DeMartini v. Town of Gulf Stream - 942 F.3d 1277 (11th Cir. 2019)

Rule:

The presence of probable cause will generally defeat a plaintiff's 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983 First Amendment retaliation claim predicated on an underlying civil lawsuit, or counterclaim for that matter.

Facts:

At the direction of Martin O’Boyle, Citizens Awareness Foundation, Inc. (“CAFI”) was created as a non-profit corporation, whose stated purpose included testing and enforcing municipalities’ compliance with Florida public records law. Plaintiff Denise DeMartini worked as CAFI’s treasurer, and later, its Director. The Town and its contractor filed a civil complaint against O’Boyle, CAFI, DeMartini, and others (collectively, the “RICO defendants”), alleging violations of RICO, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1962(c), 1964(c). According to the Town and the contractor, the RICO defendants filed large numbers of frivolous public records requests, which were often intentionally inconspicuous, then filed lawsuits when the requests were not addressed on time or otherwise, and then extorted their victims by demanding settlements, including payment of their allegedly incurred attorney's fees and costs, or face protracted litigation and additional frivolous public records requests and lawsuits. The complaint alleged that the RICO defendants' pattern of frivolous public records requests and frivolous lawsuits was extortionate under the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1951. The complaint also alleged that DeMartini was the self-appointed "key employee" for all of O'Boyle's companies, and that she directed the flow of litigation and called the shots. Upon motion to dismiss by the RICO defendants, the federal district court dismissed the Town and the contractor’s class action RICO complaint for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The district court concluded that the RICO defendants' filing of lawsuits, or even threatening to sue, did not constitute a predicate act under RICO. After the decision of the district court was affirmed, DeMartini filed the present § 1983 Retaliation Case against the Town and the contractor. DeMartini’s complaint contained: (1) a First Amendment retaliation claim under § 1983 against the Town; and (2) a malicious prosecution claim under Florida law against the contractor. The district court denied the motion to dismiss filed by the Town and the contractor. Later, the Town and the Contractor moved for summary judgment on all claims and DeMartini filed a cross-motion for partial summary judgment against the contractor. The district court granted the Town and the contractor’s' motions for summary judgment and denied DeMartini's cross-motion against the contractor. The district court concluded that the Town and the contractor had probable cause to initiate a civil RICO lawsuit which precluded plaintiff's § 1983 First Amendment retaliation claim and her Florida malicious prosecution claim. DeMartini timely appealed.

Issue:

Would the existence of probable cause in initiating a civil RICO lawsuit bar a § 1983 First Amendment retaliation claim and a Florida malicious prosecution claim, thereby warranting the grant of summary judgment in favor of the Town and the contractor?

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

The Court noted that probable cause to institute civil proceedings required no more than a reasonable belief that there was a chance that a claim may be held valid upon adjudication. Therefore, it was not necessary to show that the instigator of a lawsuit was certain of the outcome of the proceeding, but rather that he had a reasonable belief, based on the facts and circumstances known to him, in the validity of the claim. According to the court, in order to establish a RICO violation under §§ 1962(c) and 1964(c), the Town had to prove that DeMartini engaged in an enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity that included at least two racketeering acts" that caused injury to the Town's "business or property." In this case, the court held that the Town had probable cause to initiate a civil RICO action against DeMartini, since it obtained substantial information that supported their reasonable belief that the RICO defendants committed fraud through their participation in an extortionate scheme involving fraudulent public records requests, false settlement demands, and subsequent multiple lawsuits designed to obtain attorney's fees as opposed to the requested records. Since the Town gad probable cause to file its civil RICO lawsuit, plaintiff’s § 1983 First Amendment retaliation claim was defeated as a matter of law. According to the court, applying the objective, lack-of-probable-cause requirement to a § 1983 First Amendment retaliation case predicated on the filing of a civil lawsuit was appropriate because it struck the proper balance between protecting a plaintiff's important First Amendment rights while, at the same time, ensuring that the Town has a similar ability to access the courts to protect itself and its citizens from non-meritorious litigation. Anent the second issue, the court held that the “lack of probable cause” was a necessary element of a Florida malicious prosecution claim. Here, the district court properly granted summary judgment to the contractor on DeMartini’s malicious prosecution claim because the contractor, like the Town, had probable cause to file the RICO suit against DeMartini. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court’s grant of judgment to the Town and the contractor.