ed secu ri ty atth e R i t z u n d er B arn er, ap p ro ach ed B arn er t o ask w hatthe di sturbance w as . B arner poi nt ed ou tJust i n and t ol d K no ttthathe had be e n di s rupt i ve . B a rne rw e nton t o r e c ounta n e xa gge r a t e d ve r s i on of c onve r s a t i on w i th Just i n i n w hi ch he m ade the fol l ow i ng cl ai m s: W hen B arner t ol d Just i n that he w ou l d b e r em ov ed fr om the ho t el i f he w enton st age a gai n, Just i n sai d “ F uck off, w ho i s goi ng t o rem ov e m e? ” or “ F uck o ff , w hatar e y ou go i ng t o d o? ” B arner r e pl i e d, s a y i ng tha the w oul d c a l l the pol i c e . T he n J us t i n s a i d s om e thi ng t o the e f f e c t o f “W h a t a r e th e y g o in g to d o ? ” A f te rd e ta ilin g th is v e r s io n o f e v e n ts to K n o tt, B a rn e rto ld h im th a t h e w a n te d J u s tin o f f th e p r o p e r ty a n d a s k e d K n o tt to is s u e J u s tin atr e s p a s s w a rn in g s o th a t h e c o u ld n o t r e tu rn . M i c h e l l e h a d n o t i c e d D e p u t i e s K n o tta n d St an f o r d c o me i n t o th e b a l l r o o m, and she t ol d Just i n thatthe po l i ce had arr i ved. A fe w m i nu t es l at er , at appr oxi m a t e l y 11: 35 p. m . , K nottappr oa c he d J us t i n f r om be hi nd a nd t appe d hi m on the shou l der. K no ttas ked Just i n i f he w ou l d “ st ep t o the back” so thatthe depu t i es c oul d t a l k t o hi m . J us t i n w e ntw i th S t a nf or d a nd K nottt o as e rvi c e ha l l w a y of f the b a llr o o m , w h e r e th e y a s k e d J u s tin to s it. W h e n J u s tin w a s s e a te d , K n o tt to ld h im tha the c oul d c ol l e c thi s be l ongi ngs f r om the t abl e a nd tha the w a s goi ng t o be e s c o r te d f

r o m th e p r o p e r ty a n d g iv e n atr e s p a s s w a rn in g .7

Just i n returned t o h i s t abl e, re tri eved hi s c oat , t ol d M i chel l e thathe w as be i ng f or c e d t o l e a ve , a nd w e ntba c k t o the ha l l w a y w i th D e put i e s K notta nd S ta n f o r d . A le x a n d M ic h e lle f o llo w e d th e m in to th e h a llw a y . J u s tin w a s a g a in to ld to s it in th e c h a irin th e h a llw a y . H e d id s o , b u t h e s to o d u p a g a in s h o r tly th e r e a f te r . S ta n f

o r d h a d to o r d e rh im to s it d o w n as e c o n d tim e . D u rin g th is p er io d , A lex to ldD ep u ty S tan fo rd : “ P leas e, o ff icer , w e h av en ’t do ne anythi ng . Iti s N ew Y ea r’ s E ve, w e haven’ tdo ne anythi ng . ” S t anford repl i ed thati f he di dn ’ tst and b ac k h e w ou l d b e a rr es t ed. H e then asked her w hy she w as “b e in g s o h o s tile ? I t is N e w Y e a r ’s E v e ,” a n d to ld h e rth a t if s h e w a n te d th e m to l e a ve , the y w oul d do s o. S t a nf or d a ga i n t ol d hi m t o s t a nd ba c k orhe w oul d be a rr e s t e d . Al e x r e p l i e d “ Ar r e s tme , y o u ’ r e g o i n g t o a rr e s tme f o rwh a t ?” F in a lly , th e d e p u tie s to o kh o ld o f J u s tin ’s a rm s a n d b e g a n to e s c o r t h im o u t. A le x a s k e d D e p u ty K n o tt “P le a s e , w h y a r e y o u d o in g th is ? W h a t is g o in g o n ? I t is N e w Y e a r ’s E v e .” K n o tt r e p lie d th a t J u s tin w a s b e in g r e m o v e d f r o m th e R itz . A l e x a nd M i c he l l e f

ol l ow e d a s the de put i e s w a l ke d J us t i n out . W hi l e be i ng es cort ed ou t , Just i n sai d: “ P l ea se , I j ustw antt o g o h om e. Justl etm e go h om e. ” M ic h e lle r e p lie d : “I t is f in e , h o n e y , I a m r ig h t b e h in d y o u to g o h o m e .” T he depu t i es hel d Just i n’ s arm s a s they w al ked h i m do w n the se rvi ce ha l l w a y a nd i nt o the s t a i rw e l l . D e puty K notthe l d J us t i n’ s l e f ta rm w i thouthur t i ng8

h im . D e p u ty S ta n f

o r d , h o w e v e r , p u lle d J u s tin ’s r ig h t a rm u p a t a n a n g le th a t d id h u r t. W h ile w a lk in g to w a r d th e s ta ir s , A le x c o n tin u e d a s k in g th e d e p u tie s n o t to r e m o v e J u s tin . A t o n e p o in t K n o tt s c r e a m e d b a c ko v e rh is s h o u ld e ra t A le x . J u s tin th e n y e lle d th a t S ta n f

o r d w a s h u r tin g h is a rm , b u t s h e d id n o t r e s p o n d . A s Just i n and the depu t i es w er e e nt er i ng the st ai rw el l , Just i n l urched f o rw a r d , p u lle d h is a rm p a r tia lly f r e e o f D e p u ty S ta n f

o r d ’s g r ip , a n d f

o r c e d it s tr a i ght . A s J us t i n a nd S t a nf or d w e r e appr oa c hi ng the s e c ond l a ndi ng i n the s ta irw e ll, D e p u ty K n o tt p u s h e d J u s tin , c au s in g b o th J u s tin a n d S ta n f o r d to f a ll do w n the st ai rs . Just i n l anded o n h i s c hest . D eputy S t anford fel l ov erhi m . A ft er f a llin g , b o th r o s e to th e irh a n d s a n d k n e e s . J u s tin th e n r o lle d o v e rto s it w ith h is b a c ka g a in s t th e w a ll. A l ex and D eputy K no ttra n d ow n t o the l andi ng . K no ttand D eputy S t anford b e g a n s tru g g lin g w ith J u s tin , a tte m p tin g to h a n d c u f f h im . K n o tt p u lle d o u t h is ta s e rg u n , a im e d it a t A le x , a n d to ld h im to “b a c ko f f ” im m e d ia te ly . A le x h e ld h is hand s out , pal m s open, atches tl evel and asked K no ttno tt o h urtJust i n. A l ex shou t ed for Just i n “ no tt o m ov e, no tt o strugg l e. ” D e p u ty K n o tt th e n w a rn e d J u s tin th a t h e w o u ld u s e h is ta s e rg u n if J u s tin d id n o t c o o p e r a te , b u t J u s tin d id n o t h e a rh im o rd id n o t u n d e r s ta n d h im . K n o tt f ir e d . T h e ta s e rg u n h it J u s tin in th e to r s o , c au s in g h im to f a ll o v e r . A le x a tte m p te d to9

g e t to J u s tin s o th a t h e c o u ld c o v e rJ u s tin ’s b o d y w ith h is o w n , b u t D e p u ty S t a nf or d he l d hi m ba c k. A s A l e x c ont i nue d t o s truggl e , S t a nf or d hi thi m on the ri gh tsi de of hi s f

ac e. A le x tu rn e d to D e p u ty S ta n f o r d a n d s a id , “Y o u h it m e in th e f a c e . Y o u h it m e i n the f

