Florida/Georgia Personal Injury & Workers Compensation

...the adjudication of infractions, section 318.14; the amount of penalties, section 318.18; and the disposition of civil penalties, section 318.21. Chapter 318 also contains a preemption provision regarding fines and other charges, which is set forth in section 318.121: “Notwithstanding any general or special law, or -7- municipal or county ordinance, additional fees, fines, surcharges, or costs other than the court costs and surcharges assessed under s....

...m the enforcement regime applicable under the provision of section 316.075(4) that red light violations are “punishable pursuant to chapter 318.” And nothing in section 316.008(1)(w) creates an exception from the express preemption imposed by section 318.121 of any fines other than the penalties imposed as provided in chapter 318. IV. The Orlando and Aventura ordinances are invalid because they are expressly preempted by state law....

...preemption—essentially concluding that the ordinances are invalid because they conflict with section 316.075(4), Florida Statutes, which states that red light violations are “punishable pursuant to chapter 318,” § 316.075(4), Fla. Stat. (2008), as well as section 318.121, Florida Statutes, which states that “[n]otwithstanding any general or special law, or municipal or county ordinance, additional fees, fines, surcharges, or costs other than the court costs and surcharges assessed under s. 318.18(11), (13), and (18) may not be added to the civil traffic penalties assessed in this chapter.” § 318.121, Fla....

...- 22 - coexist alongside the Florida Uniform Traffic Control Law. City of Aventura, 89 So. 3d at 238 (quoting Aventura, Fla., City Code, ch. 48, art. 3, § 48–26 (2007)). Further, the municipal ordinances also do not conflict with section 318.121, which states that “additional fees, fines, surcharges, or costs . . . may not be added to the civil traffic penalties assessed in this chapter.” Section 318.121 expressly preempts municipalities from undertaking very specific conduct—adding additional fines or costs on top of those assessed under chapter 318. For example, pursuant to section 318.121, a municipal government could not authorize a law enforcement officer to impose an additional municipal fine when issuing a traffic citation pursuant to the Florida Uniform Traffic Control Law for the same infraction....

...ed under chapter 318 when adjudicating traffic citations issued pursuant to the Florida Uniform Traffic Control Law. In this case, the municipal ordinances do not “add[] to the civil traffic penalties assessed” pursuant to chapter 318. § 318.121, Fla....

...Instead, the ordinances impose different fines, for the violation of separate municipal ordinances that exist alongside the Florida Uniform Traffic Control Law. Accordingly, the fines imposed by the municipal ordinances are not “additional” to the fines found in chapter 318, and section 318.121 is not in conflict with - 23 - municipal ordinances that assess penalties independent of those found within chapter 318. Finally, the majority has, in my view, failed to take into acc...

...when a driver failed to stop at a traffic signal, sixty dollars to be distributed as provided in section 318.21 [Disposition of civil penalties by county courts], and the remaining sixty-five dollars to be remitted to the Department of Revenue for deposit into the Administrative Trust Fund of the Department of Health. Section 318.121 prohibits the imposition of additional fees, fines, surcharges, or costs other than the court costs and surcharges assessed under section 318.18 from being added to the civil traffic penalties assessed in this chapter....

Dear Mr. Bergdoll: On behalf of the Honorable Grady Judd, Sheriff of Polk County, you have asked for my opinion on substantially the following questions: 1. Does the language in section 318.121 , Florida Statutes, apply to future county ordinances, ordinances passed previously, or both? 2. Does the language of section 318.121 , Florida Statutes, create an exception if a county ordinance is passed allowing a surcharge after the effective date of the statute or is such a surcharge expressly preempted without enabling legislation? Your questions are related and will be answered together....

...' license provisions, Florida intrastate highway system and toll facilities statutes, and the "Support of Learning" law, "thereby facilitating the implementation of a more uniform and expeditious system for the disposition of traffic infractions." 2 Section 318.121 , Florida Statutes, a section of the act provides: "Preemption of additional fees, fines, surcharges, and costs....

...318.18 (11), (13), and (18) may not be added to the civil traffic penalties assessed in this chapter." The original statute was enacted in 1996 and has been amended to add the language relating to surcharges assessed under section 318.18 (11), (13), and most recently, (18). 3 Section 318.121 , Florida Statutes, recognizes the continued imposition of those fees, fines, surcharges, and costs contained in Chapter 318 , Florida Statutes, but limits the assessment of additional costs and surcharges to those imposed under section 318.18 (11), (13), and (18), Florida Statutes....

