F ILED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS EL EV EN TH C IRC UIT Sep tember 2 5, 2008 T HOMA S K. KA HN CLERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 08- 1256 2 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 07-14036 -CV -KMM LEDA FOREMAN, W ILLIAM FOREM AN, Pl ai nti ff s- Appe llants , ve rs us CITY OF PORT ST. LUCIE, DOMINICK M ESITI, i n d i v i du a l l y an di n h i s o f f i c i a l c ap a c i t y, ROBERT BRANDO, i n d i v i du a l l y an di n h i s o f f i c i a l c ap a c i t y, D ef en dants -Appe lle es .

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the S outhe rnD istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ (S ep te m be r 25, 200 8) Be fo re MA RC U S, W IL SO N and C O X , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M:2

I. F actual Background W e re vie wadis m iss al f

or f ai lur e to s tate ac la im ; w e sum m ar iz e br ie fl y

the following relevant facts taken f rom the Plaintiffs’ Am ended Com plaint. T here
was a di sp ut e b et ween ne ig hb or s i n t he Cit y of P or t St . Luci e (“ Po rt S t. Lu ci e”). When poli ce off

icers Robert B rando and Dom inick Mesiti arrived at the scene,
one ne ighbor ’ s w orke r tol d th e of fi ce rs that L ed a Fo re m anha d arg ue d w ithhim
an d u se d a BB g un at a tar ge t i n h er b ack y ard . (R.2- 67 at 3 .) Bran do sea rch edth e Fo rem an s’ gar ag e an d b ack y ardan d fo un d aBB g un . When Mr. Forem an approached Brando to discuss th e incident, Br ando po inted the em pty BB gun at Mr. Forem an and pulled th e trigger. Mrs. Forem an watched th is in ci de nt bu t d idno t k no w th e BB g un was e m pt y . ( Id
. at 3-4.) Brando th en ap pli ed f or aw ar rant f or the arr es t of

Mr s. F or em an , w hic h w as iss ue d by the
m agistrate. The warrant w as based on a violatio n of Port St. Lucie Or dinance Se ct ion130 . 01 ( “ O rd inanc e” ) w hic h pr ohi bit s th e dis ch ar ge of any a ir gunw ith in th e ci ty lim it s. (

Id
. at 4-5.) Brando then called Mrs. Forem an on the pho ne and inform ed her that an A rr es t A ff

idavit ha d be eniss ue d f

or he r vio la tio n of

the O rd inanc e, and M rs . Forem an surrendered her self to the St. Lucie County j ail the next day
. (R. 2-67 at 4-6.)T h e a s s au l tcl ai mwa s d i s m i s s edo ns um m ary j u d gm en tan d

M r. Fo rema

n does not ch al l en ge 1 that judgme nt. (R.2-101 at 3-4.) 3 T he S t. L uc ie Co unty

S ta te A tto rn ey ’ s of

fi ce e ve ntu al ly

de cl ine d to pr os ecu te Mrs . For em an ba se d o n h er v io la ti on of t he Ordi na nc e. ( Id
. at 8 .) II. P rocedu ral History T he F or em an s br ough t su it ag ai nst P ort S t. L uc ie and a lso a ga ins t M es iti
an d B rando in the ir

ind ivi dua l and o ff

ic ia l c ap ac iti es . T he A m en de d C om pla int
se ek s r el ie f on s ev en

c la im s ( R. 2- 67 at 10 -1 9) : C ount I is Mr s. F or em an ’ s § 1 983 claim for f alse im prisonm ent and false ar

rest against Mesiti and Brando; Count II is M rs . F or em an ’ s § 1 983 cl ai m a ga ins t P ort. S t. L uc ie f

or apol ic y of a llo w ing fa lse arr es ts unde r the O rd inanc e; Co unt I II is Mr . F or em an ’ s a ssa ult c la im a ga ins t Br an do; Co unt

I V is Mr s. F or em an ’ s ne gli ge nt tra ini ng c la im a ga ins t P ort S t. L uc ie ; C ount

V is Mr s. F or em an ’ s in te nti ona l i nf lic tio n of e m oti ona l di str es s cl ai m a ga ins t B rando; Co unt