a c e , y ou f

uc ki ng c unt . ” S t a nf

or d the n l unge d a thi m , gr abbe d hi m by the neck, and st art i ng pu shi ng hi m backw ar ds do w n the st ai rs . A l ex pu shed her off and tri ed t o cl i m b u p the st ai rs t o w here Just i n w as l yi ng . B ef ore he coul d g et the r e , D e puty R us s e l l , w ho ha d by the n e nt e r e d the s t a i rw e l l , punc he d A l e x on the le f t s id e o f h is f a c e , b r e a k in g h is n o s e . S o m e o n e p u lle d A le x d o w n , a n d h e f e ll to th e n e x t lo w e rla n d in g . W h e n h e r e g a in e d f o c u s , h e w a s ly in g p r o n e o n h is st om ac h, usi ng hi s f

orea rm s t o p rop u p h i s upp erbo dy. O ne of the depu t i es s h o u te d a t h im to p u t h is a rm s o u t. W h e n A le x d id n o t m o v e , ad e p u ty f ir e d h is t a s e rgun i nt o A l e x’ s ba c k. A l e x f e l l f orw a r d i nt o apool of

hi s ow n bl ood, t em po ra ri l y par al yz ed. A gai n, a deputy t ol d h i m t o stra i gh t en ou thi s arm s. A l ex s a id th a t h e w a s u n ab le to m o v e . T h e d e p u ty s h o t A le x w ith h is ta s e rg u n a g a in . M e a nw hi l e , J us t i n ha d c l i m be d ba c k up t o as i tt i ng pos i t i on, a tw hi c h poi nt D e p u ty R u s s e ll f

ir e d h is ta s e rg u n , h ittin g J u s tin in th e b a c k . M ic h e lle r a n d o w n to the l andi ng w here Just i n w as . H e a sked her “ W hy i s thi s happeni ng ? W hy ar e th e y d o in g th is to m e ? ” M ic h e lle to ld h im “B e c au s e h e is a n a s s h o le .” R u s s e ll10

to ld M ic h e lle to s te p b a c k , b u t s h e d id n o t w a n t to m o v e f o rf e a rth a t th e y w o u ld hur tJ us t i n. D e p u ty R u s s e ll to ld M ic h e lle th a t s h e w a s g o in g to g o to ja il. S h e s a id

“ f i ne ” a nd c a l l e d hi m “ a n a s s hol e ” a ga i n. S he w a s t ol d t o go ba c k a nd s i ton the s ta ir s , w h ic h s h e d id . A t n o tim e d id M ic h e lle a tte m p t to p h y s ic a lly in te r f e r e w ith th e d e p u tie s . F i nal l y, Just i n, A l ex, and M i chel l e w er e handcuffed and t aken ou tthe back of the ho t el t o the l oadi ng do ck. A l ex’ s handcuffs w er e s o t i gh tthathe suff er ed n u m b n e s s a n d tin g lin g in th e b a c k s o f h is h a n d s f

o rab o u t ay e a ra f

te rh is a rr e s t. W hi l e be i ng t a ke n out , A l e x turne d t o D e puty K notta nd a s ke d hi m : “ H ow do y ou w ake up i n the m orni ng and feel prou d o f w ho you are ? ” B ec ause of hi s broken nos e , A l e x s pr a y e d bl ood w he n he s poke . I n r e pl y , K notts a i d “ Y ou’ r e s pi tt i ng bl ood a tm e , ” t o w hi c h A l e x s a i d “ Y ou thi nk I a m s pi tt i ng bl ood a ty ou. Y ou shou l d h ave tho ug htof thatbefore you b roke m y nose. ” A l ex w as ei ther c on fuse d abou tw ho brok e hi s nose or m ea ntt o ref ert o the depu t i es general l y bec ause i tw as D e p u ty R u s s e ll w h o h a d b r o k e n A le x ’s n o s e , n o t K n o tt. D e p u ty K n o tt a n d a n o th e rd e p u ty w h o h a d a rr iv e d a t th e s c e n e u s e d th e ir ta s e rg u n s o n b o th o f

A le x ’s s h o u ld e r s . H is le g s g a v e o u t, b u t th e d e p u tie s h e ld hi m up . T hey s atA l ex on the curb t o w ai tfor the am bu l ance t o arr i ve. W hen11

d e p u tie s p u t J u s tin in ap a tr o l c a r , h e tu rn e d to th e d e p u ty w h o w a s d r iv in g a n d s a id

“ He l l o f aNe w Y e a r ’ s , h e y ?” I n A pr i l 2005, J us t i n w a s tr i e d f orr e s i s t i ng an of

f i c e rw i th vi ol e nc e t o hi s or he rpe r s on, avi ol a t i on of F l or i daS t a tut e § 843. 01, but , be f or e the c onc l us i on of

the tri al , he pl ea ded n o con t es tt o res i st i ng w i tho utvi ol ence un der F l ori da S t atut e § 843. 02. A taboutthe s a m e t i m e , A l e x a l s o pl e a de d no c ont e s tt o r e s i s t i ng w i thout vi ol e nc e . A l though M i c he l l e w a s or i gi na l l y c ha r ge d w i th r e s i s t i ng w i thout vi ol ence , the courtdi sm i ss ed the charge a gai nsther. W hi l e the c ha r ge s w e r e s t i l l pe ndi ng a ga i ns tthe m , the Z i voj i novi c hs br ought s u it a g a in s t D e p u tie s K n o tt, R u s s e ll, a n d S ta n f o r d , a s w e ll a s th e R itz a n d B a rn e r . T h eir a m en d ed co m p lain t h ad th irty-f o u r c laim s, in clu d in g o n e o n b eh alf o f A lex ’s b u s in e s s a s s o c ia te s a n d v ar io u s b u s in e s s e n titie s th a t h a v e f in a n c ia l in te r e s ts in h is c a r e e r . T he tw o c l a i m s tha ta r e r e l e va ntt o thi s appe a l a r e J us t i n a nd A l e x’ s § 1983 F o u r th A m e n d m e n t e x c e s s iv e f o r c e c la im s a g a in s t th e d e p u tie s a n d th e ir negl i gence cl ai m s a gai nstB arner a nd the R i t z. T he depu t i es coun t er cl ai m ed agai nstA l ex for negl i gence and batt ery, bu ttho se coun t er cl ai m s are no ti ncl ud ed in th is ap p e a l. T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t f

ir s t g r a n te d s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t to th e d e f e n d a n ts o n a ll the cl ai m s a gai nstthem . Itthen d ec l i ned t o exerci se supp l em ent al j uri sdi ct i on ov er12

the c ount e r c l a i m s a ga i ns tA l e x a nd di s m i s s e d the m w i thoutpr e j udi c e . A l e x a nd J u s tin Z iv o

jin o v ic h n o w ap p e a l th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s g r a n ts o f s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t. T h e o th e rp la in tif

f s h a v e d e c id e d n o t to ap p e a l. T h e Z iv o jin o v ic h s c o n te n d th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e rr e d in f iv e d if f e r e n t w a y s . F i rs t , they a ss ertthatthe sum m ary j ud gm entrul e i s uncon st i tut i on al as appl i ed b e c au s e it a llo w s th e d is tr ic t c o u r t to im p e rm is s ib ly d e te rm in e w h a t v e r d ic t a r a t i ona l j ury m i ghtr e nde r . S e c ond, the y a r gue tha tthe di s tr i c tc our te rr e d by not t a ki ng the f

a c t s i n the l i ghtm os tf

a vor abl e t o the m a s non- m ovi ng pa r t i e s . T hi r d, they c on t end thatthe di stri ctcourterre d i n g ra nt i ng sum m ary j ud gm entt o B arner and the R i t z on Just i n’ s negl i gence cl ai m . F ou rth, they c l ai m thatthe di stri ctcourt erre d i n g ra nt i ng sum m ary j ud gm entt o B arner a nd the R i t z on A l ex’ s negl i gence cl ai m . A nd , fi nal l y, they a rgue thatthe di stri ctcourterre d i n g ra nt i ng sum m ary ju d g m e n t to th e d e p u tie s o n A le x ’s a n d J u s tin ’s e x c e s s iv e f o r c e c la im s . W e w ill a ddr e s s e a c h of

