Kenneth Miller v. Darren Cogoni , 302 F. App'x 898 ( 2008 )

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-15470 DEC 12, 2008
________________________ THOMAS K. KAHN
CLERK
D. C. Docket No. 07-80249-CV-DMM
KENNETH MILLER,
as Personal Representative of the Estate of
JERROD T. MILLER, on behalf of said ESTATE
and the survivors of JERROD T. MILLER,
a.k.a. JERRODE T. MILLER, to wit
KENNETH MILLER, a surviving legal father,
and TERRY GLOVER, surviving biological father,
Plaintiff,
TERRY GLOVER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
DARREN COGONI, individually,
CITY OF DELRAY BEACH,
a Florida Municipality, et al.,
Defendants, Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
_________________________
(December 12, 2008)
Before DUBINA, BLACK and FAY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Appellant Terry Glover appeals the district court’s order dismissing his case
for lack of standing. The issue in this case is whether a decedent’s biological
father is entitled to recover wrongful death benefits under Florida’s Wrongful
Death Act when another man was previously determined to be the decedent’s legal
father and was appointed as his personal representative. After carefully
considering the briefs, reviewing the record on appeal, and having the benefit of
oral argument, we answer this question in the negative and affirm the dismissal.
I. BACKGROUND
In February 2007, Kenneth Miller, as legal father and personal
representative of the estate of Jerrod Miller, filed a wrongful death action in
Florida state court against the City of Delray Beach (City), numerous City
representatives in their official capacities, and Darren Cogoni, individually, under
42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Florida Wrongful Death Act, § 768.16–.26. The
complaint alleged that in February 2005, Delray Beach police officers negligently
shot sixteen-year-old Jerrod to death following a foot chase. The complaint
sought damages for negligence and wrongful death arising from the incident. The
City removed the action from state court to the United States District Court for the
2
Southern District of Florida on the basis of federal question jurisdiction, pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Miller and the defendants negotiated a settlement
agreement for $1,000,000, and sought approval of the settlement in the district
court.
In October 2007, Glover, Jerrod’s biological father, filed an objection to the
settlement agreement, arguing he was a rightful beneficiary under the Florida
Wrongful Death Act. On November 9, 2007, the district court found the Wrongful
Death Act did not apply to Miller’s case, and, therefore, it did not need to approve
the settlement. Moreover, the district court noted Glover was not a “survivor”
under the Act who had standing to object to the settlement. It reasoned a Florida
state court, in its personal representative determination, already had found Miller
to be Jerrod’s legal father. See Glover v. Miller, 947 So. 2d 1254 (Fla. 4th DCA
2007). On November 19, 2007, the district court entered an order affirming the
parties’ stipulation of dismissal and closing the case.
II. DISCUSSION
On appeal, Glover argues the district court erred in determining he had no
right to the proceeds of the wrongful death claim and dismissing Glover’s claims
sua sponte. We have jurisdiction over this appeal. We review the dismissal of
3
this action de novo. See Piazza v. Ebsco Indus., Inc., 273 F.3d 1341, 1345 (11th
Cir. 2001).
Florida’s Wrongful Death Act provides that actions are brought by the
decedent’s personal representative “for the benefit of the decedent’s survivors[.]”
FLA. STAT. § 768.20 (2007). The term “survivors” includes the decedent’s
parents. FLA. STAT. § 768.18. Glover argues, as Jerrod’s biological father, he is
Jerrod’s “parent” and is thus entitled to object to the settlement. We disagree.
Under Florida law, collateral estoppel precludes relitigation of an issue
when “(1) an identical issue, (2) has been fully litigated, (3) by the same parties or
their privies, and (4) a final decision has been rendered by a court of competent
jurisdiction.” Wingard v. Emerald Venture Fla. LLC, 438 F.3d 1288, 1293 (11th
Cir. 2006) (quotations and citations omitted). The litigation issue also must have
been critical and necessary to the prior determination. Id.In this case, collateral estoppel precluded the district court from relitigating
the issue of Jerrod’s paternity. After Jerrod’s death, both Miller and Glover
previously contended he was Jerrod’s father for purposes of determining who
would be appointed Jerrod’s personal representative. See Glover, 947 So. 2d at
1255. Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal held Miller was entitled to
4
preference as the personal representative because, inter alia, a 1995 paternity
action had determined that Miller was Jerrod’s legal father. Id. at 1258.
Even assuming, arguendo, collateral estoppel does not apply, logic results
in the conclusion Glover was not Jerrod’s legal father. Miller was adjudicated to
be his father in the 1995 paternity action, and, as the Florida court pointed out,
Florida law does not allow a child to “have two legally recognized fathers.” Id.(citing Achumba v. Neustein, 793 So. 2d 1013, 1015 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)).
For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the district court properly found
Glover was not entitled to object to the settlement and dismissed Glover’s claims.
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, we affirm the district court’s judgment of
dismissal of Glover’s claims and this action.
AFFIRMED.
5