V I is M r. F or em an ’ s lo ss o f co nsor tium c la im a ga ins t Po rt S t. L uc ie , Br an do, and M es iti ; and C ount V II is Mr s. F or em an ’ s m al ic iou s pr ose cu tio n c la im

a ga ins t B rando an d M es iti
. T he D ef en dants f ile d am oti on t o di sm iss f or f ai lur e to s ta te ac la im
. T he dis tr ic t c ourt a dopt ed

the r ep ort and r ec om

m en da tio n of

the m ag istrate j udge and dism issed all but the assault claim
. (R. 2-98 at 1-2.) The district court held that 14

the Or dinance was valid (R .2-92 at 4), that the facts alleged in the A m ended Co m pla int gave pr oba

ble c au se f

or the arr es t ( id
. at 4-9), and that the facts alleged in the A m en de d C om

pla int did not m ak e out ac la im f or int en tio na l i nf

lic tio n of
em oti ona l di str es s ( id. at 9-10). T he F or em an s a

ppe al the dis m iss al of

the ir c la im s. T he y

arg ue f ir st tha t the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed

in ap ply ing ahe igh te ne d pl ea din g st an dard to the ir m oti on t o dism iss and th us erroneouslydism issed all seven Coun ts. S econd, they argue that the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed

in hol din g th at

the O rd inanc e w as va lid , and a cc or din gly
er re d indis m iss ing part

of Co unt 1 and a ll of

Co unt 2. T hir d, the F or em an s arg ue that the district court erred in holdin g that probabl e cause e xisted, and thus err ed in d ism iss ing the r em ai nde r of Co unt 1, and a ll of

Co unt s 4, 6, and 7
. F ina lly , the Fo re m an s arg ue that the ir c om pla int did a lle ge suf

fi ci en t f ac ts t o st at e a cl ai m

f or int en tio na l i nf

lic tio n of e m oti ona l di str es s, and s o th e dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed in di sm is si ng Co un t 5 . The F orem ans also appeal the district court’ s order striking their expert
w itn es se s. B ec au se w e af fi rm the dis m iss al of

a ll the F or em an s’ c la im s, w e do n ot address this iss ue.5

III . D isc us sio n A . T he O rd inanc e is v al id i n it s r eg ulatio n of BB gun s. Mr s. F or em anarg ue s F la
. S ta t. § 79 0. 33 p re em pts the O rd inanc e banni ng the dis ch ar ge of

an a ir gunin the c ity

li m its of P ort S t. L uc ie
. S pe ci fi ca lly , Mr s. Fo re m anarg ue s th at

the O rd inanc e is v oid

be ca use F la
. S ta t. § 79 0. 33 p re em pts t h e wh o l e f

i e l do f f i r e a rm an da mm

u n i t i o n r e g u l a t i o n , an ds t a t e s th a tan y c i t y, co un ty, orot he r m

un ic ip al ord in an ce re gu la ti ng fir earm s an d a m m un it io n i s v oi d. Whil e it is tru e that F la
. S ta t. § 79 0. 33 d oe s pr ee m pt m uni ci pa l r eg ulatio n of fir earm s, a B B g un is no t a f ire arm un de r Ch ap te r 79 0 o f th e Fl or id a St atut es . P et z v. Sta te , 91 7 S o.2 d 3 81 , 38 3 (F laDis t. Ct . App . 20 05 ). T h e F o r e man s a l s o ar g u e th a tb e c au s e th e O r d i n a n c e d o e s r e g u l a t e s o me firearm s, the pree m

ption provisio n of Fla. Stat. § 790.33 renders the entire Ord in an ce i nv al idsi nc e th e Ord in an ce d oe s n ot co nt ai n asev erab il it y cla us e. Fl or id a la w, ho wev er, al lo ws s ev erab il it y ab se nta se ve rab il it y

claus e. D ade County v. K

eyes , 141 So.2d 819, 821-822 (Fla. D ist. Ct. App. 1962 ). Sec tion 7 90.33 of the Florida Statutes does not p reem pt a m unicipal
or din an ce r eg ulatin g B B g uns. A cc or din gly , the dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t e rr in hold ing th at the O rdinance is valid and dis m issin g part of Count 1 and all of Co unt 2.The F o re m ans ar gue that had the y been g iven an oppor

tunity to amend the Ame nded 2 Complaint, t hey

could have alleg ed fa cts that would have shown no probable cause exis ted. A cour t is not required to a llow a par ty to amend when the party does not reque st leave to amend. W agner v. Dae woo Heavy

Indus. Am. Corp. , 314 F.3d 541, 542 ( 11th Cir. 2002) (en ba nc). 6 B. D ef en dants ha d pr oba

ble c au se to ar

re st M rs . F or em an . T he F or em an s arg ue that pr oba ble c au se f

or the arr es t of

Mr s. F or em andid not e xis t. I n part ic ular, the F or em an s arg ue that the inf orm at ionr eg ar din g M rs . Fo re m an ’ s us e of

aBB gunpr ovi de d by

ane ighbor ’ s w orke r w as ins uf fi ci en t t o cr eate pr oba

ble c au se f

or he r ar re st. Pr oba ble c au se f

or an arr es t e xis ts whe n an e y ew itn es s r ep orts w itn es sin g a cri m e to po li ce. U

