finding that the “specific details about the events differ substantially ... according to the parties’ testimony”, providing a “side-by-side comparison of their accounts” and reversing and remanding the district court’s grant of summary judgment on basis that it improperly gave greater weight to the officer’s testimony when ruling on motions
How later courts described this case
- finding that the “specific details about the events differ substantially ... according to the parties’ testimony”, providing a “side-by-side comparison of their accounts” and reversing and remanding the district court’s grant of summary judgment on basis that it improperly gave greater weight to the officer’s testimony when ruling on motions
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Case: 11-14322 Date Filed: 04/24/2013 Page: 1 of 9
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
_____________
No. 11-14322
_____________
D. C. Docket No. 1:04-cv-20701-WMH
MARYLA MADURA,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
CITY OF NORTH MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA,
a political subdivision of the State of Florida,
ANTONIO MARCIANTE,
TONY SANCHEZ,
Defendants-Appellees,
MICHAEL J. MUNDY,
JOHN DOES, et al.,
Defendants.
______________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
______________
(April 24, 2013)
Case: 11-14322 Date Filed: 04/24/2013 Page: 2 of 9
Before DUBINA, Chief Judge, BARKETT and FAY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Plaintiff-Appellant Dr. Maryla Madura (“Madura”) appeals: (1) the grant of
summary judgment as to Defendants-Appellees Antonio Marciente (“Marciente”)
and Tony Sanchez (“Sanchez”) on Madura’s § 1983 false arrest and excessive
force claims and to Defendant-Appellee City of North Miami Beach (“the City”)
on Madura’s state law false arrest / false imprisonment claim; (2) the directed
verdict for Sanchez on Madura’s intentional infliction of emotional distress claim;
(3) the grant of the City’s post-verdict motion for a judgment as a matter of law on
Madura’s assault and battery claims; and (4) the exclusion and allowance of certain
evidence and testimony at trial.
I.
On June 25, 2002, around 7:30 p.m. and before dark, several of the City’s
police officers including Sanchez and Marciante confronted and arrested a
purchaser of 100 MDMA ecstasy pills, Lazaro Martinez (“Martinez”), at a Taco
Bell in North Miami Beach. At the same time that Martinez was confronted,
Madura, a white female, stopped at the Taco Bell for dinner. In the parking lot,
Madura saw several unidentified, armed police officers dressed in black “taking
down” Martinez. Madura mistook the officers for terrorists or gang members, was
2
Case: 11-14322 Date Filed: 04/24/2013 Page: 3 of 9
alarmed, and left the parking lot. The police, at Sanchez’s direction, followed
Madura, believing her to be connected to Martinez. They stopped Madura’s car by
physically blocking her passage with an SUV, arrested her, searched her car, and
later released her after realizing that she had no connection to Martinez.
According to Madura, Sanchez also threatened her not to report their mistake.
Madura suffered physical and emotional injuries and received medical treatment as
well as ongoing psychological treatment.
The more specific details about the events differ substantially, however,
according to the parties’ testimony. Attached to this opinion as “Appendix I” is a
side-by-side comparison of their accounts.
II.
The issues presented on appeal are:
1. Whether the district court erroneously granted summary judgment to:
(a) Marciante and Sanchez on Madura’s § 1983 false arrest claims;
(b) the City on Madura’s state law false arrest / false imprisonment
claim;
(c) Sanchez on Madura’s § 1983 excessive force claim.
2. Whether the district court erroneously directed a verdict for Sanchez on
Madura’s intentional infliction of emotional distress claim.
3
Case: 11-14322 Date Filed: 04/24/2013 Page: 4 of 9
3. Whether the district court erroneously granted the City’s renewed motion
for judgment as a matter of law on the assault and battery claims.
4. Whether the district court abused its discretion by:
(a) excluding Madura’s medical records as evidence;
(b) allowing defense counsel to ask leading questions of Marciante on
cross-examination;
(c) allowing testimony from a defense witness not identified prior to
trial.
III.
We review de novo the grant of summary judgment, drawing all inferences
and construing the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.
