Case 9:13-cv-80943-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2013 Page 1 of 14

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION
ROBERT GIBSON,

CASE NO:

Plaintiff,
v.
KELLI R. MACKEY, Her unknown
Boyfriend, his Accomplice, and LUC
HAVAN, MARGARITA ISLAND INC.
doing business as SAND BAR ISLAND
BAR & GRILL, OFFICER SIDNEY FITZCOY, in his individual capacity, and
WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA POLICE
DEPARTMENT,
Defendants.
__________________________________/
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Plaintiff, Robert Gibson (“Gibson”) sues Defendants, Kelli R. Mackey, Her unknown
boyfriend and his unknown accomplice, Officer Sidney Fitz-Coy, in his individual capacity
(“Fitz-Coy”), (the Defendants, with the exception of Officer Fitz-Coy, are at times collectively
referred to, as the “Co-Investors”) and the West Palm Beach, Police Department and alleges the
following:
JURISDICTION
1. Plaintiff, Robert Gibson, is a citizen of the State of Florida and of the United States.
2. This complaint seeks damages in excess of Seventy Five Thousand Dollars ($75,000.00).
3. Defendant, Kelli R. Mackey, (Mackey) is a resident of Palm Beach County, Florida and
is otherwise sui juris.

 Case 9:13-cv-80943-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2013 Page 2 of 14

4. On information and belief, Mackey’s unknown boyfriend resides in Palm Beach County,
Florida and his identification may be established through regular discovery procedure.
5. On information and belief, the accomplice of Mackey’s unknown boyfriend may be
established through regular discovery procedure.
6. MARGARITA ISLAND INC. doing business as SAND BAR ISLAND BAR & GRILL
is a Florida corporation located in Palm Beach County, Florida.
7. Defendant, Officer Fitz-Coy was, at all relevant times, a sworn law enforcement officer
for the City of West Palm Beach, Florida and is being sued in his individual capacity.
8. At all relevant times, the alleged conduct of Fitz-Coy, in investigating the activities of
Plaintiff and drafting the probable cause affidavit concerning purported criminal activity of
Plaintiff, was within the scope of his employment as an officer and he was acting under color of
law as an law officer of the City of West Palm Beach, Florida.
9. The conduct of Fitz-Coy as alleged in this Complaint is not indemnified by the State of
Florida.
10. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this case pursuant to the Civil Rights Act,
42 U.S.C. §1983; the Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C. §§1331 and 1343(a); the Fourth Amendment to
the United States Constitution, the Constitution of the United States; and this Court’s
supplementary jurisdiction powers.

INTRODUCTORY FACTS
1. This Complaint seeks compensatory damages for the physical and intentional battery and
subsequent unlawful arrest and incarceration of Plaintiff, Robert Gibson by Defendants
respectively. Plaintiff, a licensed private investigator, was arrested, incarcerated, criminally
prosecuted, and thrust into the public spotlight for crimes he did not commit. Defendants falsely

 Case 9:13-cv-80943-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2013 Page 3 of 14

lodged criminal allegations against Mr. Gibson who suffered, and continues to suffer,
significantly as a result of the Defendants’ wrongful acts.
2. The factual scenario leading to the Defendants’ false allegations against Mr. Gibson
concerned a solitary visit by Plaintiff to an establishment MARGARITA ISLAND INC. doing
business as SAND BAR ISLAND BAR & GRILL and known simply as the “Sand Bar” at 520
Forest Hill Boulevard in West Palm Beach, Florida 33405.
3. After consuming and paying for one beer, Plaintiff visited the men’s room on his way
out.
4. Upon arriving at the Men’s room, Plaintiff discovered that the Men’s Room door was
locked and from the voice shouting “just a minute” from inside, was occupied by a female.
5. After a few minutes, a further knock resulted in a female now believed to be Defendant,
Kelli R. Mackey, storming out of the men’s room with irritated expletives directed at Plaintiff.
6. Some minutes after entering the men’s room while standing at the sink, two men, still
unknown to Plaintiff, entered and savagely attacked Plaintiff from the rear.
7. Plaintiff was left unconscious on the floor until lifted to his feet and drug out the front
door of the establishment by a male, now believed to be Luc Havac.
8. Plaintiff made his way to his vehicle and called 911 to report the crime.
9. Defendant, Officer Fitz-Coy, responded to the call and met Plaintiff at his vehicle to take
the report.
10. Upon taking the report, and after speaking with other witnesses, Fitz-Coy handcuffed
Plaintiff and transported him to an interim holding area, then to St. Mary’s hospital for
unrequested procedures and finally on to a holding facility on Gun Club Road.