. S. v . B el l , 457 F. 2d 12 31, 1238 (5th Cir. 1972 ). He re, the Forem ans’ Am ended Com plaint alleges that “ Both officers w ere inform ed by

a w orker at the a

[sic] neighbo r’ s hom e that L ED A F ORE MANhad started a ver

bal dispu te w ith him

and used a BB gun at a tar get displ ay ed in her backy ard. ” (R. 2-67 at 3.) B ecause the A m ended Com plaint alleges that an 2 ey ew itn es s r ep orte d th e dis ch ar ge of aBB gun , w hic h is ac ri m e unde r the O rd inanc e, pr oba

ble c au se e xis te d to arr es t M rs . F or em an . A cc or din gly , the dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t e rr

in hol din g th at

pr oba ble c au se e xis te d and d ism iss ing the
re m ai nde r of

Co unt 1, and a ll of

Co unt s 4, 6, and 7
.7

C. T he A m en de d C om

pla int did not state ac la im

f or int en tio na l i nf

lic tio n of e m oti ona l di str es s. Mrs. Forem an next argues that the district court erroneouslydism issed her claim for intentional inflictio n of em otion al distress. S pecifically , Mr s. F orem an co nte nds that he r A m en de d C om pla int a de qua te ly

a lle ge s th at

Br an do a ct ed

w ith int en t t o c au se e m oti ona l di str es s. While the district court dis m issed Mrs. For em an’ s claim for intentional inf lic tio n of e m oti ona l di str es s ba se d onhe r fa ilure to pr ope rl y a lle ge that B rando acted w ith the necessary

intent, w e ar e fr ee to af

firm the ruling of a district court
on an y gro un d. W

el din g Se rv s. , I nc . v . F orm an , 509 F. 3d 13 51, 1355 (11t h Cir. 2007 ). He re, Mrs. Forem an alleges the following facts in suppo rt of her claim for intentional inflictio n of em otion al distress: that Brando poi nted an unl oa de d B B g un at M r. F or em an ’ s c he st and p ull ed the tr igg er , and tha t M rs . Fo re m anw at ch ed

thi s in ci de nt w ith out

kno w ing the BB gunw as unl oa de d. ( R. 2- 67 at 16 -1 7. ) F lor ida

c ourts u se ave ry

hig h st an dard

in ev al ua tin g w he the r the facts alleged are suffic iently outrageous to suppo rt a c laim for intentional in fli ct io n o f em ot io na l d is tre ss . M etropo litan L ifeI

ns. Co
. v . M

cC ars on , 467 So . 2d 2 77, 278 ( Fl a. 198 5)
. A lth oughF lor ida c as e lawdoe s no t di sc uss the via bil ity of an in te nti ona l i nf

lic tio n of e m oti ona l di str es s c la im ba se d onf

ac ts8

sim ilar to those of

thi s c as e, w e co nc lud e that the c ondu ct a lle ge d he re is not

“ be y ond al l po ssi ble bounds of de ce nc y , and t o be r eg ar de d a s a tr oc iou s, and utterly intolerable in a civilized com m unity .” Id

. a t 27 9 ( quot ing Re state m en t (Sec ond) of Torts § 46 (1965)). Be ca use Mr s. F or em anha s no t a lle ge d f ac ts s uf fi ci en tly outra ge ous to sa tis fy the outra ge ous co nduc t e le m en t of ac la im f or int en tio na l i nf

lic tio n of
e mo t i o n a l d i s t r e s s , th e d i s t r i c tc o u rtd i dn o te rr i n d i s mi s s i n g h e r

c l a i m. D . T he dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t r el y on a he igh te ne d pl ea din g st an dard in dis m iss ing the F or em an s’ c la im s. The F orem ans argue the district court err ed in apply ing a height ened p l ea d i n g s t an d ar dt o th ei r c as e, an dac co rd i n g l y erre di n d i s m i s s i n g al l co u n t s . We dis ag re e. T he dis tr ic t c ourt di sm iss ed a ll cl ai m s e xc ep t the int en tio na l i nf lic tio n of
em oti ona l di str es s c la im

ba se d onw ha t w as included in th e Am en de d C om

pl ai nt . Whil e the dis tr ic t c ourt m ay have de m an de d to o m

uc h of the A m en de d C om

pla int in its di sm issal of the intentio nal infliction o f em otion al distress claim , w e af firm that di sm iss al on anothe r gr ound
. IV . C on cl us ion W e fi nd no erro r in th e d is tri ctco ur t’s d is m is sa l o f al l cl ai m s. AFFIR MED.