...nal administrative fee of $12.50 be imposed on all noncriminal moving and nonmoving traffic violations under Chapter 316 , Florida Statutes. Further, legislative changes to the amount imposed as court costs under subsection (11)(a) became effective. Section 318.121 , Florida Statutes, precludes the imposition of any fees, fines, surcharges, or costs other than those assessed under section 318.18 (11), (13), and (18), Florida Statutes....

...uniform treatment. (Legislative intent is the polestar) Thus, in the absence of a state legislative provision, no fees, fines, surcharges, or costs may be added to the civil traffic penalties authorized by chapter 318. In sum, it is my opinion that section 318.121 , Florida Statutes, has acted since 1996 7 as a preemption to local regulation of fees, fines, surcharges, or costs which may be added to the civil traffic penalties assessed under Chapter 318....

...96-350 , Laws of Fla.; s. 14, Ch. 97-225 , Laws of Fla.; s. 47, Ch. 2005-236 , Laws of Fla.; and s. 30, Ch. 2008-111 , Laws of Fla. 4 But see s. 938.19 (1), Fla. Stat., authorizing the assessment and collection of court costs for teen court "[n]otwithstanding s. 318.121 ;" and Op....

...tion 39.019, Florida Statutes (1996 Supplement), for teen court? In sum: Until October 1, 1996, the clerk of court was authorized by section 39.019, Florida Statutes (1996 Supplement), to collect court costs for teen court. However, after that date, section 318.121 , Florida Statutes (1996 Supplement), prohibits the addition of this cost to civil traffic penalties imposed under Chapter 318 , Florida Statutes....

...was created by section 2, Chapter 96-382, Laws of Florida. The act became law without the Governor's approval June 1, 1996, and took effect on July 1, 1996. 1 During the same legislative session, revisions were made to the Florida Traffic Code, and section 318.121 , Florida Statutes (1996 Supplement) was created to read: "Preemption of additional fees, fines, surcharges, and costs....

...— Notwithstanding any general or special law, or municipal or county ordinance, additional fees, fines, surcharges, or costs other than the court costs assessed under s. 318.18 (11) 2 may not be added to the civil traffic penalties assessed in this chapter." Thus, section 318.121 , Florida Statutes (1996 Supplement), recognizes the continued imposition of those fees, fines, surcharges, and costs contained in Chapter 318 , Florida Statutes, but limits the assessment of additional costs to those set forth in section 318.18 (11), Florida Statutes (1996 Supplement). Like the teen court legislation, the revisions to section 318.121 , Florida Statutes (1996 Supplement), became law without the Governor's approval on June 1, 1996; however, this statute took effect October 1, 1996. 3 Under accepted rules of statutory construction, sections 39.019 and 318.121 , Florida Statutes (1996 Supplement), should be read together, or in pari materia, because they govern different aspects of the same subject matter....

...ould defeat the legislative intent for the adoption of both statutes. 6 Utilizing these rules of statutory construction, section 39.019, Florida Statutes (1996 Supplement), was effective and in operation until October 1, 1996, when the provisions of section 318.121 , Florida Statutes (1996 Supplement), became effective and preempted the imposition of additional fees, fines, surcharges, and costs....

...Therefore, it is my opinion that the clerk of court was authorized to collect the court costs for teen court provided for in section 39.019, Florida Statutes (1996 Supplement), until October 1, 1996, after which time the imposition and collection of such costs was preempted by section 318.121 , Florida Statutes (1996 Supplement)....

...Broward Builders Exchange, Inc ., 222 So.2d 801 , (Fla. 4th DCA 1969), remanded , 231 So.2d 513 (Fla. 1970); State ex rel. Gerstein v. Hialeah Race Course, Inc., 245 So.2d 53 (Fla. 1971). An examination of the legislative history regarding enactment of these two statutes reveals that s. 318.121 , Fla....

...ovisions, Florida intrastate highway system and toll facilities statutes, and the "Support of Learning" law, "thereby facilitating the implementation of a more uniform and expeditious system for the disposition of traffic infractions." 2 Pursuant to section 318.121 , Florida Statutes: Notwithstanding any general or special law, or municipal or county ordinance, additional fees, fines, surcharges, or costs other than the court costs and surcharges assessed under s....