Univ. of Ala. Bd. Of Trs. v. New Life Art, Inc., 683 F.3d 1266, 1271 (11th Cir.
2012). Summary judgment is appropriate “if the movant shows that there is no
genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a
matter of law.” FED. R. CIV. P. 56(a).
We review de novo the grant of a Rule 50(a) motion for judgment as matter
of law, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party
and affirming only if “reasonable people could not arrive at a contrary verdict.”
4
Case: 11-14322 Date Filed: 04/24/2013 Page: 5 of 9
Ramirez v. Sec’y, U.S. Dep’t. of Transp., 686 F.3d 1239, 1244 (11th Cir. 2012)
(internal quotation marks omitted).
We review de novo the grant of a Rule 50(b) renewed motion for judgment
as a matter of law, viewing the evidence and drawing all inferences in favor of the
non-moving party. Collado v. United Parcel Serv., Co., 419 F.3d 1143, 1149 (11th
Cir. 2005). “Judgment as a matter of law for the defendant is due when there is
insufficient evidence to prove an element of the claim, which means that no jury
reasonably could have reached a verdict for the plaintiff on that claim.” Id.
We review the district court’s evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discretion
and will reverse “only if the complaining party establishes that the evidentiary
ruling resulted in a substantial prejudicial effect, thus warranting reversal of the
jury’s verdict.” Anderson v. WBMG-42, 253 F.3d 561, 563 (11th Cir. 2001)
(internal quotation marks omitted); see also Salter v. Westra, 904 F.2d 1517, 1519
n.1 (11th Cir. 1990) (reviewing for abuse of discretion a district court’s overruling
an objection to leading questions); Fabrica Italiana Lavorazione Materie
Organiche, S.A.S. v. Kaiser Aluminum & Chem. Corp., 684 F.2d 776, 780 (11th
Cir. 1982) (reviewing for abuse of discretion a district court’s allowance of a
witness not identified prior to trial).
IV.
5
Case: 11-14322 Date Filed: 04/24/2013 Page: 6 of 9
After reviewing the extensive record in this case, reading the parties’ briefs
and having the benefit of oral argument, we conclude that the district court erred in
granting summary judgment based on qualified immunity on the § 1983 false arrest
claims against Marciante and Sanchez and the excessive force claim against
Sanchez and in granting summary judgment on the false arrest/false imprisonment
tort claim against the City. The district court also erred in granting judgment as a
matter of law on the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim against
Sanchez and the assault and battery tort claims against the City. At each of these
stages of the proceedings, the district court failed to view the facts in the light most
favorable to Madura and to draw all reasonable inferences in her favor. Instead,
the district court improperly gave greater weight to the officers’ testimony.
Because this case will be remanded and tried again, we need not determine
whether the district court abused its discretion in allowing or refusing certain
evidence or testimony.
We therefore vacate: (1) the district court’s grant of summary judgment on
Madura’s § 1983 false arrest claims against Marciante and Sanchez, state law false
arrest/false imprisonment claim against the City, and § 1983 excessive force claim
against Sanchez; (2) the directed verdict for Sanchez on Madura’s intentional
infliction of emotional distress claim; and (3) the grant of the City’s post-verdict
6
Case: 11-14322 Date Filed: 04/24/2013 Page: 7 of 9
motion for judgment as a matter of law on Madura’s assault and battery claims.
We also set aside the jury’s verdict in favor of Marciante on Madura’s § 1983
excessive force claim, as well as the jury’s verdict against the City on Madura’s
state law assault and battery claims. 1 We remand this case for further proceedings
consistent with this opinion.
VACATED and REMANDED.
1
We must vacate the verdicts in favor of Marciante and against the City because it is now
possible, on remand, that the jury will decide that the officers unlawfully pursued and arrested
Madura. If the jury determines that Madura was falsely arrested, then the jury will necessarily be
instructed differently concerning Officer Marciante’s use of force. See Bashir v. Rockdale Cnty.,
Ga., 445 F.3d 1323, 1331–32 (11th Cir. 2006) (“Under this Circuit’s law . . . a claim that any
force in an illegal stop or arrest is excessive is subsumed in the illegal stop or arrest claim and is
not a discrete excessive force claim” because “if an arresting officer does not have the right to
make an arrest, he does not have the right to use any degree of force in making that arrest.”