the s e c ont e nt i ons i n turn. II. T he Z i voj i no vi chs’ cont ent i on thatF eder al R ul e of C i vi l P roce du re 56 (c ), w h ic h g o v e rn s s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t, h a s b e e n u n c o n s titu tio n a lly in te rp r e te d is m e r i t l e s s . T he F e de r a l R ul e s r e qui r e ac our tt o gr a nts um m a ry j udgm e nti f the re cord before the court“ show [s ] thatthere i s no g enui ne i ss ue as t o any m at er i al13

f a c ta n d th a tth e mo v a n ti s e n t i t l e d t o j u d g me n ta s ama tt e ro f l a w . ” Fe d . R. Ci v . P. 5 6 ( c ) . T h e S u p r e m e C o u r t h a s in te rp r e te d th e w o r d “g e n u in e ” in R u le 5 6 ( c ) to m e a n tha tthe “ e vi de nc e i s s uc h tha tar e a s onabl e j ury c oul d r e turn ave r di c tf orthe n o n m o v in g p a r ty .” A n d e r s o n v . L ib e r ty L o b b y , I n c ., 4 7 7 U .S . 2 4 2 , 2 4 8 , 1 0 6 S . C t. 2 5 0 5 , 2 5 1 0 ( 1 9 8 6 ) . T h e Z iv o jin o v ic h s ’ a r g u m e n t is th a t th is in te rp r e ta tio n u n c o n s titu tio n a lly d e p r iv e s th e m o f

th e irS e v e n th A m e n d m e n t r ig h ts to aju ry tr ia l b e c au s e it s u b s titu te s th e ju d g e ’s ju d g m e n t ab o u t w h a t ah yp o th e tic a l r e a s o n ab le ju ry c o u ld d o f o rw h a t ar e a l ju ry w o u ld a c tu a lly d o . E v e n if w e w e r e p e r s u a d e d b y th is a r g u m e n t, th e S u p r e m e C o u r t is th e f in a l a rb ite ro f

c o n s titu tio n a lity , a n d its i nt e rpr e t a t i on i s bi ndi ng on us . B a ke rv. C a rr , 369 U . S . 186, 211, 82 S . C t . 691, 70 6 (19 62 ) ( T he S up re m e C ou rti s the “ ul t i m at e i nt erpret erof the C on st i tut i on . ”) ; M a rbury v. M a di s on, 5 U . S . ( 1 C r a nc h) 137, 177–78 ( 1803) . W e a r e w i thout pow e rt o hol d tha tthe S upr e m e C our t ’ s i nt e rpr e t a t i on i s unc ons t i tut i ona l , nor w oul d w e i f

w e c oul d. III. T he Z i voj i no vi chs’ se cond cont ent i on i s thatthe di stri ctcourtdi d n otvi ew the fa ct s i n the l i gh tm ostfa vo rabl e t o them , as i tw as re qu i re d t o d o. S ee T i nk er , 4 2 9 F .3 d at 1 3 2 6 ; S h o tz, 3 4 4 F .3 d at 1 1 6 4 . W e r ev iew d e n o v o th e d istrict co u rt’s14

gr a ntof s um m a ry j udgm e nt . A l a . - T om bi gbe e R i ve r s C oa l . v. K e m pthorne , 477 F . 3d 12 50 , 12 54 (11th C i r. 20 07 ). A s are sul t , any e rr or i n h ow the di stri ctcourt v i e we d th e f

a c t s i s m o o t e d b y o u rd e c i s i o n o f th e i s s u e a n e w. I V. T h e Z iv o jin o v ic h ’s th ir d c o n te n tio n is th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t im p r o p e r ly g r a n te d s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t to B a rn e ra n d th e R itz o n J u s tin ’s n e g lig e n c e c la im . T he Z i voj i no vi chs a rgue thatB arner a ct ed negl i gent l y, brea chi ng tw o ass ert ed du t i es : (1) the du ty t o ask Just i n t o l ea ve before c al l i ng l aw enforce m entt o ej ec t hi m fr om the R i t z a nd (2) the du ty t o p rovi de ac cura t e i nform at i on t o l aw enforce m ent . T he R i t z w ou l d b e vi ca ri ou sl y l i abl e f or B arner’ s negl i gence und er the doc tr i ne of

r e s ponde a ts upe r i or . S e e P ope v. W i nt e rP a rk H e a l thc a r e G r oup, L t d. , 93 9 S o. 2d 18 5, 18 7 (F l a. 5th D C A 20 06 ) ( “ T he t ortpri nci pl e of r es po nd ea t superi or m akes an em pl oyerl i abl e t o thi rd part i es for the negl i gence of an em pl oyee , w ho m he control s and di re ct s. ” ( em ph as i s om i tt ed)) . T he f i r s tduty the Z i voj i novi c hs a s s e rtw oul d be i nc ons i s t e ntw i th F l or i da la w , w h ic h p e rm its th e o p e r a to ro f ah o te l to “r e m o v e o rc au s e to b e r e m o v e d . . . any guest. . . [w ho ] i s i nt ox i ca t ed, profane, l ew d, or braw l i ng [] [or] w ho i nd ul ges i n a nyl a ngua ge orc onduc tw hi c h di s turbs the pe a c e a nd c om f or tof othe rgue s t s or w h ic h in ju r e s th e r e p u ta tio n , d ig n ity , o rs ta n d in g o f th e e s tab lis h m e n t.” F la . S ta t. §15

5 0 9 . 1 4 1 (1 ). S ect i o n 5 0 9 . 1 4 1 (2 ) d o es req u i re th atth e o p erat o r “ n o t i fy su ch g u est thatthe es t abl i shm entno l on ger des i re s t o ent ert ai n the gu es tand . . . re qu es tthat s u c h g u e s t im m e d ia te ly d e p a r t f r o m th e e s tab lis h m e n t . . . . [ e ith e r ] o r a lly o rin w r itin g ,” b u t th a t n o tif

ic a tio n m a y b e d o n e b y ala w e n f o r c e m e n t o f

f ic e r . S e e S ta te v. W i l l i am s, 75 1 S o. 2d 17 0, 17 2 (F l a. 2d D C A 20 00 ) ( st at i ng thatm ot el gu es tw as l aw ful l y e

j ec t ed un der F l a. S t at . § 5 09 . 14 1 w hen a po l i ce offi ce r not i fi ed hi m that th e m o te l w a n te d h im to le a v e ) . T he Z i voj i novi c hs a r gue tha ti ti s aj ury que s t i on w he the rJ us t i n’ s a c t i ons gave the R i t z the ri gh tt o ej ec thi m un der the F l ori da st atut e. W e di sa gree . T here is n o g e n u in e is s u e o f

m a te r ia l f

a c t ab o u t w h e th e rh is b e h a v io rw a s “p r o f a n e ,”

“ l e w d, ” “ di s turb[ e d] the pe a c e a nd c om f or tof othe rgue s t s , ” or“ i nj ur e [ d] the r e put a t i on, di gni ty , ors t a ndi ng” of the R i t z . S e e F l a . S t a t . § 509. 141( 1) . D r a ggi ng aw om a n a w a y f

r om the m a n w i th w hom s he i s da nc i ng “ di s turbs [ he r ] pe a c e a nd c o m f o r t.” S e e id . B e n d in g o v e rto d is p la y o n e ’s r e a rto th e b a n d a t ab la c ktie e v e n t “in ju r e s th e . . . [ R itz ’s ] d ig n ity .” S e e id . J u s tin te llin g ah o te l e m p lo y e e to

