Opinion
21-cv-24353-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes
02-20-2022
RAUL CARDENAS, and LAYDA MAZZARONA, Plaintiffs, v. MIAMI-DADE POLICE DEPARTMENT, CITY OF MIAMI POLICE DEPARTMENT, and FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATIONS, Defendants.
ORDER MOTIONS TO DISMISS
BETH BLOOM UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Defendant Miami-Dade Police Department's (“MDPD”) Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. [5] (“MDPD's Motion”) and Defendant City of Miami Police Department's (“CMPD”) Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. [10] (“CMPD's Motion”). On January 12, 2022, the Court entered an Order directing Plaintiffs Raul Cardenas and Layda Mazzarona (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) to respond to MDPD's Motion on or before February 10, 2022. See ECF No. [27]. On January 13, 2022, the Court entered an Order directing Plaintiffs to respond to CMPD's Motion on or before January 20, 2022. See ECF No. [28]. In both Orders, the Court warned that if Plaintiffs failed to file a response, the Court would consider the merits of the Motions without the benefit of a response or responses, and that such failure could be deemed sufficient cause to grant the Motions by default. See ECF Nos. [27], [28]. To date, Plaintiffs have failed to respond to either Motion. Therefore, the Court considers the merits of each Motion without the benefit of Plaintiffs' response.
In MDPD's Motion, MDPD moves to dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint with prejudice under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12 and 17. See generally ECF No. [5]. According to MDPD, MDPD is a department of Miami-Dade County and is not an entity subject to suit. See ECF No. [5] at 2 (citing Williams v. Miami-Dade Police Dept., 297 Fed.Appx. 941, 949 (11th Cir. 2008); Cardelle v. Miami-Dade Police Dept., No. 14-22753-CIV, 2014 WL 4907702, at *3 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 30, 2014); Green v. Miami-Dade County, No. 05-20280-CIV, 2006 WL 8433384, at *3 (S.D. Fla. May 25, 2006), report adopted by, 2006 WL 8433425, at *1 (S.D. Fla. July 13, 2006); Masson v. Miami-Dade County, 738 So.2d 431, 432 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); Florida City Police Dept. v. Corcoran, 661 So.2d 409, 410 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995).
In CMPD's Motion, CMPD argues that CMPD is a municipality existing under the laws of the State of Florida which fulfills some of its governmental functions and provides law enforcement services through its police department known as the City of Miami Police Department. Art. VIII, § 2(b), Fla. Const. (1968); Section 1, City of Miami Charter (2015); Section 3, City of Miami Charter (2015); Section 42-1, City of Miami Code (2015); Section 42-3, City of Miami Code (2015). As such, the City of Miami Police Department is not sui juris and therefore not subject to suit. See generally ECF No. [10].
The Court is persuaded by MDPD and CMPD's arguments. Rule 17(b)(3) states that the capacity to sue or be sued is determined by the law of the state where the court is located. Under Florida law, “[w]here a police department is an integral part of the [] government as the vehicle through which the [] government fulfills its policing functions, it is not an entity subject to suit.” Corcoran, 661 So.2d at 410. In this case, Plaintiffs' claims are against two police departments, which are vehicles through which Miami-Dade County and the City of Miami fulfill their essential policing functions. As a result, MDPD and CMPD are not entities subject to suit.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. Defendant Miami-Dade Police Department's Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. [5], is GRANTED
2. Defendant City of Miami Police Department's Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. [10], is GRANTED
3 The above-styled case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE
4. To the extent not otherwise disposed of, all pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT and all deadlines are TERMINATED.
5. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case.
DONE AND ORDERED.