 Case 9:13-cv-80943-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2013 Page 4 of 14

11. At this point in Plaintiff’s career, he was negotiating a joint venture between his company
“1-800-SERVE-EM” and a finance company by the name of House Account Funding, LLC.
12. In light of the arrest and outstanding charges against Plaintiff, House Account Funding
reduced their offer by an amount far in excess of Seventy Five Thousand Dollars ($75,000.00).
13. Although, the state eventually dropped the charges against Plaintiff, he was required to
retain counsel and incur ongoing expenses in association with the charges in the interim.
14. All Defendants had their own illegitimate motives for committing crimes and/or asserting
that Plaintiff had committed a crime.
15. Defendant, Mackey, apparently wanted to visit revenge on an individual who would dare
to interrupt her use of the men’s room, notwithstanding the availability of an adjacent women’s
room.
16. Unknown Defendant friends of Mackey undoubtedly sought out Plaintiff to prove that the
two of them were tough enough to beat up an old man attacking from behind.
17. Defendant, Luc Havan, simply wanted to get rid of the battery victim discovered in his
establishment without pointing the finger at his regular patrons.
18. Defendant, Fitz-Coy ignored the legitimate complaints of the battered Plaintiff and took
the easy path, by helping the establishment in his patrol out of a jam.
19. Defendant, Fitz-Coy charged Plaintiff under Florida Statute 877.03 Breach of the peace;
disorderly conduct which states:
Whoever commits such acts as are of a nature to corrupt the public morals, or outrage the
sense of public decency, or affect the peace and quiet of persons who may witness them,
or engages in brawling or fighting, or engages in such conduct as to constitute a breach of
the peace or disorderly conduct, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree,
punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
20. An arrest under 877.03 either requires a warrant or the eye witness of the police officer.

 Case 9:13-cv-80943-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2013 Page 5 of 14

21. An exception requiring two eye witness of an officer is available under Florida Statute
509.143 (2) if the law enforcement officer has probable cause to believe that the conduct created
a threat to the life or safety of the person or others.
22. Defendant Fitz-Coy’s probable cause affidavit states no such thing.
23. As a matter of law, Plaintiff’s arrest was illegal.
24. The prosecution terminated in a manner that indicated Plaintiff’s innocence of the charge
leveled against him.
25. Any of Defendants’ allegations to the contrary in this regard were simply false.
26. Defendant Fitz-Coy initiated the arrest, confinement, and prosecution of Plaintiff.
27. His investigation gave rise to factual conclusions in reckless disregard for the truth.
28. Defendants’ actions caused Plaintiff to be beaten up, arrested and exposed to reasonable
foreseeable fallout emanating from the scandalous police report which falsely characterized
Plaintiff as a criminal.
29. Defendant, Fitz-Coy knew, prior to the filing of his affidavit which supported the arrest
of Plaintiff that he was simply sweeping the bad acts occurring at the subject establishment under
the rug.
30. Defendant, Mackay knowingly generated false information which led to the beating
incurred by Plaintiff and ultimately ended in his arrest.
31. This joint action renders Defendants liable under 42 U.S.C. §1982 for their coordinated
conduct.
32. The joint action of all Defendants proximately caused the wrongful arrest, incarceration,
and criminal prosecution of Plaintiff.

 Case 9:13-cv-80943-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2013 Page 6 of 14