“ f uc ki ng l e a ve [ hi m a nd hi s f a m i l y ] a l one ” i s pr of

a ne . S e e i d. T he R i t z ha d the r i ghtt o e j e c tJ us t i n, s o B a rne rdi d notbr e a c h a ny duty by ha vi ng l a w e nf or c e m e nt not i f y J us t i n tha the w a s no l onge rw e l c om e a tthe e ve nta nd e s c or thi m of f the p ro p erty.16

T he se cond du ty thatthe Z i voj i no vi chs a ss ertB arner a nd the R i t z bre ac hed w a s aduty t o gi ve truthf ul i nf orm a t i on t o l a w e nf

or c e m e nt . T he Z i voj i novi c hs p o in t o u t th re e s ets o f s tatem en ts th at th ey claim b re ac h ed th is d u ty: (1 ) B ar n er ’s s ta te m e n t in h is c a ll to th e S h e r if f’s D e p a r tm e n t; ( 2 ) S o rr e ll’s s ta te m e n ts in h e rc a ll t o the S heri ff’ s D epartm ent ; and (3) B arner’ s s t at em ent s t o D eputy K no ttw hen the y s poke i n the R i t z ba l l r oom . T he e l e m e nt s of ane gl i ge nc e c l a i m unde rF l or i da l aw ar e: (1) al egal du ty on the defendantt o p rot ec tthe pl ai nt i ff fr om part i cul ar i nj ur i e s ; ( 2) the de f

e nda nt ’ s br e a c h of

tha tduty ; ( 3) the pl a i nt i f f’ s i nj ury be i ng ac tual l y and prox i m at el y c ause d b y the breac h; and (4) the pl ai nt i ff suff er i ng ac tual ha rm f r om the i nj ury . C l a y E l e c . C oop. , I nc . v. J ohns on, 873 S o. 2d 1182, 1185 (F l a. 20 03 ). B a rn e r , S o rr e ll, a n d th e R itz had a du ty t o t el l the truth w hen speaki ng t o l aw e n f o r c e m e n t ab o u t J u s tin . F lo r id ac o u r ts h a v e h e ld th a t, u n d e rc e r ta in c i r c um s t a nc e s , apa r ty tha tgi ve s i na c c ur a t e s t a t e m e nt s t o pol i c e c a n be l i abl e f or n e g l i g e n c e . Se e To w n s e n d v . W e s t s i d e D o d g e , I n c . , 6 4 2 So . 2 d 4 9 ( Fl a . 1 s tD CA 1 9 9 4 ); H arri s v . L ew i s S t at e B an k(H arri s III), 4 8 2 S o . 2 d 1 3 7 8 , 1 3 8 4

– 8 5 (F l a. 1 st D C A 1986) . T he de c i s i on w i th f a c t s m os ts i m i l a rt o the pr e s e ntone on thi s poi nt i nvol ve d aw om a n, J e s s i e M a e H a rr i s , w ho w a s i nc orr e c t l y i nf orm e d by ba nk e m pl oy e e s tha ts he w a s e nt i t l e d t o the m one y i n ac e r t a i n a c c ount , e ve n though s he17

t ol d the m tha ts he di d notha ve a n a c c ounta tthe ba nk. H a rr i s v. L e w i s S t a t e B a nk ( H a rr is I ) , 4 3 6 S o . 2 d 3 3 8 , 3 3 9 ( F la . 1 s t D C A 1 9 8 3 ) ( r e c o u n tin g th e f a c ts unde r l y i ng the de c i s i on i n H a rr i s I I I ) . A f t e rH a rr i s w i thdr e w the m one y f r om the a c c ount , the r e a l ow ne rr e por t e d the the f tt o the pol i c e . I d. W he n i nt e rvi e w e d, the b a n ke m p lo y e e s d id n o t d is c lo s e to th e p o lic e o rth e p r o s e c u to rth a t th e y h a d to ld H a rr i s tha ts he w a s e nt i t l e d t o the m one y . I d. A f t e rbe i ng pr os e c ut e d f

orgr a nd l a r c e ny a nd a c qui tt e d, H a rr i s s ue d the ba nk a nd the pol i c e f orm a l i c i ous prosec ut i on and n egl i gence. H arri s I II , 48 2 S o. 2d at13 79 ; H arri s I , 43 6 S o. 2d at 340. T he F l or i daappe a l s c our tr e ve r s e d the tr i a l c our t ’ s di s m i s s a l of the n e g lig e n c e c la im a g a in s t th e b a n k , h o ld in g th a t th e “r e la tio n s h ip v o lu n ta r ily ent er ed i nt o b y the bank . . . cr ea t ed a duty on the partof the bank t o p rot ec t [H arri s] fr om fa l se ac cusa t i on s of f orgeryand theft . ” I d. at13 85 . T he vo l un t ary r e l a t i ons hi p, pr e s um abl y c r e a t e d by i nf orm i ng H a rr i s tha ts he w a s e nt i t l e d t o the m o n e y , a n d th e b a n k ’s k n o w le d g e th a t f a ilin g to d is c lo s e th a t f

a c t w o u ld “lik e ly . .

. r e s ul ti n i nj ury t o” H a rr i s c r e a t e d the duty t o f ul l y a nd a c c ur a t e l y i nf

orm the pol i c e . I d. a t1384–85. T he si tuat i on i n the H arri s c as e i s s i m i l art o the on e her e. T he H arri s I II d e c is io n h e ld th a t th e b a n kh a d in c u rr e d ad u ty to H a rr is w h e n it c au s e d h e rto b e lie v e th a t s h e h a d ale g a l r ig h t to th e m o n e y in th e a c c o u n t. L ik e w is e , th e R itz18

in c u rr e d ad u ty to J u s tin w h e n it s o ld h im atic k e t to th e N e w Y e a r ’s E v e p a r ty b e c au s e ah o te l h a s “ac o n tin u in g le g a l d u ty to its p a tr o n s to u s e o r d in a ry c a r e to . .

. pr ot e c tthe m f

r om ha rm due t o r e a s onabl y f or e s e e abl e r i s ks of

i nj ury . ” H a r dy v. P i e r99 M ot orI nn, 664 S o. 2d 1095, 1097 ( F l a . 1s tD C A 1995) . W he n the ba nk em pl oyee s f

ai l ed t o d i sc l ose t o the po l i ce thatthey had t ol d H arri s thatshe w as e n title d to th e m o n e y , th e y k n o w in g ly p u t h e ra t r is ko f b e in g w r o n g f

u lly pr os e c ut e d. L i ke w i s e , w he n B a rne ra nd S orr e l l a l l e ge dl y l i e d t o the di s pa t c he ra nd w hen B arner a l l egedl y l i ed t o D eputy K no tt , they kno w i ng l y putJust i n atgrea t er ri sko f p h ysi cal i n

j u ry b ecau se i tb ecam e m o re l i k el y th atth e d ep u t i es w o u l d u se forc e i n rem ov i ng Just i n from the prem i se s i f they bel i eved thatJust i n h ad i nd i ca t ed thatsom eone w ou l d h ave t o force hi m t o l ea ve. W hether thati ncre as ed l i k e l i h o o d i s e n o u g h t o s a t i s f y th e c au s a t i o n e l e m e n ti s as e p a r a t e q u e s t i o n th a twe a ddr e s s be l ow . W e c onc l ude tha t , unde rF l or i dal a w , B a rne ra nd the R i t z ha d a d u ty n o tt o l i e t o l aw en fo rcem en ti n a w ay th ati n creased th e ri skth ata g u est w o u l d su ffer i n

j u ry. S o rrel l b reach ed th i s d u ty w h en sh e sai d th at“ d i so rd erl y p eo p l e” w ere “j u st b a s ic a lly tr a s h in g th e p la c e [ ,] . . . ju m p in g o n f u rn itu r e , [ a n d ] r ip p in g th in g s ap a r t” because thi s w as un true a nd , by exaggerat i ng the se veri ty of Just i n’ s m i sbehavi or, s he i nc r e a s e d the r i s k tha tthe de put i e s w oul d us e f or c e t o r e m ove hi m f