...Stat. 6 Ibid. 7 Sections 316.2935 and 316.610 , Fla. Stat., deal with air pollution control equipment and tampering with that equipment and vehicles in an unsafe condition, respectively. 8 See s. 318.18 (13)(a) and (b), Fla. Stat. 9 And see, e.g. , ss. 318.1215 , Fla. Stat. (notwithstanding s. 318.121 , board of county commissioners may require clerk of court to collect additional $5 with each civil traffic penalty to fund driver education programs in schools), 938.01 , Fla. Stat. (courts shall, in addition to any fine or other penalty, require payment of $3 court cost), 938.19 (2), Fla. Stat. (notwithstanding s. 318.121 , county commissioners may adopt mandatory court cost for teen court)....

...In addition to the $158 penalty, Pincus paid ATS a 5% convenience fee of $7.90. Id. Pincus subsequently filed a putative class action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, arguing the convenience fee was prohibited by sections 316.0083(b)(4), 318.121, and 560.204, Florida Statutes (2017), and ATS was therefore unjustly enriched by retaining the fee....

...Fla. Jan. 14, 2019). The federal district court agreed, finding: (1) ATS’s fee was not prohibited under section 316.0083(b)(4) because the fee was not a “commission” within the meaning of the statute; (2) ATS’s fee was not prohibited under section 318.121 because this statute only applies to violations assessed under chapter 318, Florida Statutes (2017), and Pincus’s violation was assessed under chapter 316, Florida Statutes (2017); and (3) section 560.204 does not provide a...

...collected from violations detected through the use of a traffic infraction detector” under Fla. Stat. § 316.0083(1)(b)(4)? b. Was the fee assessed under Chapter 318 and therefore subject to § 318.121’s surcharge prohibition? c....

...We find that, as a matter of Florida law, he cannot, and that this is determinative of the other questions before us. Pincus argues it would be unjust for ATS to retain a fee collected in violation of Florida law, specifically, sections 316.0083(1)(b)4, 318.121, and 560.204, Florida Statutes (2021)....

...Miami Beach. On appeal, Pincus argues that the district court erred in dismissing his complaint because (1) the fee ATS charged him was an illegal commission under Florida Statutes § 316.0083(b)(4); (2) the fee was a prohibited surcharge under § 318.121; and (3) ATS violated § 560.204(1) because it operated as an unlicensed money transmitter, all violations that he contends support a claim for unjust enrichment under Florida law.1 Each count of Pincus’s unjust enrichment clai...

...nalty. After paying the fee, Pincus filed this putative class action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, alleging three counts of unjust enrichment based on violations of Florida Statutes §§ 316.0083(b)(4), 318.121, and 560.204. 5 “Doc.” numbers refer to the district court’s docket entries. 6 ATS sent the notice on the City’s behalf. 4  USCA11 Case:...

...for unjust enrichment under Florida law. The district court reasoned that Pincus failed to state a claim because: (1) the challenged fee was not a “commission” within the meaning of § 316.0083; (2) the fee was not barred as a surcharge under § 318.121, as it was assessed exclusively under Chapter 316; and (3) a private cause of action for unjust enrichment could not be maintained under § 560.240. This appeal followed. II....

...Quercia, 253 So. 3d 28, 33 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017) (internal quotation marks omitted). 7  USCA11 Case: 19-10474 Date Filed: 02/02/2021 Page: 8 of 31 statutes: §§ 316.0083 (Count I), 318.121 (Count II); and 560.204 (Count III). Thus, the third element of each of Pincus’s unjust enrichment counts turns on the proper interpretation of a different Florida statute. All three counts also turn on issues of Florida common law....

...To reach this conclusion, the district court reasoned that the distinction between commissions and surcharges is not foreign to the Florida Legislature, which chose to prohibit surcharges elsewhere in the traffic laws. Id. at 11 (citing Fla. Stat. § 318.121)....

...11  USCA11 Case: 19-10474 Date Filed: 02/02/2021 Page: 12 of 31 whether the fee that ATS collected qualified as a “commission” for purposes of this provision.10 2. Count II: Violation of Fla. Stat § 318.121 In Count II, Pincus alleged that ATS was unjustly enriched because its collection of the fee he paid violated § 318.121. Section 318.121 provides: Notwithstanding any general or special law, or municipal or county ordinance, additional fees, fines, surcharges, or costs other than the court costs and surcharges assessed under s. 318.18(11), (13), (18), (19), and (22) may not be added to the civil traffic penalties assessed under this chapter. Fla. Stat. § 318.121. ATS does not dispute that the challenged fee was a “surcharge” within the meaning of this provision. Nor does ATS argue that any of the five exceptions to § 318.121’s no-surcharge rule apply to the challenged fee. Rather, ATS argues that § 318.121’s surcharge prohibition does not apply here at all because the prohibition applies only to “penalties assessed under this chapter,” and Pincus’s penalty was assessed under Chapter 316, not Chapter 318. Explaining ATS’s...