33. The joint action of all Defendants left Fitz-Coy with the absence of arguable probable
cause to believe that Plaintiff committed any criminal activity.
34. These Defendants, acting together, engaged in a reckless campaign to cause the arrest of
Plaintiff and cause him to suffer tremendously.
SPECIFIC ACTS OF MISCONDUCT BY OFFICER FITZ-COY
35. On September 17, 2009, Fitz-Coy generated an affidavit (“Affidavit.”) supplying the
basis for the arrest and incarceration of Plaintiff.
36. The Affidavit was designed to cause the arrest of Plaintiff.
37. The Affidavit did cause the arrest of Plaintiff.
38. The Affidavit listed criminal conduct attributed to Plaintiff.
39. The listed allegations against Plaintiff in the Affidavit were false.
40. Defendant, Fitz-Coy was devoid of probable cause to draft and/or assert the existence of
criminal allegations of misconduct by Plaintiff.
41. Fitz-Coy was devoid of arguable probable cause to draft and/or assert the existence of
criminal allegations of misconduct by Plaintiff.
42. Fitz-Coy alleged that Plaintiff violated the following Florida Statute:
877.03 Breach of the peace; disorderly conduct.—Whoever commits such acts as are of a
nature to corrupt the public morals, or outrage the sense of public decency, or affect the
peace and quiet of persons who may witness them, or engages in brawling or fighting, or
engages in such conduct as to constitute a breach of the peace or disorderly conduct, shall be
guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or
s. 775.083.
History.—s. 1, ch. 59-325; s. 1147, ch. 71-136; s. 2, ch. 86-174.

43. Defendant, Fitz-Coy lacked arguable probable cause and/or probable cause to believe that
Plaintiff violated the above statute.

 Case 9:13-cv-80943-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2013 Page 7 of 14

44. Fitz-Coy implied that he was entitled to arrest Plaintiff with immunity from liability
pursuant to the following Florida Statute:
509.143

Disorderly conduct on the premises of an establishment; detention; arrest;

immunity from liability.—
(1) An operator may take a person into custody and detain that person in a reasonable
manner and for a reasonable time if the operator has probable cause to believe that the person
was engaging in disorderly conduct in violation of s. 877.03 on the premises of the licensed
establishment and that such conduct was creating a threat to the life or safety of the person or
others. The operator shall call a law enforcement officer to the scene immediately after
detaining a person under this subsection.
(2) A law enforcement officer may arrest, either on or off the premises of the licensed
establishment and without a warrant, any person the officer has probable cause to believe
violated s. 877.03 on the premises of a licensed establishment and, in the course of such
violation, created a threat to the life or safety of the person or others.
(3) An operator or a law enforcement officer who detains a person under subsection (1) or
makes an arrest under subsection (2) is not civilly or criminally liable for false arrest, false
imprisonment, or unlawful detention on the basis of any action taken in compliance with
subsection (1) or subsection (2).
(4) A person who resists the reasonable efforts of an operator or a law enforcement officer to
detain or arrest that person in accordance with this section is guilty of a misdemeanor of the
first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083, unless the person did not know
or did not have reason to know that the person seeking to make such detention or arrest was
the operator of the establishment or a law enforcement officer.
History.—s. 1, ch. 86-174; ss. 14, 52, ch. 90-339; s. 4, ch. 91-429.

45. Defendant, Fitz-Coy lacked both arguable probable cause and probable cause to believe
that Plaintiff’s actions created a threat to the life or safety of the person or others.
46. Defendant, Fitz-Coy is therefore not immune from liability for his illegal actions.
47. Defendant, Fitz-Coy performed a reckless investigation, which ultimately led to
Plaintiff’s wrongful arrest and incarceration.
COUNT I – JOINT ACTION
§1983 False Arrest
48. Plaintiff re-alleges the numbered paragraphs above as though fully set forth herein.
49. As a result of Defendants’ misrepresentations, Plaintiff was arrested and incarcerated.
50. Defendant Mackey knew that Plaintiff did not commit any offense in her presence.
51. Defendants acted jointly with Defendant Fitz-Coy to cause the arrest of Plaintiff without
probable cause to believe that Plaintiff committed criminal activity.

 Case 9:13-cv-80943-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2013 Page 8 of 14

52. Therefore, the conduct of all of these Defendants violated of the Fourth Amendment to
the United States Constitution.
53. The above described actions of the Defendants were the direct and proximate cause of the
Constitutional violations set forth above.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court enter judgment in favor of
Plaintiff and award Plaintiff compensatory damages, punitive damages, costs, and attorney’s fees
against all Defendants, jointly and severally, and all additional relief this Court deems equitable
and just.
COUNT II – OFFICER FITZ-COY
§1983 False Arrest
54. Plaintiff re-alleges the numbered paragraphs above as though fully set forth herein.
55. As a result of Officer Fitz-Coy’s misrepresentations, Plaintiff was arrested and
incarcerated.
56. . The actions of Officer Fitz-Coy caused the arrest of Plaintiff without probable cause
and/or arguable probable cause to believe that Plaintiff committed any criminal activity.
57. Therefore, the conduct of Officer Fitz-Coy violated the Fourth Amendment to the United
States Constitution.
58. The aforementioned actions of Officer Fitz-Coy were the direct and proximate cause of
the Constitutional violations set forth above.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court enter judgment in favor of
Plaintiff and award Plaintiff compensatory damages, punitive damages, costs, and attorney’s fees
against Officer Fitz-Coy, and all additional relief this Court deems equitable and just
COUNT III – JOINT ACTION