r om the19

p r e m is e s . B a rn e rb r e a c h e d th is d u ty b y ly in g to D e p u ty K n o tt, f a ls e ly te llin g h im tha t , i n r e s pons e t o be i ng i nf orm e d tha the w oul d be r e m ove d i f he w e nton s t a ge a ga i n, J us t i n ha d t ol d hi m t o “ [ f ] uc k of f ” a nd ha d c ha l l e nge d B a rne r ’ s orthe S h e r if f’s O f f ic e ’s ab ility to d o a n y th in g ab o u t h is b e h a v io r . A ls o , B a rn e rlie d to th e d is p a tc h e rw h e n h e c a lle d th e S h e r if f’s O f f ic e , s a y in g th a t w h e n h e tr ie d to w a rn J us t i n, J us t i n “ s t ar t e d y e l l i ng pr of a ni t i e s , s c r e a m i ng, y e l l i ng a nd c a rry i ng on . ” W hi l e Just i n’ s behavi or w as i napp ropri at e, he and B arner had no tye tspok en w hen B arner c al l ed the S heri ff’ s O ff i ce , there fore Just i n cou l d n othave “ st art ed ye ll in g p ro fa n it ies, sc re am in g , yelli n g an d ca rr yin g o n ” in re sp o n se to B ar n er ’s none xi s t e nta dm oni t i on. T he thi r d e l e m e ntof

the J us t i n’ s ne gl i ge nc e c l a i m i s tha tB a rne ra nd/ or S o rr e ll’s lie s w e r e th e a c tu a l a n d p r o x im a te c au s e o f h is in ju r ie s . C la y E le c . C o o p ., I nc . , 873 S o. 2d a t1185. T he a c tua l c aus a t i on i nqui ry r e qui r e s us t o de t e rm i ne w h e th e rar e a s o n ab le ju ry c o u ld f in d th a t, b u t f

o rS o rr e ll’s a n d B a rn e r ’s lie s , J u s tin w o u ld n o t h a v e b e e n in

ju r e d o rw o u ld n o t h a v e b e e n in ju r e d a s s e v e r e ly . J u s tin ha s notc r e a t e d age nui ne i s s ue of m a t e r i a l f

a c ttha tS orr e l l ’ s c a l l w a s ac aus e of the J us t i n’ s i nj ur i e s , be c aus e the r e i s no e vi de nc e i n the r e c or d t o s how tha tw ha ts he s a id w a s e v e rc o m m u n ic a te d to a n y o f th e d e p u tie s w h o e v e n tu a lly r e s p o n d e d . A f a c tf in d e rc o u ld f

in d , h o w e v e r , th a t a t le a s t o n e f a ls e h o o d f

r o m B a rn e r ’s c a ll d id20

m ake i tthrou gh t o D eput i es R usse l l and K no tt . T here i s e vi dence thatthey w er e t ol d tha ttw o m e n w e r e c aus i ng adi s turba nc e by be i ng unrul y a nd unc oope r a t i ve a nd ge tt i ng on s t a ge . A l though J us t i n, A l e x, a nd J us t i n’ s f r i e nd di d ge ton s t a ge a nd w e r e a r guabl y unrul y , no one ha d y e ta s ke d a ny of the m t o s t op be i ng di srup t i ve, so they c ou l d n othave been un coop er at i ve. E ven i f the depu t i es had nothe a r d a ny thi ng be f

or e a rr i vi ng, B a rne r ’ s e m be l l i s hm e nt s t o K nottm a y ha ve c r e a te d af

a ls e m ix o f

in f o rm a tio n p r e s e n te d to th e d e p u tie s , w h ic h n e c e s s a r ily af fe ct ed thei r dec i si on abou tw hen force w as re as on abl e a nd nece ss ary. S ee ge ne r a l l y S auc i e rv. K a t z , 533 U . S . 194, 207, 121 S . C t . 2151, 2159 ( 2001) ( “ E xc e s s i ve f

or c e c l a i m s . . . a r e e va l ua t e d f orobj e c t i ve r e a s onabl e ne s s ba s e d upon the i nf orm a t i on the of

f i c e r s ha d w he n the c onduc toc c urr e d. ” ) . A j ury c oul d f i nd th a t, b u t f

o rB a rn e rf

a ls e ly te llin g K n o tt th a t J u s tin h a dr e s p o n d e d b e llig e r e n tly to the thr e a tof

s he r i f f’ s de put i e s be i ng c a l l e d, J us t i n w oul d notha ve be e n i nj ur e d or thathi s i nj uri es w ou l d n othave been as s ever e. T he c l os e ri s s ue i s w he the rthe f a l s e i nf orm a t i on gi ve n t o l a w e nf or c e m e nt by B a rne rw a s the pr oxi m a t e c aus e of J us t i n’ s i nj ur i e s . I f

ar e a s onabl y prude nt p e r s o n c o u ld f

o r e s e e th a t ah a rm lik e th e o n e th a t th e p la in tif f s u f f e r e d m ig h t r e s u lt fr om hi s or herac t i on s, then there i s proxi m at e c ausa t i on . S ee G ol db er g v . F l a. P ow e r& L i ghtC o. , 899 S o. 2d 1105, 1116 ( F l a . 2005) . B a rne ra nd the R i t z a r gue21

tha tB a rne rc oul d notbe the pr oxi m a t e c aus e of J us t i n’ s i nj ur i e s be c aus e the depu t i es ’ ac t i on s and tho se of the Z i voj i no vi chs them se l ves w er e unfores ee abl e. In s u p p o r t o f

th e irp o s itio n , th e y r e ly o n F lo r id ac a s e s th a t h o ld th a t th e r e is g e n e r a lly no l i abi l i ty f

orthe a c t s of

thi r d pe r s ons . S e e , e . g. , T r i a non P a rk C ondom i ni um A s s ’ n v. C i ty of

H i a l e a h, 468 S o. 2d 912 ( F l a . 1985) ; A l l e n v. B abr ab, I nc . , 438 S o. 2d 256 ( F l a . 1983) . H ow e ve r , unde rF l or i dal a w , w he n a n “ i nde pe nde nt i nt e rve ni ng c aus e i s af

or e s e e abl e a nd pr obabl e c ons e que nc e of the w r ongf

ul a c t i ons of

the de f e nda nt , ” the de f

e nda ntc a n be l i abl e . G ui c e v. E nf i nge r , 389 S o. 2 d 2 7 0 , 2 7 1 ( F la . 1 s t D C A 1 9 8 0 ) ; s e e G o ld b e r g , 8 9 9 S o . 2 d a t 1 1 1 6 . T h is p r in c ip le i ncl ud es a def

endant ’ s negl i gence thatl at erre sul t s i n i nj uri es fr om po l i ce offi ce rs exec ut i ng thei r dut i es . S ee T ow nsend, 64 2 S o. 2d 49 ; H arri s I II , 48 2 S o. 2d at 1384–85. I n T o w n s e n d ac a rd e a le r s h ip a c c id e n ta lly a f f ix e d am a g n e tic d e a le r ’s ta g to the w r ong ve hi c l e a nd, notknow i ng w he r e i tw a s , ha d the l os s r e por t e d t o the po l i ce . T ow nsend, 64 2 S o. 2d at50 . T he po l i ce l og ged the t ag as bei ng st ol en in s te a d o f

s im p ly lo s t. I d . A w o m a n p u r c h a s e d th e v e h ic le w ith th e s u p p o s e d ly st ol en t ag. Id. T hateveni ng , a pol i ce offi ce r not i ce d the vehi cl e, ra n the t ag num be r , di s c ove r e d i tw a s r e por t e d s t ol e n, a nd a rr e s t e d the w om a n. I d. D ur i ng the a rr e s t, th e w o m a n w a s h a n d c u f f e d , w h ic h a g g r a v a te d ap r e e x is tin g s h o u ld e rin ju ry .22

