FKR Investment Corp. v. City of Homestead, No. 1:2017cv23071 - Document 16 (S.D. Fla. 2018)
Court Description: ORDER granting 6 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. Closing Case. Signed by Judge Federico A. Moreno on 1/29/2018. (kcg) NOTICE: If there are sealed documents in this case, they may be unsealed after 1 year or as directed by Court Order, unless they have been designated to be permanently sealed. See Local Rule 5.4 and Administrative Order 2014-69.
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
FKR Investment Corp. v. City of Homestead Doc. 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA M iam iD ivision CaseNum ber:17-23071-CIV-M ORENO FKR m VESTM ENT COlkP., Plaintiff, VS. CITY OF H OM ESTEA D , Defendant. ORDER G RANTING DEFENDANT'S M OTIO N TO DISM ISS Thiscase involves a dispute overa utility lien. FK R Investm entC orp.sued the City of Hom estead foralleged violations ofFourteenth A m endm entdue processrights and forinverse condemnation.TheCitymovestodismissthecaseonthreegrounds:(1)lackofsubjectmatter jurisdiction;(2)resjudicata;and(3)failuretostateaclaim.TheCourthasreviewedthemotion, response,and reply. Asexplained below,the City'sm otion to dism issisGRANTED. BA CK G R O U ND ln April2014,FKR ptzrchased an investm entproperty in Hom estead,Florida.In M arch 2014,before FK R purchased the property,Skyline Lien Search perform ed a lien search and reported thatthere w as no public record ofany m unicipallien. Shortly afterpurchasing the property,FK R requested thatthe City activate the electricity. But,the City notified FK R that utility servicescould notbe activated because ofpending code violations. FK R then spentm ore than $100,000 to bring theproperty into com pliance. In October2014,aftercorrecting thecode violations,FK lt re-applied forelectricity to be activated. The City responded by inform ing Dockets.Justia.com FKR forthe firsttim e thattherewasan outstanding utility billfrom two previousowners totaling $113,906.Accordingly,the City denied theelectricity service request. On Decem ber1,2014,FKR submitted atitleinslzrance claim on itspolicy with First American TitleInsuranceCom pany.FirstAm erican denied theclaim becausethepurported utility lien wasnotrecorded in thepublicrecords.Fourdayslater- and almosteightmonths afterFKltpurchased theproperty--on December5,the City recorded aNotice ofLien in the public records. The lien stated a previous owner. In January 2015,FKR filed suitin statecourtagainsttheCity and againstFirstAm erican. The state-courtcomplaintincludedtwo countsagainsttheCity thefirstseeking to quiettitle, andthesecondseekinganimmediateinjunctiontocompeltheCitytoactivateutilityserviceand also seeking adeclaration thatthe lien wasinvalid andunenforceable.Thecomplaintalso included two countsagainstFirstAm erican- aclaim fordeclaratory reliefand an alternative claim fornegligence. In July 2015,the City agreed to dism issthe lien and restore utility service to Flu t's property.The state courtentered an Agreed OrderDismissing Lien,which dism issed the City's utilitieslien and extinguished the encum brance.FKR latervoluntarily dism issed itsclaims againstFirstAmerican. Overtwo yearslater,in August2017,FKR filed thiscom plaintagainst the City. ll. AN A LY SIS TheCitymovestodismissFKR'Scomplaintforthreereasons:(1)lack ofsubjectmatter jurisdiction;(2)resjudicata;and(3)failuretostateaclaim.TheCourtbeginswithan analysis ofresjudicata.BecauseFKR'Sclaimsarebarredbyresjudicata,theCourtneednotaddressthe City'sotherargum ents,although they m ay have m erit. - 2- dtltesjudicatabarsasubsequentsuitbetweenthesamepartiesbasedonthesamecauseof action.Itappliesto(1)a11mattersthatwereactually raised,and(2)a11mattersthatcouldhave been raised in thepriorsuit.''Agripost,Inc.v.M iami-DadeCounty exrel.M anager,195 F.3d 1225,1232(11thCir.1999). Here,FKR'Sstate-courtaction