 Case 9:13-cv-80943-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2013 Page 9 of 14

§1983 Malicious Prosecution
59. Plaintiff re-alleges the numbered paragraphs above as though fully set forth herein.
60. Defendants were aware that Plaintiff was being arrested absent probable cause.
61. Defendants participated with Officer Fitz-Coy in the arrest of Plaintiff in joint action.
62. Defendants acted jointly with Officer Fitz-Coy to fabricate false probable cause.
63. Fellow Defendants acted jointly with Officer Fitz-Coy to fabricate false allegations
against Plaintiff.
64. Fellow Defendants of Officer Fitz-Coy knew that Plaintiff did not commit a crime.
65. All the Defendants intended and foresaw that Plaintiff would be prosecuted with a crime
causing Plaintiff to be incarcerated, suffer corresponding damage to his reputation, endure
emotional pain and suffering, and experience significant financial loss.
66. The conduct of all of these Defendants in joint action violated the Fourth Amendment to
the United States Constitution.
67. The above described actions of the Defendants were the direct and proximate cause of the
Constitutional violations set forth above.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court enter judgment in favor of
Plaintiff and award Plaintiff compensatory damages, punitive damages, costs, and attorneys’ fees
against the Defendants, and all additional relief this Court deems equitable and just.
COUNT IV– OFFICER FITZ-COY
§1983 Malicious Prosecution
68. Plaintiff re-alleges the numbered paragraphs above as though fully set forth herein.
69. Officer Fitz-Coy knew that the allegations he asserted in the Affidavit were false and/or
were made absent arguable probable cause. Notwithstanding this fact, Officer Fitz-Coy contrived
a story that Plaintiff committed a crime.

 Case 9:13-cv-80943-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2013 Page 10 of 14

70. The actions of Officer Fitz-Coy caused the arrest of Plaintiff without probable cause to
believe that Plaintiff committed any criminal activity. Officer Fitz-Coy knew that, as a result of
the arrest and fabrication of information, Plaintiff would be prosecuted, causing Plaintiff to be
incarcerated, suffer damage to reputation, emotional pain and significant financial loss.
71. The conduct of Officer Fitz-Coy violated the Fourth Amendment to the United States
Constitution.
72. The above described actions of Officer Fitz-Coy were the direct and proximate cause of
the Constitutional violations set forth above.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court enter judgment in favor of
Plaintiff and award Plaintiff compensatory damages, punitive damages, costs, and attorneys’ fees
against Officer Fitz-Coy, and any additional relief this Court deems equitable and just
COUNT V – OFFICER FITZ-COY
State Claim - Malicious Prosecution
73. Plaintiff re-alleges the numbered paragraphs above as though fully set forth herein.
74. Officer Fitz-Coy knew that the allegations he asserted in the Affidavit were false and/or
lacked probable cause. Notwithstanding this fact, Officer Fitz-Coy contrived a story that Plaintiff
committed a crime.
75. The actions of Officer Fitz-Coy caused the arrest and prosecution of Plaintiff without
probable cause to believe that Plaintiff committed any criminal activity.
76. The conduct of Officer Fitz-Coy violated of Florida State Law.
77. The above-described actions of Officer Fitz-Coy were the direct and proximate cause of
the violations of Florida State Law.

 Case 9:13-cv-80943-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2013 Page 11 of 14

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court enter judgment in favor of
Plaintiff and award Plaintiff compensatory damages and costs against Officer Fitz-Coy, and all
additional relief this Court deems equitable and just
COUNT VI – REMAINING DEFENDANTS
State Claim Malicious Prosecution

78. Plaintiff re-alleges the numbered paragraphs above as though fully set forth herein.
79. Defendants were aware that Plaintiff was being arrested absent a reasonable belief that
Plaintiff any committed illegal activity.
80. Defendants knew that Plaintiff did not violate the law of the State of Florida and/or any
other law.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court enter judgment in favor of
Plaintiff and award Plaintiff compensatory damages and costs against the Defendants, and all
additional relief this Court deems equitable and just.
COUNT VII – OFFICER FITZ-COY
State Claim False Arrest

81. Plaintiff re-alleges the numbered paragraphs above as though fully set forth herein.
82. Officer Fitz-Coy arrested and/or proximately caused the arrest of Plaintiff absent of
probable cause to believe that Plainitff committed a crime.
83. Officer Fitz-Coy arrested and/or proximately caused the arrest of Plaintiff absent of
arguable probable cause to believe that Plaintiff committed a crime.
84. The conduct of Officer Fitz-Coy violated Florida State Law.