...same penalty and allocation as § 316.0083(1)(b)(3)(a), albeit in a rearranged order), 318.18(15)(a)(3) (providing for the same penalty and allocation as § 316.0083(1)(b)(3)(b), albeit in a rearranged order). And it may matter which provision gave rise to Pincus’s penalty because § 318.121’s surcharge prohibition applies only to “penalties assessed under [Chapter 318].” Id. § 318.121....

...13  USCA11 Case: 19-10474 Date Filed: 02/02/2021 Page: 14 of 31 ATS argues that the penalty was assessed under the similar provision in Chapter 316. The district court sided with ATS. The court concluded that § 318.121’s surcharge prohibition has no application here because Pincus’s penalty was not “assessed under” Chapter 318....

...arguments. First, he argues that his penalty was assessed under Chapter 318 because in the framework of the Florida Motor Vehicle Code, Chapter 316 sets down prohibitions that are enforced by Chapter 318. Second, he contends that the language of § 318.121 itself demonstrates that the provision’s no-surcharge rule applies to his penalty....

...device,” and § 318.18 provides for penalties “for a violation of § 316.074(1).” Fla. Stat. §§ 316.0083(1)(a), 316.074(1), 318.18(15)(a)(1). Pincus maintains that his violation of § 316.074(1) was assessed under § 318.18, and therefore § 318.121’s no-surcharge rule applies. Pincus’s second argument focuses on the text of the provision setting forth the no-surcharge rule itself. He points out that § 318.121 exempts from its no- surcharge rule costs imposed under five subsections. See id. § 318.121 (barring “additional fees, fines, surcharges, or costs other than the court costs and surcharges assessed under s....

...316.0083 which are upheld, the local hearing officer 15  USCA11 Case: 19-10474 Date Filed: 02/02/2021 Page: 16 of 31 may also order the payment of county or municipal costs, not to exceed $250. Id. § 318.18(22). Section 318.121, then, carves out only one exception to its surcharge prohibition for penalties prescribed under § 316.0083—a payment of municipal costs ordered by a local hearing officer. And that exception does not apply to ATS’s fee. Pincus contends that § 318.121’s exception for § 318.18(22) furthers his argument in two ways: (1) it demonstrates that, in general, § 318.121’s no-surcharge rule applies to penalties enforced under § 316.0083, and (2) it shows that, in the context of photo-enforced red light penalties, the Florida legislature exempted only one type of additional fee from § 318.121’s general ban on surcharges—and it is not the type of fee at issue here. Third, Pincus argues that the chapters are “so deeply interrelated” that they cannot be disentangled, and so, according to “any reasonable interpre...

...2/02/2021 Page: 17 of 31 Pincus, when the chapters are read in context, with their division of labor in mind, they require the conclusion that his penalty was to some extent “assessed under” Chapter 318, which is all that is required for § 318.121 to bar ATS’s surcharge. Fourth, Pincus resorts to the absurdity canon. He argues that if the district court is correct that his penalty is not subject to § 318.121’s no-surcharge rule, then “a local government or its vendors [could] impose literally any surcharge in connection with a civil penalty, inflating the $158.00 statutory penalty by any amount,” thereby “render[ing] the statutory sum meaningless.” Appellant’s Br....

....” (emphasis added)). ATS argues that these provisions are rendered a dead letter if Pincus is correct that his penalty was assessed under Chapter 318. In sum, each party presents reasonable arguments as to whether Pincus’s penalty was assessed under Chapter 318 and thus whether § 318.121’s surcharge ban applies. After careful review, we could find no decision from the Supreme Court of Florida, any Florida appellate court, or this Court answering whether Pincus’s penalty was assessed under Chapter 318 for purposes of § 318.121. 3....

...cus’s unjust enrichment claim—not just his count based on § 560.204—raises the issue of whether plaintiffs may assert unjust enrichment based on statutory violations with no private right of action. Like § 560.204, neither § 316.0083 nor § 318.121 establishes a private right of action for a violation....

...orida”). 30  USCA11 Case: 19-10474 Date Filed: 02/02/2021 Page: 31 of 31 b. Was the fee assessed under Chapter 318 and therefore subject to § 318.121’s surcharge prohibition? c....

...Does the challenged fee constitute a “commission from any revenue collected from violations detected through the use of a traffic infraction detector” under Fla. Stat. § 316.0083(1)(b)(4)? b. Was the fee assessed under Chapter 318 and therefore subject to § 318.121’s surcharge prohibition? c....