Court Opinion

ID: 9375933
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-01 15:02:40.714131+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:01.710955
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-12962    Document: 35-1     Date Filed: 03/01/2023   Page: 1 of 3

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                   In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                          ____________________

                                No. 22-12962
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       BRENDA BELLAY,
                                                     Plaintiff-Appellant,
       versus
       OFFICER TYLER SHUE,
       individually,
       CITY OF TAMPA,

                                                 Defendants-Appellees.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Middle District of Florida
USCA11 Case: 22-12962      Document: 35-1     Date Filed: 03/01/2023     Page: 2 of 3

       2                      Opinion of the Court                 22-12962

                    D.C. Docket No. 8:19-cv-00206-WFJ-JSS
                          ____________________

       Before JORDAN, BRASHER, and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Brenda Bellay sued the City of Tampa, Florida, and Officer
       Tyler Shue of the Tampa Police Department for, among other
       things, false arrest, battery, and excessive force under 42 U.S.C.
       § 1983 and state law. Although Bellay’s case survived a motion to
       dismiss and motion for summary judgment, it was not ultimately
       decided on the merits. Instead, the district court dismissed the case
       with prejudice as a sanction for spoliation of evidence and false tes-
       timony.
               On the weekend before the trial was set to start, Bellay’s
       counsel informed the defense that Bellay—the only party to have
       recorded the incident giving rise to her claims—had produced a
       new, sixth video clip. Finding the video suspicious, the district
       court granted the defendants’ motion for a mistrial, discharged the
       jury, and permitted discovery into the provenance of the videos
       provided by Bellay. Following discovery, briefing, expert testi-
       mony, and an evidentiary hearing, the court entered an order, de-
       tailing the issues with the videos’ reliability. The court found Bel-
       lay “engaged in a clear pattern of willful contempt by tampering
       with critical evidence, thereby impairing the [c]ourt’s prior sum-
       mary judgment ruling and prejudicing the defense.”
USCA11 Case: 22-12962      Document: 35-1       Date Filed: 03/01/2023     Page: 3 of 3

       22-12962                Opinion of the Court                          3

              Bellay completely fails to address the bases for the dismissal
       sanction in her initial brief, focusing entirely on the merits of her
       claims. “We have long held that an appellant abandons a claim
       when he either makes only passing references to it or raises it in a
       perfunctory manner without supporting arguments and author-
       ity.” Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678, 681 (11th
       Cir. 2014). At most, Bellay notes the sanction dismissal in the
       “Statement of the Case” section, and she asserts in the first sentence
       of the “Summary of Argument” section that the court “erred in de-
       termining that the claim should be dismissed due to spoilation of
       the evidence.” These passing references are not enough to raise
       the issue. See id. at 681-82.
               Bellay made some arguments about the sanction for the first
       time in her reply brief after the appellees pointed out the abandon-
       ment in their response brief. But Bellay’s arguments come too late
       as we will not generally consider arguments raised for the first time
       in a reply brief. Id. at 682-83; accord Big Top Koolers, Inc. v. Circus-
       Man Snacks, Inc., 528 F.3d 839, 844 (11th Cir. 2008).
               Bellay has abandoned any argument about the basis for the
       district court’s dismissal of her case, so the district court’s judgment
       is due to be affirmed. See Sapuppo, 739 F.3d at 683; Timson v.
       Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008).
              AFFIRMED.