againsttheCity included claimsforquiettitleand for injunctiveanddeclaratoryrelief.Thefactualallegationsmadeto supportthestate-courtclaims match the factualallegationsin thiscase alm ostverbatim . lndeed,the allegationsthatsupport FKR'Stheory ofconstitutionalviolationsand inversecondemnation are no differentthan the allegationsFKR relieduponinitsstate-courtclaimsforquiettitleandinjunctiverelief. itW henacourtofcompetentjurisdictionhasenteredafinaljudgmentonthemeritsofa causeofaction,thepartiesto thesuitand theirpriviesarethereafterbound Enotonly asto every matterwhich wasoffered and received to sustain ordefeattheclaim ordemand,butasto any otheradmissiblematterthatmighthavebeenoffered forthatpurpose.'''Comm 'roflnternal Revenuev.Sunnen,333U.S.591,597(1948);seealsoAllenv.M ccurry,449U.S.90,94 (1980) ('ûunderresjudicata,afinaljudgmentonthemeritsofanaction precludesthepartiesortheir priviesfrom re-litigatingissuesthatwereorcouldhavebeenraisedinthataction.'').Here,FKR arguesthatthestate-courtagreed orderdismissing theutility lien atissuewasnotafsnal judgmentonthemerits,andthus,resjudicatadoesnotapply.FKR assertsthatwhiletheagreed orderdismissedthelien,afinaljudgmentonthemeritswasneverentered astotheclaimsto quiettitlenorfortemporary injunctiverelief.ThisCourtdisagrees.Thestate-courtagreedorder dism issed the utility lien and extinguished the encum brance,thus,granting the exactreliefFK R soughtin its claim to quiettitle.Further,utility servicesw ere restored to the property,thus, grantingtheexactreliefFKR soughtinitsclaim forinjunctiverelief.Therefore,theagreed orderclearly resolved FKR'Sclaimson them erits,leaving nothing elseto belitigated between FKltandtheCity.1 A ccordingly, thestatecourt'sorderselwesasafinaljudgmentonthemerits. Finalstate-courtjudgmentsareaccordedthesamepreclusiveeffectinfederalcourtas theyaredueinthecourtsofthestatein whichthejudgmentwasrendered.M igrav.WarrenCjly Sch.Dist.Bd.ofEduc.,465U.S.75,83(1984).Thus,indetenniningthepreclusiveeffectofthe finaljudgment- thestate-courtagreedorder- againstFKR,thisCourtmustapplyFloridalaw. UnderFloridalaw,amatterisnotbarredbyresjudicataunlessfourconditionsaresatisfied:$$41) identityofthethingsuedfor;(2)identityofthecauseofaction;(3)identityoftheparties;and (4)identityofthequalityinthepersonfororagainstwhom thecomplaintismade.''Adamsv. Sewell,946F.2d757,762(11thCir.1991),overruledonothergroundsbyM cKinneyv.Pate,20 F.3d 1550(11thCir.1994). A s to the firstelem ent,FK R seeksessentially the sam e reliefin thiscase thatw assought in state court. In the state-courtcase,FKR soughtthe follow ing relief: (ForCount1,j(FKR)respectfullyrequeststhisHonorableCourt Grantand gsiclOrderQuietingTitleofthepropertywhich isthe subjectofthislawsuit,attomey'sfeesandcosts,trialbycourtand anyotherreliefdeemedjustandproper. gForCount2,1(FKRIrequeststhatthisCourtenteranimmediate InjunctiontocompelgtheCityltoactivateutilityservicesatgthe propertyl,thattheCourtgrantdeclaratoryreliefdeterminingthat the legaland constitutionalim perativesofFlorida 1aw requirethat the lienrecorded on December5,2014 isinvalid and unenforceableagainst(FKR),and such otherandfurtherreliefas maybejustunderthecircumstances. 1FKR attemptstomisleadtheCourtbyindicatingthatitfiledavoluntarydismissalfollowingtheagteed order,whichsuggeststhattheagreedorderisnotafinaljudgment.But,althoughFKR filedavoluntarydismlssal,it wasonlyadism issalasagainsttheremaining defendant FirstAm erican.lndeed,thecaptionto theN oticeof VoluntaryDism issallistsonly FirstAm ericanasadefcndant,consistentwith theagreedorderresolving al1of FKR'SclaimsagainsttheCity,andservingasafinaljudgmentasbetweenFKR andtheCity. - 4- ln thiscase,FKR seeksdnmages,attorneys'feesand costs,and çisuch furtherreliefasthe Court deem snecessary and proper.'' Thus,theonly differenceinthereliefsoughtin thiscaseisthe