 Case 9:13-cv-80943-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2013 Page 12 of 14

WHEREFORE, Plainitff respectfully requests that this Court enter judgment in favor of
Plainitff and award Plainitff compensatory damages and costs from Officer, and all additional
relief this court deems equitable and just.
COUNT VIII – REMAINING DEFENDANTS
State Claim False Arrest

85. Plaintiff re-alleges the numbered paragraphs above as though fully set forth herein.
86. . As a result of the misrepresentations of the Co-Investors, Plaintiff was arrested and
incarcerated for a lengthy period of time.
87. Defendants were aware that Plaintiff would be arrested absent probable cause that
Plaintiff had committed a crime.
88. Defendants knew that Plaintiff did commit any crimes under the laws of the State of
Florida.
89. Defendants contrived a story that Plaintiff misrepresented the nature of an Option. The
actions of all of the Co-Investors caused the arrest of Plaintiff without probable cause to believe
that Plaintiff committed criminal activity. This misconduct also proximately caused Plaintiff to
suffer emotional pain and suffering, a lengthy detention, and significant financial loss.
90. The conduct of all of the Co-Investors violated Florida law by proximately causing the
arrest of Plaintiff.
COUNT IX – UNKOWN DEFENDANTS
State Claim Battery
91. Plaintiff re-alleges the numbered paragraphs above as though fully set forth herein.
92. Unknown boyfriend of Defendant Mackey and his unknown accomplice with the aid of
Defendant Luc Havan committed acts intending to cause harmful or offensive contact with
plaintiff, to wit: pummeled Plaintiff into unconsciousness.

 Case 9:13-cv-80943-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2013 Page 13 of 14

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court enter judgment in favor of
Plaintiff and award Plaintiff compensatory damages and costs, and all additional relief this Court
deems equitable and just
COUNT IX – “SAND BAR”
State Claim Negligent Supervision
93. Plaintiff re-alleges the numbered paragraphs above as though fully set forth herein.
94. Defendant employer, MARGARITA ISLAND INC. doing business as SAND BAR
ISLAND BAR & GRILL becomes aware, or should have become aware, of problems with an
employee Luc Havan that indicated his unfitness;
95. The Defendant employer owes a duty to plaintiff to protect the plaintiff from a particular
injury or damage;
96. The Defendant employer breached its duty by failing to take further action, such as
investigation, discharge, or reassignment;
97. Defendant employer's breach was the proximate cause of injury or damage to plaintiff;
and
98. Plaintiff suffered damages in the caused by a physical impact as a result of the breach.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court enter judgment in favor of
Plaintiff and award Plaintiff compensatory damages and costs, and all additional relief this Court
deems equitable and just
COUNT X – WEST PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT
State Claim Negligent Supervision
99. Plaintiff re-alleges the numbered paragraphs above as though fully set forth herein.
100.

Defendant employer, West Palm Beach Police Department becomes aware, or

should have become aware, of problems with an employee Fitz-Coy that indicated his unfitness;

 Case 9:13-cv-80943-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2013 Page 14 of 14

101.

The Defendant employer owes a duty to plaintiff to protect the plaintiff from a

particular injury or damage;
102.

The Defendant employer breached its duty by failing to take further action, such

as investigation, discharge, or reassignment;
103.

Defendant employer's breach was the proximate cause of injury or damage to

plaintiff; and
104.

Plaintiff suffered damages in the caused by a physical impact as a result of the

breach.
JURY DEMAND
Plaintiff demands trial by jury on all issues so triable.

Dated: September 17, 2013

Respectfully submitted,

By: ____________________________
Jeffrey M. Siskind, Esquire
FBN 138746
525 Flagler Drive, Suite 500
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Telephone: (561) 832-7720
Fax:
(561) 832-7668