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted)).
7
Case: 11-14322 Date Filed: 04/24/2013 Page: 8 of 9
APPENDIX I
Madura’s version of the facts Appellees’ version of the facts
Martinez says that he told the police’s The confidential informant working
confidential informant that others would with police to catch Martinez
come to the Taco Bell, but Martinez communicated to the police that other
says he did not identify or describe the drug purchasers associated with
others he expected. Thus, the police had Martinez, including a white female,
no reason to suspect Madura’s might arrive at the Taco Bell to
association with Martinez. purchase ecstasy.
Upon seeing armed men taking Madura sped and drove her car
Martinez down, Madura promptly erratically from the Taco Bell parking
backed out of her parking spot at Taco lot. Sanchez, believing that other drug
Bell, drove to the exit, and waited purchasers were coming to meet
before safely entering traffic at a Martinez, noticed that Madura never got
reasonable speed. Within a couple of out of her car and that she drove away in
blocks, she stopped for a red light. haste. He instructed his subordinate
officers to stop her car.
At least two unmarked police SUVs Officers Marciante, Starnes and Davis
surrounded Madura’s car at the red pursued Madura, positioned a police
light; one SUV pulled in front of her, SUV in front of Madura’s car,
blocking her passage. At least three approached her door and repeatedly
unidentified men in black approached instructed her to get out of the car and
Madura with guns pointed at her head raise her hands. Starnes and Davis say
shouting, “get out of the car, bitch, get that they yelled repeatedly, “Police, let
the f--- out” and “f---ing whore.” One me see your hands!” The officers’ vests
man, Officer Starnes, opened his SUV identified them as “police.” No officers
door into her front bumper, damaging used profanity to frighten or insult
her car. No one identified themselves to Madura.
Madura as police, but she understood
their order to get out.
Madura hesitated at first, but put the car Because Madura kept her hands on the
in park without moving forward toward steering wheel, the officers believed she
the police SUV. She unfastened her did not intend to comply. Marciente
seatbelt and opened her door. Before opened Madura’s door as the car rolled
she could get out, Marciante grabbed forward and struck the police SUV.
Madura by her hair and neck and threw Marciente ordered her to put the car in
her face down on the pavement, causing park because he believed she could
8
Case: 11-14322 Date Filed: 04/24/2013 Page: 9 of 9
an abrasion on her forehead. injure Officer Starnes, who was in front
of her car. Marciante then used force to
remove Madura from the car. Other
officers agreed that Marciante grabbed
Madura’s left shoulder and physically
removed her with force from the car
before placing her face down to the
pavement.
Marciante straddled Madura from Marciante knelt on the ground beside
behind, grabbed her hair and neck, and Madura, handcuffing her without
repeatedly yelled “you f---ing bitch” bearing any weight on her back before
while placing his weight on her back. returning her to a standing position.
He then handcuffed Madura and
grabbed her hair again to pull her into a
standing position
Police drove Madura back to the Taco Back at the Taco Bell parking lot, the
Bell parking lot where Sanchez officers realized their mistake, explained
identified himself as the officer in themselves, and apologized to Madura.
charge. Madura was interrogated for From pursuit to apology, the events took
about 15 minutes while officers 15 to 20 minutes.
searched her car. After about half an
hour in handcuffs, Madura was released
without being charged.
Sanchez threatened Madura and caused Sanchez denies threatening Madura or
her to fear reporting their misconduct or her father about suing or complaining.
suing them. Sanchez told Madura that He only offered to have the City assist
the police had powerful connections, with car repairs or medical treatment.
e.g., to immigration enforcement Sanchez testified that Madura actually
agencies, and that they could make her insinuated that she would take it easy on
life difficult. He similarly threatened them if they would help her get a child
her father on the phone after the psychologist’s job with the City, or help
incident. her with her immigration status.
9