additionaldam agesforalleged constitutionalviolationsand inversecondem nation. But,had theseclaim sbeen broughtin thestate-courtaction,thesam ereliefsurely wouldhavebeen requested. Further,any slightdifferencesin the respectiveprayersforreliefarem adeeven slighterby the factthatin each case,FKlkspecifically requeststhatthecourtassesswhatever reliefitfindsjustandproper.Stillfurther,anydifferenceiniûthethingsuedfor''isfar overshadowed bythefactthatthe factualallegationsin each caseare alm ostidentical. Accordingly,thefirstelementofthetestforresjudicataissatisfied. Thesecondelementofresjudicatapresentsthequestionofwhetherthecauseofaction thatwasthesubjectofthestate-courtjudgmentisthesameasthecauseofaction inthiscase. Generally,Stifa casearisesoutofthe sam enucleusofoperativefact,orisbased upon thesame factualpredicate,asaformeraction,(lthetwocasesarereallythesametclaim'orlcauseof action'forpurposesofresjudicata.''Citibank,NA.v.DataLeaseFin.Corp.,904 F.2d 1498, 1503(11thCir.1990).Underthisstandard,FKR'Sstate-courtclaimsandtheclaimsinthiscase clearly sharethesam enucleusofoperativefact asthefactualallegationsarenearly identical. Accordingly,thesecondelementofthetestforresjudicataissatisfied.Further,thethirdand fourth elementsclearly arem etasFKR and theCity wereboth partiesto both casesand hadthe snmeinterestsin each.Thus,FKR'SclaimsagainsttheCityarebarredbyresjudicata. FKR'Sotherargumentsagainstresjudicataalsofail.First,FKR arguesthattheCity im properly attached docum ents to itsm otion to dism issw hich are notw ithin the fourcornersof the complaint. lndeed,theCity reliesupon FKR'Sstate-courtcomplaintin itsm otion to dism iss. However,tûgcjourtsmaytakejudicialnoticeofpubliclyfileddocuments,suchasthosein state courtlitigation,attheRule 12(b)(6)stage.'' UnitedStatesexrel.Osheroffv.HumanaInc,776 F.3d 805,815n.4(11th Cir.2015)(citingFed.R.Evid.201;Lozmanv.City ofRivieraBeach, FIa.,713F.3d 1066,1075n.9(11th Cir.2013( 9.Thus,theCourtmayproperly considerthe state-courtcomplaintand otherstate-courtdocum entsatthisstage. lnarelatedargument,FKR assertsthatresjudicataisan affirmativedefensethatcannot beraised in a motion to dismissbecauseitrelieson factualallegationsoutsideofthefourcorners ofthecomplaint. However,FKR'Sargum entdoesnotapply here,wherethe allegationsoutside ofthe fourcom ersofthe com plaintconsistsolely ofthe state-courtproceedings. See D avis v, WilliamsCommc' ns,Inc.,258F.Supp.2d 1348,1352(N.D.Ga.2003)(1$TheEleventhCircuit hasheldthat,when consideringa 12(b)(6)motiontodismiss,acourtmaytakejudicialnoticeof thepublicrecord,withoutconvertingthemotiontooneforsummaryjudgment,becausesuch docum entsare capable ofaccurateand ready determ ination byresortto sourceswhose accuracy cnnnotreasonablybequestioned.'')(citingBryantv.AvadoBrands,Inc.,187F.3d 1271,1279-80 (11th Cir.1999)). Finally,FKR arguesthatStitiselementarythatstatecourtslack subjectmatterjtzrisdiction over certain claim s arising underthe U nited States Constitution and m ay only be properly broughtin FederalCourt.''Indeed,FKR assertsthatraising dueprocessclaim sunderthe Fourteenth Am endmentwould beimproperin state court.Thisissim ply wrong. Rather,itis elementarythatfederalcourtsdonothaveexclusivejurisdictionoverfederalclaims.Plaintiffs arefreeto bringfederalclaim sin statecourt,and in factoften do so. - 6- 111. C O N CLU SIO N Based on the foregoing,itis O R DER ED AN D A DJU D G ED thatthe City's M otion to D ism iss is G M NTED . The caseisDISM ISSED withprejudice,with eachpartybearingitsownfeesandcosts.Fed.R.Civ. P.41(a)(1)(A)(ii). Further,a11pendingmotionsareDENIED asM OOT with leavetorenew if appropriate. , DONE AND ORDERED in ChambersatM iam i,Florida,this '' ofJanuary2018. FEDERIQ A.M ORENO U N ITED STA TES DISTR ICT JU DG E Copiesfurnished to: CounselofRecord
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