I d. T he de a l e r s hi p’ s ne gl i ge nc e i n pe rm i tt i ng the w om a n t o l e a ve the l otw i th the lo s t ta g w a s h e ld to b e ap r o x im a te c au s e o f h e rs h o u ld e rin

ju ry b e c au s e it “s e t in m o tio n as e r ie s o f

e v e n ts c u lm in a tin g in th e s to p o f [ th e w o m a n ]’s v e h ic le [ ,] [ a n d ,]

. . . [ u] nde rthe c i r c um s t a nc e s , the a c t i on of the pol i c e i n both de t a i ni ng a nd a rr e s tin g th e d r iv e r. . . [ w a s ] r e a s o n ab ly w ith in th e s c o p e o f th e d a n g e rth a t c o u ld r e s ul tf r om [ the de a l e r s hi p] ’ s ne gl i ge nta c t i on. ” I d. a t51. A s i n T ow nsend, i n thi s c as e the al l egedl y w rong ful cond uctof a p a r ty

— h e r e B a rn e r , th e r e th e d e a le r s h ip

— c au s e d la w e n f o r c e m e n t o f

f ic ia ls to i ni t i a t e an e nc ount e ri n w hi c h the pl a i nt i f f w a s i nj ur e d. I n T ow ns e nd the r e w a s no pa r t i c ul a rr e a s on t o be l i e ve tha tthe a rr e s t i ng of f i c e rw oul d us e f

or c e ori nj ur e the pl ai nt i ff , bu tthe F l ori da appeal s c ou rtst i l l foun d thatthe causat i on el em entw as m e t . H e r e , by c ontr a s t , B a rne rm a de J us t i n’ s e nc ount e rw i th l a w e nf or c e m e nt m ore l i kel y t o b e vi ol entby fa l se l y t el l i ng D eputy K no ttthatJust i n h ad st at ed an i nt ent i on t o res i stthe depu t i es . F or thatre as on , there i s arguabl y astrong ercausal c o n n e c tio n in th is c a s e th a n th e r e w a s in T o w n s e n d . A r e a s o n ab le f a c tf in d e rc o u ld co n cl u d e th atB arn er’ s al l eg ed l i es cau sed o r ex acerb at ed Ju st i n ’ s i n j u ri es. T he f i na l e l e m e ntne c e s s a ry t o m a ke outane gl i ge nc e c l a i m i s tha tthe defe nd ant ’ s bre ac h res ul t s i n an actual harm . C l ayE l ec . C oo p. , Inc. , 87 3 S o. 2d at 1185. T he de put i e s r e pe a t e dl y s hotJ us t i n w i th at a s e rgun, a nd the pa i n a nd23

i n j u ri es h e su ffered are actual harm s. H avi ng foun d thatB arner had a duty nott o l i e t o l aw enforce m enti n a w ay th a t m a d e it m o r e lik e ly th a t th e R itz ’s g u e s ts w o u ld b e h u r t, th a t h e a lle g e d ly br e a c he d tha tduty , a nd tha tar e a s onabl e j ury c oul d f i nd tha thi s br e a c h w a s the ac tual and p roxi m at e c ause of Just i n’ s i nj uri es , w e c on cl ud e thatthe di stri ctcourt e rr e d in g r a n tin g B a rn e rs u m m a ry ju d g m e n t. A n d , if B a rn e ris n o t e n title d to sum m ary j ud gm ent , then the R i t z, w hi ch i s vi ca ri ou sl y l i abl e f or t ort s c om m i tt ed by B arner i n the sc op e of hi s e m pl oym ent , i s notei ther. S ee P op e, 93 9 S o. 2d at 187. V. T h e Z iv o jin o v ic h ’s f

o u r th c o n te n tio n is th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e rr e d in g r a n tin g s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t to B a rn e ra n d th e R itz o n A le x ’s n e g lig e n c e c la im . T hei r a rgum enti s thatB arner’ s negl i gence l ed t o A l ex’ s i nj uri es because A l ex w as hu rtw hi l e a tt em pt i ng t o res cue Just i n. W hi l e they a re corr ec tthatF l ori da l aw re cogn i ze s the re sc ue do ctri ne, w hi ch ho l ds a t ort fe as or l i abl e f or i nj uri es t o a thi rd party w ho i s hurti n an att em ptt o res cue the di re ctvi ct i m of the t ort fe as or, se e Z w i nge v. H e tt i nge r , 530 S o. 2d 318, 323 ( F l a . 2d D C A 1988) , the y ha ve not c o n v in c e d u s th a t d o c tr in e ap p lie s to A le x . T h e r e s c u e d o c tr in e w ill o n ly p e rm it re coveryi f “ the att em pt ed re sc ue i s notre ckl es sl y or r as hl y don e” and the re sc uer24

do es no t“ contri bu t e t o h i s [ ow n] peri l by pl ac i ng hi m se l f i n a po si t i on of dang er no tnece ss ary t o eff

ec tthe re sc ue. ” R ose v. P et er s, 82 S o. 2d 58 5, 58 6 (F l a. 19 55 ); R e e ve s v. N . B r ow a r d, 821 S o. 2d 319, 321 ( F l a . 4th D C A 2002) ( “ F orthe r e s c ue do ctri ne t o com e i nt o p l ay. . . the re sc uer m usthave act ed re as on abl y. ”) . A le x ’s e f f o r t to r e s c u e h is s o n c o n s is te d o f try in g to p u s h p a s t D e p u ty S ta n f o r d a n d c o v e rJ u s tin ’s b o d y w ith h is o w n . T h a t h ap p e n e d a f te rD e p u ty K n o tt had p oi nt ed a t as ergu n atA l ex and t ol d h i m no tt o i nt er fe re . A tt em pt i ng t o g et b e tw e e n ala w e n f

o r c e m e n t o f

f ic e ra n d a n ap p a r e n tly n o n c o m p lia n t s u s p e c t is b o th r e c k le s s a n d r a s h . A le x ’s a c tio n s u n r e a s o n ab ly e s c a la te d a n a lr e a d y v o la tile s i tua t i on, i nc r e a s i ng the r i s k t o e ve ry one a nd m a ki ng hi s r e s c ue a tt e m pt c o u n te rp r o d u c tiv e . W e c o n c lu d e th a t A le x c a n n o t in v o k e th e r e s c u e d o c tr in e . W ith o u t it h e c a n n o t m a k e o u t ac la im a g a in s t B a rn e ra n d th e R itz f o rn e g lig e n c e . T he r e f or e , the di s tr i c tc our tw a s c orr e c tt o gr a nts um m a ry j udgm e ntt o B a rne ra nd th e Ri t z o n A l e x ’ s n e g l i g e n c e c l a i m. V I. T he Z i voj i no vi chs’ fi fth and fi nal cont ent i on i s thatthe di stri ctcourterre d b y f in d in g th a t th e d e p u tie s d id n o t u s e e x c e s s iv e f o r c e in v io la tio n o f

th e F o u r th A m e n d m e n t a n d th a t, e v e n if th e y d id , th e y w e r e e n title d to q u a lif ie d im m u n ity . T h e Z iv o jin o v ic h s a r g u e th a t th e d e p u tie s u s e d e x c e s s iv e f o r c e o n c e a g a in s t J u s tin25

