Gaffney v. Rives

1

TERESA M. GAFFNEY, Plaintiff, v. MARIE T RIVES, JOSHUA E. DOYLE, LINDSEY M GUINAND, PATRICIA ANN SAVITZ and PETER R. RAMSBERGER, ATTORNEY GENERAL ASHLEY MOODY Defendants.

No. 8:22-cv-1613-CEH-SPF

United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Tampa Division

September 15, 2023

ORDER

CHARLENE EDWARDS HONEYWELL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

This cause comes before the Court upon Defendant Marie T Rives' Motion to Dismiss and Incorporated Memorandum of Law (Doc. 20) and Defendants Joshua E. Doyle and Lindsey M Guinand's Motion to Dismiss and Incorporated Memorandum of Law (Doc. 21). Plaintiff Teresa M. Gaffney responds in opposition to both motions. Docs. 42, 46. Doyle and Guinand filed a reply (Doc. 51), as did Rives (Doc. 47). Doyle and Guinand also filed a notice of supplemental authority. Doc 40. For the reasons set forth below, the Court will grant the motions to dismiss.

I. BACKGROUND^[1]

In 2009, John J. Gaffney conveyed property located on South Clark Avenue in Tampa, Florida (the “Clark Property”) to himself as a life estate, with a remainder to Plaintiff Teresa M. Gaffney, his daughter. Doc. 1 ¶ 13.^[2] Phillip A. Baumann and Phillip A. Baumann, P.A., subsequently filed a guardianship action and an action to determine the incapacity of John Gaffney on behalf of Maryalice Tyler, another of John Gaffney's daughters. Id. ¶ 17. Upon his death in 2011, John Gaffney's life-estate interest in the Clark Property was extinguished, and Teresa Gaffney's remainder interest ripened into a fee-simple ownership of the property. Id. ¶ 21. In 2012, a case regarding the Estate of John J. Gaffney was opened in state court. Id. ¶ 22. In February 2013, Plaintiff filed a claim against the Estate for services provided. Id. ¶ 23. Baumann, P.A., also filed a claim for attorney's fees earned in the guardianship action. Id. ¶ 24.

In October 2013, a default judgment was entered against the Estate for attorney's fees owed to Baumann, P.A.. Id. ¶ 28. Baumann, P.A., Baumann, and Michael R. Kangas sought to obtain ownership of the Clark Property or to force its sale to pay the outstanding bill for legal services. Id. ¶ 29. Plaintiff alleges the Clark Property never belonged to the Estate because John Gaffney conveyed it to himself as a life estate, with the remainder to Plaintiff. Id. ¶ 30.

In April 2014, Baumann, as administrator ad litem of the Estate, filed an action against Gaffney and Sarah K. Sussman, individually and as trustee of the Sussman Family Living Trust, seeking to reverse the 2009 transfer of the Clark Property on the grounds that it constituted a fraudulent transfer (the “Clark Property Action”). Id. ¶¶ 33-34. In December 2015, Judge Paul L. Huey became the presiding judge in the Clark Property Action. Id. ¶ 41. Shortly after, Gaffney called the Judge to ask about a potential judicial appointee who had listed him as a reference. Id. ¶ 42. Gaffney alleges that during the call, she was sexually harassed and threatened with retaliation if she did not comply. Id. ¶¶ 43-45. In support of these allegations, Gaffney attaches an unsworn affidavit describing the alleged conversation (Doc. 1-6).^[3]

In 2016, Gaffney moved to disqualify Judge Huey. Doc. 1 ¶ 47. Judge Huey denied that motion. Id. Later, however, he recused himself and the Clark Property Action was transferred to another judge. Id. ¶ 49. Gaffney alleges that the various judges involved in her case then reached an agreement to act together to “deny Plaintiff her 14th Amendment Constitutional right to due process,” which resulted in a default judgment and sanctions against her. Id. ¶¶ 50-53. She also alleges that she was sanctioned in retaliation for reporting the sexual harassment. Id. ¶ 54. Gaffney states that she continued to object to “unlawful and unconstitutional punishment for reporting the sexual harassment.” Id. She alleges that her motions to disqualify and motions to dismiss were then unlawfully denied. Id. ¶¶ 55-56.

Finally, a writ of possession was issued for the Clark Property in favor of Kangas, Baumann, and Baumann, P.A. Id. ¶ 57. This writ allowed them to take possession of the Clark Property and permitted Gaffney's removal from the property. Id. Sussman then filed for bankruptcy and the Clark Property became subject to the accompanying automatic stay. Id. ¶ 58.

Gaffney and Sussman appealed to Florida's Second District Court of Appeal. Id. ¶ 59. Gaffney alleges that various judges had ex parte conversations regarding the appeal. Id. ¶¶ 59-60. Judge Rex M. Barbas later granted a motion to disqualify himself, explaining that he could not be fair and impartial to Gaffney, Sussman, or their attorney. Id. ¶ 61.

