Esin Daniel Abia v. City of Opa-Locka

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: March 20, 2024
• Docket: 2023-1228
• Status: Published

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed March 20, 2024. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D23-1228 Lower Tribunal No. 17-25973 ________________

Esin Daniel Abia, Appellant,

vs.

City of Opa-Locka, Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Peter R. Lopez, Judge.

James H. Greason, for appellant.

Johnson, Anselmo, Murdoch, Burke, Piper & Hochman, P.A., and Jeffrey L. Hochman and Hudson C. Gill (Fort Lauderdale), for appellee.

Before MILLER, LOBREE and BOKOR, JJ.

BOKOR, J. Esin Daniel Abia appeals the trial court’s entry of summary judgment

in favor of the City of Opa-Locka on sovereign immunity grounds. Distilling

a long and muddled procedural history, Abia and Opa-Locka settled Abia’s

wrongful termination lawsuit in 2012, based on an agreement for “full re-

instatement of [Abia’s] employment” with Opa-Locka. The trial court

correctly notes that, based on sovereign immunity principles, Abia can’t

enforce implied rights or obligations absent from the contract. See Dist. Bd.

of Trs. of Miami Dade Coll. v. Verdini, 339 So. 3d 413, 421 (Fla. 3d DCA

2022) (noting that sovereign immunity barred breach of contract claim absent

“an express, written contractual obligation”). However, Opa-Locka cannot

take the benefit of the settlement agreement—the dismissal of a lawsuit—

and then later argue that the same agreement is unenforceable. See

Pipeline Contractors, Inc. v. Keystone Airpark Auth., 276 So. 3d 436, 439

(Fla. 1st DCA 2019) (“Because they accepted the benefits of the contract

through payment from KAA, Pipeline and Hanover were properly estopped

from raising the argument that the contract was void in an attempt to avoid

the burdens of the contract embodied by KAA's claims against them.”).

Therefore, to the extent that Abia argues that Opa-Locka breached the

settlement agreement by failing to reinstate him to an equivalent position with

the same salary and benefits, and seeks damages based on the difference

2 between such salary and benefits promised and his actual salary and

benefits post-reinstatement, such a claim is not barred by sovereign

immunity. However, to the extent that Abia seeks damages for back pay for

the time prior to reinstatement, such a claim would be barred as it is outside

the express terms of the settlement agreement. See, e.g., Fla. Int’l Univ. Bd.

of Trs. v. Alexandre, 365 So. 3d 436, 442 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023) (reversing

class certification and requiring dismissal where “the operative complaint

fails to incorporate any document or writing containing an express promise

for FIU . . . to provide the claimed services”). Accordingly, we affirm the

portion of the trial court’s final summary judgment in favor of Opa-Locka to

the extent that it bars Abia from seeking back pay prior to reinstatement but

reverse to permit Abia’s claim for breach based on the claimed failure to

honor the requirement of “full re-instatement of [Abia’s] employment.”

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further

proceedings.