Opinion ID: 77393
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Civil Theft

Text: 45 To maintain a cause of action under the civil theft statute, Almeida must show by clear and convincing evidence an injury caused by the defendant's violation of one or more of the provisions of the criminal theft laws found in Fla. Stat. §§ 812.012-037 (West 2006). Fla. Stat. § 772.11; see Palmer v. Gotta Have It Golf Collectibles, Inc., 106 F.Supp.2d 1289, 1303 (S.D.Fla.2000) (stating that a cause of action for civil theft `derives from two statutory sources: the criminal section setting forth the elements of theft, and the civil section granting private parties a cause of action for a violation of the criminal section') (quoting Ames v. Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co., 942 F.Supp. 551, 560 (S.D.Fla.1994)). Almeida claims that she can prove by clear and convincing evidence that Amazon violated section 812.014(1), which provides: 46 (1) A person commits theft if he or she knowingly obtains or uses, or endeavors to obtain or to use, the property of another with intent to, either temporarily or permanently: 47 (a) Deprive the other person of a right to the property or a benefit from the property. 48 (b) Appropriate the property to his or her own use or to the use of any person not entitled to the use of the property. 49 Fla. Stat. § 812.014(1). 50 In order to establish a violation of section 812.014(1), Almeida must show that Amazon knowingly obtained or used, or endeavored to obtain or to use, Almeida's property with the felonious intent to appropriate the property to [Amazon's] own use or to the use of any person not entitled to the use of the property. Palmer, 106 F.Supp.2d at 1303; see Ames, 942 F.Supp. at 560 (holding that the plaintiff must show felonious intent to commit theft in order to establish a violation of section 812.014(1)). That is, [t]heft is a specific intent crime, requiring actual knowledge on the part of the defendant. Healy v. Suntrust Serv. Corp., 569 So.2d 458, 460 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1990). 51 In the instant case, the district court granted summary judgment for Amazon on Almeida's claim, finding no clear and convincing evidence to support the necessary felonious intent on the part of Amazon. Almeida argues that she has a property interest in the photographic image on the cover of Anjos Proibidos, and that Amazon intentionally misappropriated that image. Almeida contends that the district court should have allowed Almeida an opportunity for additional discovery prior to granting Amazon's motion for summary judgment on the ground that Amazon did not act with felonious intent. 52 We conclude that Almeida has failed to present any evidence that Amazon misappropriated any of her property with felonious intent. There is no evidence that Amazon used Almeida's image with actual knowledge that its use was unauthorized. Moreover, we disagree with Almeida that the district court erred by not providing Almeida with an opportunity for additional discovery on the issue of Amazon's intent. 6 53 Accordingly, we affirm the district court's decision denying Almeida's civil theft claim on summary judgment.
54 Next, the court reviews the district court's award of attorney's fees to Amazon on the civil theft claim. Section 772.11 of the civil theft statute provides that [t]he defendant is entitled to recover reasonable attorney's fees and court costs . . . upon a finding that the claimant raised a claim that was without substantial fact or legal support. Fla. Stat. § 772.11; see Ciaramello v. D'Ambra, 613 So.2d 1324, 1325 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1991) (interpreting the legislature's intent in wording section 772.11 to discourage civil theft claims lacking either legal or factual substance by setting a less stringent standard for a fee award than [a] bad faith standard). Almeida argues that her civil theft claim does not lack a substantial basis in fact, and that the court erred by entering a fee award based on in camera review and without any reasoning to justify the amount. 55 We conclude that the district court did not commit clear error in finding that Almeida's civil theft claim lacked substantial factual or legal support. The record lacks any evidence showing Amazon's felonious intent to misappropriate Almeida's property. Moreover, we note that even though the trial court did not clearly articulate its method for calculating attorney's fees, the district court conducted an in camera review of Amazon's un-redacted billing statements, which resulted in a modest award of $3,500 in attorney's fees. See ACLU v. Barnes, 168 F.3d 423, 428 (11th Cir.1999) (implying that where no specific objections are made, the court may rely on affidavits and its own knowledge to determine a reasonable award of attorney's fees). With no evidence indicating that this calculation is unreasonable, we will not remand the case merely for the district court to articulate its basis for this award.