Judge Caroline Tesche Arkin was then appointed to preside over the Clark Property Action to allegedly “effectuate the continuing transgressions” of Plaintiff's rights. Id. ¶ 63. According to Gaffney, Judge Tesche Arkin violated her rights by refusing to provide an opportunity to be heard or due process and upholding the seizure of the Clark Property. Id. ¶ 64. Judge Huey allegedly admitted to the sexual harassment and stated that the Clark Property Action should have been dismissed. Id. ¶ 65.

In January 2021, Gaffney filed a lawsuit in federal court against Phillip A. Baumann, Michael R. Kangas, Judge Paul L. Huey, Judge Rex M. Barbas, Judge Caroline Tesche Arkin, and Judge Ronald Ficarrotta. Id. ¶ 67. The undersigned presided over this case, and ultimately dismissed the federal claims in that suit with prejudice and remanded the remaining claims to state court. Gaffney v. Ficarrotta, No. 8:21-cv-21-CEH-CPT, 2022 WL 17668825, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 14, 2022).

Following a lengthy recitation of these background facts, Gaffney introduces the Defendants in this matter for the first time. In January 2021, Defendant Marie T. Rives, as an Assistant Attorney General for the State of Florida, entered an appearance on behalf of the Judges in Plaintiff's suit against them. Id. ¶ 68. According to Plaintiff, Rives spoke to staff attorneys from the Florida Bar and “developed a conspiracy to violate Plaintiff's Constitutions [sic] rights.” Id. ¶ 69. Specifically, Gaffney states the Defendants decided a Bar Complaint should be filed against her in retaliation for her lawsuit and reports about various acts committed by the Judges who presided over the Clark Property Matter. Id. Gaffney states that Rives was removed as the Judges' attorney in the parallel case due to unspecified “misconduct” committed by her and Miguel A. Olivella, Jr. Id. ¶ 70. Further, she claims Olivella filed a retaliatory motion for sanctions against her seeking attorney's fees. Id. ¶ 71. She claims that Rives was removed as an attorney in the parallel case and Olivella withdrew his Motion for Sanctions when the Florida Attorney General's Office learned of these actions. Id. ¶ 72.

Gaffney claims that on June 22, 2021, Defendant Lindsey Guinand, Chief Branch Discipline Counsel for Lawyer Regulation of the Florida Bar, along with Defendant Patricia Ann Toro Savitz, as Staff Counsel of the Florida Bar, filed a Bar Complaint against her. Doc. 1-9. Plaintiff alleges that the bar complaint constitutes unlawful retaliation against her and is “misconduct for which no immunity is available.” Doc. 1 ¶ 74. Further, she claims that Guinand and Savitz prosecuted the complaint in bad faith and “participated” with Rives to retaliate against her. Id. Gaffney separately alleges that Guinand and Savitz discovered misconduct committed by Kangas and Baumann and nevertheless failed to file Bar Complaints against them. Id. ¶ 75.

Defendant Judge Peter R. Ramsberger is the referee of the Florida Bar Complaint and allegedly participated in the conspiracy by barring a number of Plaintiff's witnesses, denying her notices of deposition, and granting the Florida Bar's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment prior to the close of discovery. Id. ¶ 76. Gaffney claims many of Judge Ramsberger's Orders violated due process, and that he erroneously denied many of her motions. Id. ¶ 77.

II. PROCEDURAL DEVELOPMENT

Gaffney filed this suit in July 2022. Doc. 1. She brings two claims against the various defendants: (1) civil rights conspiracy in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and (2) civil rights conspiracy in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (equal protection). Doc. 1 ¶¶ 79-96.

Gaffney sues Marie T. Rives, Assistant Attorney General for the State of Florida, Lindsey M. Guinand, Chief Branch Discipline Counsel - Lawyer Regulation of the Florida Bar, and Peter R. Ramsberger, Referee of the Florida Bar each in their individual capacity. Id. ¶¶ 7, 9-10. She names Ashley Moody, Attorney General for the State of Florida, and Joshua E. Doyle, Executive Director of the Florida Bar, each in their official capacity. Id. ¶¶ 6, 12.

Gaffney also sues Patricia Ann Toro Savitz, Staff Counsel of the Florida Bar, in her individual capacity. However, according to the Bar Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, Savitz was never served, and Gaffney's response does not state otherwise. Doc. 21 at 1; see Doc. 46. According to an unopposed motion to withdraw as attorney by Defendants' Attorney Karen Ann Brodeen, AG Moody has not been served either. Doc. 65. As reflected on the docket, it does not appear that Ramsberger has been served either. Finally, Miguel A. Olivella, Jr., assistant counsel with the Office of the Florida AG, was sued individually, but the Court dismissed the claims against him with prejudice pursuant to Plaintiff's notice of voluntary dismissal. Docs. 57, 58. Discovery has been stayed in this matter pending a ruling on the instant Motions to Dismiss. Doc. 53.

III. ANALYSIS

The basis for the Court's subject-matter jurisdiction is federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Doc. 1 ¶ 4. Gaffney brings two claims under 42 U.S.C. §...