AUBREY DAVIS
v.
REGINALD TOOKES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Allegations that a supervisor made false statements to police at a private social event fall outside the scope of employment and are not protected by absolute immunity, even though reporting to the employer is protected.
[1] A notice of appeal that improperly specifies a non-appealable order denying post-trial motions will be treated as correctly directed to the reviewable final judgment if f…
[2] Technical defects in the form or content of a notice of appeal do not affect the jurisdiction of the appellate court.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDavis, a former Miami-Dade Transit employee, and Tookes, his supervisor, encountered each other at a private event in Orlando. Tookes falsely told Orl…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Dismissal Of Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed November1, 2023. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D22-0537 Lower Tribunal No. 21-2836
________________
Aubrey Davis,
Appellant,
vs.
Reginald Tookes,
Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, David C. Miller, Judge. Michael A. Pizzi, Jr., P.A., and Michael A. Pizzi Jr., for appellant. Geraldine Bonzon-Keenan, Miami-Dade County Attorney, and Eric A. Rodriguez, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee. Before FERNANDEZ, LINDSEY, and MILLER, JJ. LINDSEY, J.
Appellant Aubrey Davis (Plaintiff below) appeals from a final order
dismissing his defamation action against Appellee Reginald Tookes
(Defendant below) based on the doctrine of absolute immunity.1 Because
the Complaint contains allegations that fall outside the scope of employment,
we reverse the dismissal and remand for further proceedings.
Davis is a former Miami-Dade Transit employee, and Tookes was his
supervisor. According to the allegations in the Complaint,2 in November
2019, the parties coincidentally attended the same event at the House of
Blues in Orlando, Florida. The Complaint further alleges that Davis avoided
Tookes at the event. Despite this, Tookes called the police and “falsely
claimed that Mr. Davis pushed him three times.” According to the police
report attached to the Complaint, Tookes did “not wish to prosecute or testify
in court[; he] just wanted to report the incident and receive a case number
that he can provide to his employer.” Tookes reported the incident to Miami-
Dade Transit management, and Davis was fired.
Davis filed suit for defamation, and Tookes moved to dismiss based on
absolute immunity. In his motion, Tookes argued that as a supervisor, his
reporting the incident to Miami-Dade Transit fell within the scope of his
employment and was therefore protected by absolute immunity. The trial
court entered an unelaborated order granting Tookes’s motion and
dismissing Davis’s action with prejudice.3 Davis timely appealed.
On appeal, Davis points to allegations in the Complaint that fall outside
the scope of employment. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that Tookes
made a defamatory statement when reporting the incident to Orlando law
enforcement at an event the parties coincidentally attended at the House of
Blues. We agree these allegations fall outside the scope of employment.
Accordingly, we reverse the dismissal and remand for further proceedings.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
A-Team Response Restoration Corp. v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. (Fla. 3d DCA 2025)…enactment of the governing rules of appellate procedure—that non-jurisdictional and non- prejudicial defects in the notice or other steps in the appellate process are not grounds for dismissal.” Id. (citations omitted); see also Davis v. Tookes, 388 So. 3d 155, 157 n.1 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023). And our Court has continued to hold that identifying a rehearing order as the only order to be reviewed is not a jurisdictional defect warranting dismissal. Salgado, 254 So. 3d at 1056 n.6 (citing Tunstall v. Folsom, 6…
Authorities Cited
- Robustiano Puga & Medmold, Inc. v. Suave Shoe Corp., 417 So. 2d 678 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Un Monde Nouveau, Inc. v. Young Men's Christian Ass'n of S. Fla., Inc., 317 So. 3d 1229 (Fla. 3d DCA 2025)