#efta00175548
LightNews LightNews
epsteinweb.bsky.social
Parts 1-2/2 — EFTA00175548.jpg
#epsteinweb #efta00175548
https://epsteinweb.org
Available in the iOS app store now!
https://apps.apple.com/us/app/epstein-web/id6758880661
EFTA00175521 | EFTA00175548 Case 9:08-cv-80w4-KAM Document ≥ Entered L. .:LSD Docket 09/05/2L J Page 6 of 14 CASE NO.: 08-80804-CIV-MARRABOHNSON actionable underlying tort or wrong."' Posner'. Essex Ins. Co., 178 F.3d 1209, 1217-18 (11th Cir. 1999) (quoting Florida Fern Growers Assn'. Concerned Citizens, 616 So. 2d 562, 565 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)). In an effort to dodge this requirement, the plaintiff cites Doe'. Celebrity Cruises, Inc., 394 F.3d 891, 917 (11th Cir. 2004), an admiralty case that has nothing to do with Chapter 800, let alone the basic premise (left unaddressed by the plaintiff) that "not every statutory violation carries a civil remedy," Am. Home Assurance Co.' Plaza Materials Corp., 908 So. 2d 360, 374 (Fla. 2005) (citing Villazonl. Prudential Health Care Plan, Inc., 843 So. 2d 842, 852 (Fla. 2003)). In Celebrity Cruises, the Eleventh Circuit distinguished "sexual battery" from "sexual assault" under Florida law. Celebrity Cruises, 394 F.3d at 916-17. The court also cited with approval the dissenting opinion in Doe'. Evans, 814 So. 2d 370, 380 (Fla. 2002) (Wells, C.J., dissenting), where Florida Chief Justice Wells admonished against "the use of broad, indefinite, and legally nonspecific language" to establish causes of action under a rubric as expansive as "sexual misconduct."' Evans, 814 So. 2d at 379-81 (Wells, C.J., dissenting). See also id. at 379 (Wells, C.J., dissenting) (noting that 'sexual misconduct' is a phrase of inherent vagueness and has no meaning in Florida tort law," adding that "[t]orts have defined elements") (emphasis added). Accordingly, this case serves only to highlight that Florida has never relaxed its pleading requirements simply because a plaintiff describes an event as a "sexual assault." To plead a legal cause of action, the plaintiff still must allege a real, recognized tort. In trying to obfuscate the basis for her civil-conspiracy claim, the plaintiff has only confirmed that she is relying on Chapter 800, a statute that does not afford a private right of action. Because the statute she expressly pleads provides no civil remedy, the plaintiff cannot prevail on her derivative claim for civil conspiracy. 6 EFTA00175548
April 23, 2026 at 2:14 PM