and o nce a gai nstA l ex. T he al l eged exces si ve force agai nstJust i n o cc urre d w hen D e put i e s K notta nd S t a nf or d he l d J us t i n’ s a rm s a s the y e s c or t e d hi m outof the R i t z . T he a l l e ge d e xc e s s i ve f or c e a ga i ns tA l e x oc c urr e d w he n D e puty K notta nd an un nam ed sher i ff’ s deputy use d thei r t as ergu ns on hi m w hen h e w as hand cuff ed and b ei ng l ed t o the depu t i es ’ ca rs . T he Z i voj i no vi chs do n otcont end o n app ea l th a t th e d e p u tie s u s e de x c e s s iv e f o r c e d u r in g th e f

ig h t in th e s ta irw e ll. Q u a lif ie d im m u n ity s h ie ld s p u b lic o f f ic ia ls f r o m s u its a g a in s t th e m in th e ir i nd i vi du al capaci t i es for t ort s c om m i tt ed w hi l e per form i ng di sc re t i on ary dut i es u n le s s th e to r tio u s a c t v io la te s ac le a r ly e s tab lis h e d s ta tu to ry o rc o n s titu tio n a l r ig h t. H a r l ow v. F i t z ge r a l d, 457 U . S . 800, 818, 102 S . C t . 2727, 2738 ( 1982) . T he pa r t i e s a gr e e tha tthe de put i e s w e r e e nga ge d i n adi s c r e t i ona ry duty w hi l e e s c or t i ng J us t i n of f of the R i t z ’ s pr ope r ty , s o the bur de n i s on the Z i voj i novi c hs t o s how w hy the de put i e s a r e note nt i t l e d t o qua l i f i e d i m m uni ty . D a hl v. H ol l e y , 312 F . 3d 1228, 12 33 (11th C i r. 20 03 ). Q u a lif ie d im m u n ity r e q u ir e s atw o - s te p in q u iry . T h e th r e s h o ld q u e s tio n is w h e th e r“[ t]a k e n in th e lig h t m o s t f a v o r ab le to th e p a r ty a s s e r tin g th e in ju ry , . . . th e fact s . . . sh o w th e o ffi cer’s co n d u ctv i o l at ed a co n st i tu t i o n al [o r st atu t o ry] ri gh t . ” S auci er , 53 3 U . S . at20 1, 12 1 S . C t . at21 56 . W hen, as here , qu al i fi ed i m m un i ty “ ar i se s i n the po sture of am ot i on for s um m ary j ud gm ent , w e a re26

r e qui r e d t o vi e w a l l f

a c t s [ i n the r e c or d] a nd dr a w a l l r e a s onabl e i nf e r e nc e s i n f

a vor o f th e n o n m o v in g p a r ty .” B r o s s e au v . H au g e n , 5 4 3 U .S . 1 9 4 , 1 9 5 n .2 , 1 2 5 S . C t. 59 6, 59 7 n . 2 (20 04 ). T hen, “ i f avi ol at i on coul d b e m ade outon a f avorabl e vi ew of the part i es ’ subm i ss i on s, the next , se qu ent i al st ep i s t o ask w hether the ri gh tw as c l e a r l y e s t abl i s he d. ” S auc i e r , 533 U . S . a t201, 121 S . C t . a t2156. T urni ng t o Just i n’ s e xces si ve forc e c l ai m , w e f i rs tconsi der w hether a reaso n ab l e j u ry co u l d fi n d th atth ere w as a F o u rth A m en d m en tv i o l at i o n . B ecau se e ve n de m i ni m i s f

or c e w i l l vi ol a t e the F our th A m e ndm e nti f the of f i c e ri s not e nt i t l e d t o a rr e s torde t a i n the s us pe c t , s e e B a s hi rv. R oc kda l e C ounty , G a . , 445 F . 3d 13 23 , 13 32 (11th C i r. 20 06 ), w e m ustfi rs tdet erm i ne w hether the depu t i es h a d p r o b ab le c au s e to a rr e s t J u s tin . F l or i dal a w m a ke s i taf i r s tde gr e e m i s de m e a nort o “ r e s i s t , obs truc t , or oppos e a ny of

f i c e r. . . i n the e xe c ut i on of l e ga l pr oc e s s ori n the l a w f ul e xe c ut i on of any l egal du ty, w i tho utoffe ri ng or do i ng vi ol ence t o the pers on of the offi ce r. ” F l a . S t a t . § 843. 02. T he tw o e l e m e nt s of r e s i s t i ng a rr e s tw i thoutvi ol e nc e a r e : ( 1)

“ the of f i c e rm us tbe e nga ge d i n the l a w f ul e xe c ut i on of

al e ga l duty ” ; a nd ( 2) “ the d efen d an t ’ s act i o n , b e i tb y w o rd s, co n d u cto r a co m b i n at i o n th ereo f, m u st c ons t i tut e obs truc t i on orr e s i s t a nc e of tha tl a w f

ul duty . ” N . H . v. S t a t e , 890 S o. 2d 5 1 4 , 5 1 6

– 1 7 (F l a. 3 rd D C A 2 0 0 5 ). “ L eg al d u t i es” en co m p ass m o re th an j u st27

m a ki ng a rr e s t s . J a c obs on v. S t a t e , 476 S o. 2d 1282, 1287 ( F l a . 1985) ( “ [ S ] e c t i on 8 4 3 .0 2 . . . d o e s n o t r e q u ir e th a t th e o f f ic e rb e a tte m p tin g to a rr e s t th e s u s p e c t.” ) . H e r e , the de put i e s w e r e l a w f ul l y e xe c ut i ng the i rl e ga l duty by i nf orm i ng J u s tin th a t h e w a s n o lo n g e ra llo w e d to b e o n th e R itz ’s p r o p e r ty , e s c o r tin g h im ou t , and g i vi ng hi m a tre spas s w arni ng . S ee W i l l i am s, 75 1 S o. 2d at17 2. B ef ore e s c or t i ng J us t i n out , the de put i e s t ol d hi m t o s i t . H e di d f oram om e nt , butthe n he s t ood up a ga i n. D e puty S t a nf or d ha d t o or de rhi m t o s i ta ga i n. I n N . H . , the F l or i da appe a l s c our ta f

f i rm e d ac onvi c t i on f

orr e s i s t i ng a n of

f i c e rw i thoutvi ol e nc e i n the c a s e of aj uve ni l e s us pe c tw ho w a s a gi t a t e d a nd a ggr e s s i ve , c ur s e d, “ r e f us e d a po l i ce re qu es tt o si tdo w n, ” a nd “ m enac i ng l y r ai se d h i s f i st s a t ” off

i ce rs i nv es t i gat i ng a c ri m e. Id. at51 5– 16 . L i ke the defendanti n N . H . , Just i n d i sobeye d ac om m a nd by m e m be r s of l a w e nf or c e m e ntt o s i tw hi l e the y e xe c ut e d the i rl a w f ul dut i e s . A l though J us t i n’ s a c t i ons w e r e nota s e gr e gi ous a s thos e of the de f e nda nt i n N . H . , the st andard for probable cause i s s i gn i fi ca nt l y l ow erthan the proo fbe y ond- a - r e a s onabl e - doubts t a nda r d appl i e d t o c onvi c t i ons . S e e L e e v. F e rr a r o, 28 4 F . 3d 11 88 , 11 95 (11th C i r. 20 02 ) ( “ A l tho ug h p robabl e c ause re qu i re s m ore than suspi ci on , i tdo es no tre qu i re conv i nci ng proo f, and n ee d n otre ac h the [s am e] s ta n d a r d o f

c o n c lu s iv e n e s s an d p r o b ab ility a s th e f a c ts n e c e s s a ry to s u p p o r t a c o n v ic tio n .” ) . W e c o n c lu d e th a t th e d e p u tie s h a d p r o b ab le c au s e to a rr e s t J u s tin28

