Classified Class Action Blog

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact
  • Subscribe

No Refund For You! Voluntary Payment Defense Precludes Class Certification in Florida Red Light Camera Case

June 21, 2018 by Brooke Patterson and Clifton R. Gruhn

Florida’s Fifth District Court of Appeal (“Fifth DCA”) upheld a denial of certification in a putative class action seeking refunds of fines paid under a red light camera ordinance, ruling that the application of the voluntary payment defense precluded findings of commonality, typicality, predominance, and superiority. At issue was the City of Orlando’s (“City”) issuance of fines pursuant to an ordinance that allowed for the use of cameras to record vehicles failing to stop at red lights. The City issued almost 50,000 citations under the ordinance, with an overwhelming majority of those cited simply paying the fine and, only 378 individuals appealing.

In April 2010, the City sent the named plaintiff, Easter, a notice of infraction under the ordinance, which he appealed. The City upheld the infraction, and Easter ultimately paid the fine. Easter proceeded to file a class action against the City in which he sought, on behalf of himself and others, refunds of fines paid. While Easter’s case was pending, the Florida Supreme Court found that ordinances, such as the City’s, were preempted by state law. Thereafter, Easter moved for class certification.

In denying certification, the trial court applied the voluntary payment defense to Easter’s claims. In Florida, the voluntary payment defense bars recovery of funds “where payment was made under a claim of right and with full knowledge of the facts,” but the defense may be overcome on a showing of compulsion or coercion to pay. Therefore, if the fines assessed by the City were paid voluntarily, absent a showing of compulsion or coercion, Easter, and others like him, would not receive a refund. Based on the applicability of the voluntary payment defense, the trial court found that Easter could not establish commonality, typicality, predominance, or superiority, and denied certification. Easter appealed.

At the outset, the Fifth DCA noted that the “primary issue [was] whether the City was required to refund monies paid, notwithstanding the fact that fines had been improperly imposed in the first place,” given the Florida Supreme Court’s preemption ruling. The Fifth DCA then explained that the trial court properly determined there was a lack of commonality and typicality because Easter’s payment under protest after raising a legal challenge was different from virtually all others who simply paid the fine. The Fifth DCA also found that determining whether class members were compelled or coerced to pay fines would require highly individualized assessments, thereby defeating predominance. Finally, the Fifth DCA acknowledged that certifying a class, only to notify class members they were not entitled to relief because they voluntarily paid the fine, would be time-consuming, expensive, and fruitless, and would not meet the superiority requirement.

Easter v. City of Orlando, No. 5D17-276 (Fla. 5th DCA June 8, 2018)

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

« Previous Article

Must a Plaintiff Representing Unnamed Parties Under California’s Private Attorney General Act Comply with Rule 23’s Requirements?

Next Article »

Are Administrative Fees and Costs a Benefit to the Class as a Whole? A Circuit Split Continues
Brooke Patterson

About Brooke Patterson

Brooke Patterson is an associate at Carlton Fields in Miami, Florida. Connect with Brooke on LinkedIn.

Clifton R. Gruhn

About Clifton R. Gruhn

Clifton Gruhn is a Shareholder at Carlton Fields in Miami, Florida.

Related Articles

  1. Court Allows Class Member Self-Identification Where Employer Failed to Retain Records
  2. TCPA Class Certified Based Largely on “Concrete Injury” Determination
  3. Objectively Non-Flushable? The Northern District of California Certifies Consumer Class Regarding Charmin Freshmates

Get Weekly Updates!

2018 Class Action Survey – Now Available!

Start Reading
Carlton Fields Logo A blog focused on the latest class action developments and trends by the attorneys of Carlton Fields.

Search

Topics

Industries/Practices
  • Construction
  • Consumer Finance & Banking
  • Food & Beverage
  • Health Care
  • Insurance
  • Labor, Employment & ERISA
  • Manufacturing & Products
  • Pharmaceutical
  • Privacy & Technology
  • Securities
  • Telecommunications

Substantive/Procedural
  • Arbitration
  • CAFA
  • Certification
    • Adequacy
    • Ascertainability
    • Commonality
    • Numerosity
    • Predominance
    • Superiority
    • Typicality
  • Decertification
  • Settlements
  • Standing
  • Striking of Class Allegations

Courts/Jurisdiction
  • Federal District Courts
  • Federal Circuit Courts of Appeal
  • United States Supreme Court
  • State Courts

Monthly Archives

Recent Articles

  • Illinois Supreme Court Finds No Actual Harm Needed to Sue Under State’s Biometric Privacy Statute
  • No Standing, No Settlement?
  • Ninth Circuit Says Local Rule 90-Day Deadline to File Class Certification Motion Incompatible With Federal Rule 23

Get Weekly Updates!

Carlton Fields

  • carltonfields.com
  • Practices
  • Industries
  • Class Action Survey

Related Industries/Practices

  • National Class Actions
  • National Trial Practice
  • Appellate & Trial Support
  • Our Class Action Experience

Classified: The Class Action Blog

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact

Classified Logo
© 2014–2019 Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, P.A. · Carlton Fields practices law in California as Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Privacy Policy · Disclaimer

Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please contact us. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites. This site may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions.