MARGATE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY v. NEW URBAN COMMUNITIES LLC (2021)

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

MARGATE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, a dependent district of the City of Margate, Florida, and The City of Margate, Florida, Appellants, v. NEW URBAN COMMUNITIES, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, Appellee.

No. 4D20-1763

Decided: April 28, 2021

Lyman H. Reynolds, Jr., of Roberts Reynolds Bedard & Tuzzio, PLLC, West Palm Beach, for appellant City of Margate. Michael T. Burke and Selena A. Gibson of Johnson, Anselmo, Murdoch, Burke, Piper & Hochman, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellant Margate Community Redevelopment Agency. Michael W. Moskowitz and Ari J. Glazer of Moskowitz, Mandell, Salim & Simowitz, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.

We reverse the trial court's non-final order denying the Appellants’ motions to dismiss. We agree with the Appellants that the two tort claims at issue are barred by sovereign immunity because they are premised on the denial of a land use plan amendment, which is a discretionary governmental function. See Com. Carrier Corp. v. Indian River Cty., 371 So. 2d 1010, 1020 (Fla. 1979) (recognizing that the waiver of sovereign immunity in section 768.28, Florida Statutes, does not extend to “discretionary governmental functions”); Trianon Park Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 468 So. 2d 912, 919 (Fla. 1985) (“Clearly, the legislature, commissions, boards, city councils, and executive officers, by their enactment of, or failure to enact, laws or regulations, or by their issuance of, or refusal to issue, licenses, permits, variances or directives, are acting pursuant to basic governmental functions performed by the legislative or executive branches of government.”); City of Pembroke Pines v. Corr. Corp. of Am., Inc., 274 So. 3d 1105, 1113 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019) (recognizing case law “applying sovereign immunity to bar recovery of economic damages against a municipality for the denial of a development application”).

We remand for the trial court to grant the motions to dismiss and dismiss the two tort counts at issue.

Reversed and remanded with directions.

Per Curiam.

Gross, Gerber and Kuntz, JJ., concur.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network