f o rr e s is tin g a rr e s t w ith o u t v io le n c e . T ha tc onc l us i on, how e ve r , doe s note nd ouri nqui ry . W e m us tnow d et erm i n e w h eth er th e fo rce u sed w as u n reaso n ab l e. “ T h e ‘ reaso n ab l en ess’ i nqui ry i n a n e xc e s s i ve f or c e c a s e i s a n obj e c t i ve one : the que s t i on i s w he the rthe offi ce r’ s a ct i on s are ‘ obj ec t i vel y r ea sonabl e’ i n l i gh tof the fa ct s and ci rc um st ance s confront i ng hi m , w i tho utre gard t o h i s und er l yi ng i nt entor m ot i vat i on . ” K es i ng er v. H e rr i ngt on, 381 F . 3d 1243, 1248 ( 11th C i r . 2004) . “ I n or de rt o de t e rm i ne w h eth er th e am o u n to f fo rce u sed b y a p o l i ce o ffi cer w as p ro p er, a co u rtm u stask ‘w h e th e rar e a s o n ab le o f f ic e rw o u ld b e lie v e th a t th is le v e l o f f o r c e is n e c e s s a ry in th e s itu a tio n a t h a n d .’” L e e , 2 8 4 F .3 d a t 1 1 9 7 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) ( c ita tio n o m itte d ) . T h is m u s t b e d e c id e d “o n ac a s e - b y - c a s e b a s is f r o m th e p e r s p e c tiv e o f

ar e a s o n ab le of f i c e ron the s c e ne , r a the rtha n w i th the 20/ 20 vi s i on of hi nds i ght . ” P os tv. C i ty of F or tL aude r da l e , 7 F . 3d 1552, 1559 ( 11th C i r . 1993) ( i nt e rna l quot a t i on m a rks o m itte d ) . D uri ng hi s deposi t i on , Just i n t es t i fi ed thatD eputy K no tt ’ s gri p o n h i s arm d id n o t h u r t. A s s u c h , it w a s d e m in im is . D e m in im is f o r c e w ill o n ly s u p p o r t a F our th A m e ndm e nte xc e s s i ve f or c e c l a i m w he n “ a n a rr e s t i ng of f i c e rdoe s notha ve th e ri g h tt o m ak e an arrest . ” B ash i r, 4 4 5 F . 3 d at1 3 3 2 . H o w ev er, as w e h av e j u st di s c us s e d, the r e w a s pr obabl e c aus e t o a rr e s tJ us t i n f orr e s i s t i ng a n of

f i c e rw i thout29

vi ol ence , so de K no tt ’ s gri p canno tbe the basi s f or an exces si ve force cl ai m . S ee N ol i n v. I s be l l , 207 F . 3d 1253, 1257 ( 11th C i r . 2000) ( “ [ T ] he appl i c a t i on of de m in im is f

o r c e , w ith o u t m o r e , w ill n o t s u p p o r t ac la im f o re x c e s s iv e f

o r c e in v io la tio n o f

th e F o u r th A m e n d m e n t.” ) . W i th regard t o D eputy S t anford, Just i n t es t i fi ed thatshe pul l ed hi s arm up at a n unc om f

or t abl e a ngl e w hi l e e s c or t i ng hi m out . W e c onc l ude tha t , f r om the pers pect i ve of a r ea sonabl e deputy i n S t anford’ s posi t i on , thi s w as no tan un re as on abl e use of forc e. S t anford kn ew thatJust i n h ad caused a di sturbance, w a s g o in g to b e e s c o r te d o u t o f th e h o te l, a n d h a d d is o b e y e d h e rin s tru c tio n to re m ai n sea t ed. U nd erthese ci rc um st ance s, usi ng an un com fort abl e hol d t o esc ort an un coop er at i ve and p ot ent i al l y bel l i gere ntsuspec ti s notun re as on abl e. S ee R od ri gu ez v. F arre l l , 28 0 F . 3d 13 41 , 13 45 (11th C i r. 20 02 ) ( ho l di ng that , w hen a rr e s t i ng a n unr e s i s t i ng s us pe c tbe l i e ve d t o ha ve out s t a ndi ng w a rr a nt s on drug c ha r ge s , “ gr abb[ i ng] [ as us pe c t ’ s ] l e f ta rm , tw i s t [ i ng] i tbe hi nd [ hi s ] ba c k, a nd forc ed i tup t o j ustbel ow the shou l der- bl ade” w as no texce ss i ve force even w hen th e s u s p e c t s c r e a m e d w ith p a in ) . T he di stri ctcourtdi d n oterr i n g ra nt i ng sum m ary j ud gm entt o D eput i es Kn o tta n d S t a n f

o r d o n J u s t i n ’ s e x c e s s i v e f o r c e c l a i m s a g a i n s tth e m . B e c au s e we c onc l ude tha tthe r e w a s no F our th A m e ndm e ntvi ol a t i on, w e ne e d nota ddr e s s the30

s e c o n d p r o n g o f

th e q u a lif

ie d im m u n ity a n a ly s is . T he Z i voj i novi c hs a l s o a r gue tha tD e puty K notta nd the othe rde puty w ho hel d A l ex as he w as bei ng l ed ou tof the R i t z i n h andcuffs used exces si ve force w h e n th e y u s e d th e irta s e rg u n s o n h im . T h e d e p u tie s c le a r ly h a d p r o b ab le c au s e to a rr e s tA l e x f

orr e s i s t i ng a n of

f i c e rw i th vi ol e nc e , avi ol a t i on of F l a . S t a t . § 843. 01, s o the onl y i s s ue he r e i s w he the rthe us e of the t a s e rguns w a s unr e a s onabl e . A tthe t i m e the de put i e s us e d the i rt a s e rguns , A l e x’ s nos e ha d a l r e a dy be e n br oke n, a nd he spra ye d b l oo d w hen h e s po ke. K no ttt es t i fi ed thathe bel i eved i tw as i nt e nt i ona l . A l though w e vi e w the f a c t s i n the l i ghtm os tf

a vor abl e t o the nonm o v in g p a r ty , T in k e r , 4 2 9 F .3 d a t 1 3 2 6 , a n d A le x te s tif ie d in h is d e p o s itio n th a t it w as no ti nt ent i on al , w e m usttre ati tas tho ug h i tw er e bec ause the evi dence i s that i s how i tw ou l d app ea r t o a re as on abl e off i ce r a tthe sc ene. S ee P ost , 7 F . 3d at 1559. W e ha ve pr e vi ous l y he l d tha ti n a“ di f f i c ul t , t e ns e a nd unc e r t a i n s i tua t i on” the use of at as ergu n t o sub du e asuspec tw ho has r epea t edl y i gn ored po l i ce in s tru c tio n s a n d c o n tin u e s to a c t b e llig e r e n tly to w a r d p o lic e is n o t e x c e s s iv e f o r c e . D r ape rv. R e y nol ds , 369 F . 3d 1270, 1278 ( 11th C i r . 2004) . T hi s w a s s uc h a s itu a tio n , a n d w e c o n c lu d e th a t K n o tt’s u s e o f h is ta s e rg u n w a s r e a s o n ab ly p r o p o r tio n a te to th e n e e d f o rf o r c e . B e c au s e K n o tt’s u s e o f th e ta s e rg u n w h ile l ea di ng A l ex ou tof the R i t z i n h andcuffs w as no tun re as on abl e, w e do n otre ac h31

th e w el l -est ab l i sh ed p ro n g o f th e q u al i fi ed i m m u n i ty an al ysi s. V II. W e R E V E R S E the di stri ctcourt ’ s gra ntof sum m ary j ud gm entt o the R i t zC a r l t on H ot e l a nd F r a nk B a rne ron J us t i n Z i voj i novi c h’ s ne gl i ge nc e c l a i m a nd AFFI RM th e r e ma i n d e ro f th e d i s tr i c tc o u r t ’ s j u d g me n t . Th e c a s e i s RE M AN DED f orf ur the rpr oc e e di ngs c ons i s t e ntw i th thi s opi ni on. AF F I R ME D i n p a r t , R E VE R S E D i n p a r t , a n d R E MAND E D.