Florida/Georgia Personal Injury & Workers Compensation

...Therefore, we find that the penalty imposed by the [challenged] ordinance is in conflict with state law.”). On appeal, the Club makes three arguments about its state law conflict preemption claim. The first two are that Sections 775.083(1) and 787.29 of the Florida Statutes preempt the Ordi- nance....

...Because a violation of the Ordinance is not a “noncriminal violation,” Section 775.083(1)(e) - - which creates a statutory ceiling on punishments for “noncriminal violation[s]” -- cannot preempt the Ordinance. Second, the Club argues that Section 787.29, which requires in part that “strip club[s] or other adult entertainment establish- ment[s]” display human trafficking public awareness signs, preempts the Ordinance because its statutory penalty is limited to $500 under Section 775.083. See also FLA. STAT. ANN. § 787.29 (lay- ing out the statutory penalties for criminal and noncriminal viola- tions). The Club waived this argument by not lodging specific ob- jections to the magistrate judge’s reasoning in his R&R about the Club’s Section 787.29 conflict preemption argument....

...utes are “directed at the same or less serious conduct.” But the conduct regulated by each statute is not even similar: The Ordinance regulates who can perform or work at a nude dancing establishment to prevent human trafficking, while Sec- tion 787.29 regulates human-trafficking awareness signage outside of such es- tablishments....

...afforded broad discretion when making these kinds of decisions. A “district court has discretion to decline to consider a party’s argu- ment when that argument was not first presented to the magistrate judge.” Williams v. McNeil, 557 F.3d 1287, 1292 (11th Cir. 2009). Section 787.29 because it directly attempts to prevent instances of human traf- ficking and underage girls from dancing nude. 10 The statute caps fines for populous cities, including Miami Beach, at “$1,000 per day per violation for a first violati...