SOUTH BROWARD HOSPITAL DISTRICT D/B/A MEMORIAL HEALTHCARE SYSTEM
v.
JOSEPH KAPLAN AND DONALD SOLOMON

Fla. 4th DCA | 2024-09-11
No. 4D2023-2411
WILLIAMS; MOORE; THOMPSON
364 So. 3d 1087 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (2024) Positive Treatment
Cited by 5 cases

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.

Synopsis

Joseph Kaplan and Donald Solomon brought a putative class action against South Broward Hospital District alleging it knowingly disclosed private information to Facebook in violation of Florida's wiretapping statute. The Hospital District claimed sovereign immunity, and the circuit court denied its motion to dismiss, finding that the statute's reference to 'any person or entity' constituted a waiver of sovereign immunity. The appellate court reversed, holding that the amendment was ambiguous and therefore did not constitute a clear and unequivocal waiver.


Holding

The court reversed the circuit court's order, holding that the amendment of section 934.10 to include 'any person or entity' was not a clear and unequivocal waiver of sovereign immunity. The addition of the word 'entity' at best renders it ambiguous whether the legislature intended to waive sovereign immunity, and an ambiguous legislative act cannot satisfy the clear and unequivocal standard required to waive sovereign immunity.


Headnotes

[1] An ambiguous legislative amendment to a statute does not constitute a clear and unequivocal waiver of sovereign immunity; sovereign immunity remains the default rule for…

Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Kaplan and Solomon brought a class action suit against the Hospital District alleging it knowingly disclosed individuals' private and protected inform…

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.


Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM. South Broward Hospital District d/b/a Memorial Healthcare System (the “Hospital District”) appeals the circuit court’s order denying its motion to dismiss. Joseph Kaplan and Donald Solomon brought a putative class action against the Hospital District, alleging it knowingly disclosed individuals’ private and protected information to Facebook. The Hospital District moved to dismiss, arguing it was entitled to sovereign immunity. The circuit court concluded that Florida’s wiretapping statute permits suit against any person or entity and, because the district is an entity, it permits suit against the district. See § 934.10, Fla. Stat. (2022).

Sovereign immunity is the rule, not the exception. City of Miami v. Robinson, 364 So. 3d 1087, 1089 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023) (citing Pan-Am Tobacco Corp. v. Dep’t of Corr., 471 So. 2d 4, 5 (Fla. 1984)). It bars claims against a government entity except for claims brought under the federal or state constitutions, claims based on a “clear and unequivocal” legislative waiver of sovereign immunity, or contractual claims based on an express, written agreement with a governmental entity. See Robinson, 364 So. 3d at 1091 (citing Univ. of Fla. Bd. of Trs. v. Rojas, 351 So. 3d 1167, 1170 (Fla. 1st DCA 2022)).

Kaplan and Solomon argue that waiver of sovereign immunity can be implied because the legislature amended section 934.10 to include claims against any person or entity.1 We conclude that the legislature’s amendment of section 934.10—applying it to a “person or entity” instead of just a “person”—was not a clear and unequivocal waiver of sovereign immunity. See, e.g., Order Granting Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, Yeisley v. Univ. of Iowa Hosps. & Clinics, No. 3:23-cv-00025 (S.D. Iowa Feb. 16, 2024), ECF No. 42. We agree with the Yeisley court: the addition of the word “entity,” at best, renders it ambiguous as to whether the legislature intended to waive sovereign immunity. And an ambiguous act by the legislature is not clear and unequivocal. As a result, we reverse the circuit court’s order. Reversed. KLINGENSMITH, C.J., DAMOORGIAN and KUNTZ, JJ., concur. * * * Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

Footnotes
1 Section 934.02(5), Florida Statutes (2022), states that “‘[p]erson’ means any employee or agent of the State of Florida or political subdivision thereof, of the United States, or of any other state or political subdivision thereof, and any individual, partnership, association, joint stock company, trust, or corporation.” The parties do not address this definition, or its application to the issue in this case, in their briefs.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • S. Broward Hosp. Dist. v. Kaplan, 364 So. 3d 1087 (Fla. 4th DCA 2024)
    …g statute permits suit against any person or entity and, because the district is an entity, it permits suit against the district. See § 934.10, Fla. Stat. (2022). Sovereign immunity is the rule, not the exception. City of Miami v. Robinson, 364 So. 3d 1087, 1089 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023) (citing Pan-Am Tobacco Corp. v. Dep’t of Corr., 471 So. 2d 4, 5 (Fla. 1984)). It bars claims against a government entity except for claims brought under the federal or state constitutions, claims based on a “clear and un…
  • Miami-Dade Cnty. v. Garavan (Fla. 3d DCA 2026)
  • The Fla. Int'l Univ. Bd. of Trs. v. Signal Safe, Inc., 382 So. 3d 766 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024)
    …enactment or constitutional amendment. See Art. X, § 13, Fla. Const. Because sovereign immunity is the rule, not the exception, a state agency is insulated from liability absent an explicit and unambiguous waiver. See City of Miami v. Robinson, 364 So. 3d 1087, 1091 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023). The Florida Legislature has waived sovereign immunity for tort claims, “subject to the limitations specified in [section 768.28, Florida Statutes (2022)].” § 768.28(1), Fla. Stat. That statute provides, in pertinent part:…

Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw