Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

Experience a New Era in Legal Research with Free Access to Lexis+

Saleh v. Miami Gardens Square One, Inc.

Saleh v. Miami Gardens Square One, Inc.

Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District

January 11, 2023, Opinion Filed

No. 3D21-1724

Opinion

GORDO, J.

Yazan Saleh appeals a trial court order granting final judgment in favor of Miami Gardens Square One, Inc. d/b/a Tootsie's Cabaret ("Miami Gardens") and RCI Hospitality Holdings, Inc.'s ("RCI").1 We have jurisdiction. Fla. R. App. P. 9.030(b)(1)(A). Finding no error in the trial court's dismissal of Saleh's federal statutory claim, we affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In late December 2016, Saleh visited Tootsie's Cabaret, an adult entertainment nightclub located in Miami Gardens. Prior to leaving, Saleh gave his server two different personal credit cards to pay for the services provided. Saleh's server [*2]  returned his credit cards to him along with two printed receipts, each displaying the first six and last four digits of his credit card account numbers. Saleh kept both receipts.

A month later, Saleh filed a lawsuit against Miami Gardens and RCI2 in federal court based on those receipts, arguing Miami Gardens and RCI willfully violated the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act, 15 U.S.C § 1681c(g)(1) ("federal FACTA"). A year later, Saleh filed an identical federal FACTA based claim in state court. In 2020, the Eleventh Circuit resolved the issue of standing in Muransky v. Godiva Chocolatier, Inc., 979 F. 3d 917, 920 (11th Cir. 2020), finding "a party does not have standing to sue when it pleads only the bare violation of a statute."

In March 2021, Miami Gardens and RCI moved to dismiss the instant state action arguing Saleh lacked standing because he failed to assert an injury in fact. Saleh filed an amended complaint reasserting standing and alleging Miami Gardens and RCI willfully violated federal FACTA because they were aware of federal FACTA's requirements.3 Miami Gardens and RCI again moved to dismiss the claim asserting lack of standing, which Saleh opposed. In August 2021, the trial court held a hearing on the motion to dismiss and ultimately granted the motion aligning itself with the federal court's interpretation [*3]  in Muransky finding Saleh lacked standing because he asserted no legal injury. The trial court thus entered an order granting the motion to dismiss and entered judgment in favor of Miami Gardens and RCI. This appeal followed.

LEGAL ANALYSIS

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

2023 Fla. App. LEXIS 175 *; 353 So. 3d 1253; 48 Fla. L. Weekly D 136; 2023 WL 152151

Yazan Saleh, Appellant/Cross-Appellee, vs. Miami Gardens Square One, Inc., etc., et al., Appellees/Cross-Appellants.

Prior History:  [*1] An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Peter R. Lopez, Judge. Lower Tribunal No. 18-537.

CORE TERMS

actual harm, concrete, card, injury in fact, consumers, receipts, motion to dismiss, statutory scheme, federal statute, lack standing, trial court, lawsuit, bare, procedural violation, protect consumers, willful violation, grant a motion, violations, divorced, digits, server

Banking Law, Consumer Protection, Fair Credit Reporting, Identity Theft, Liability for Violations, Civil Procedure, Justiciability, Standing, Burdens of Proof, Constitutional Law, Case or Controversy, Elements, Injury in Fact