## Facts

- Luis Alberto Jimenez, an indigent, undocumented Guatemalan national, suffered catastrophic brain and physical injuries in a car crash that left him incompetent.
- A Florida circuit court appointed Montejo as guardian of Jimenez’s person and property.
- Jimenez received extended inpatient care at Martin Memorial Medical Center and later required ongoing 24-hour institutional care; Medicaid declined coverage due to his immigration status.
- The hospital intervened in the guardianship case and sought authority to discharge Jimenez and transport him to Guatemala, asserting it was not an appropriate long-term facility and that care was available abroad.
- The circuit court entered an order authorizing relocation to Guatemala and directed the guardian to cooperate with the hospital’s discharge plan.
- After the guardian filed an appeal and sought a stay, the hospital discharged Jimenez and transported him to Guatemala by ambulance to an airport and then by private plane.
- In a prior appellate decision, the order authorizing relocation was reversed and deemed void because the circuit court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction and the evidentiary basis for available care abroad was insufficient.
- The guardian then sued the hospital for false imprisonment based on Jimenez’s confinement during the ambulance and airplane transport.
- The trial court dismissed the false imprisonment claim with prejudice on the theory that the hospital acted under a court order presumed valid at the time.

## Issues

1. Whether a private hospital is absolutely immune from a false imprisonment claim when it transports a ward pursuant to a court order later declared void for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
2. Whether a void order constitutes lawful authority that defeats the “unlawful detention” element of false imprisonment.
3. Whether litigation privilege or quasi-judicial immunity bars tort liability for post-order physical detention carried out by a private party.

## Decision

- The appellate court reversed the dismissal and remanded for further proceedings.
- The court held the hospital was not entitled to absolute immunity for conduct undertaken pursuant to a void order.
- The court held a void order provides no lawful authority to justify detention for purposes of a false imprisonment claim.
- The court concluded dismissal at the pleadings stage was improper because the claim could proceed to determine whether the detention was unreasonable and unwarranted.

## Legal Principles

- False imprisonment requires unlawful detention and deprivation of liberty without lawful authority.
- An order entered without subject-matter jurisdiction is void and has no legal effect; it cannot supply lawful authority for confinement.
- Litigation privilege and related immunities generally protect conduct within the scope of judicial proceedings, but do not automatically extend to a private party’s post-order physical detention carried out under a void order to advance private interests.
- Immunity defenses premised on reliance on judicial process may be unavailable as a matter of law where the process is void, and fact-dependent defenses should not be resolved on a motion to dismiss when the complaint otherwise states a claim.

## Conclusion

The court reinstated the false imprisonment claim, ruling that a private hospital cannot defeat the claim or obtain absolute immunity by relying on an order that was void for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, and remanded for merits litigation over the alleged custodial transport.


Montejo v. Martin Mem'l Med. Ctr., Inc., 935 So. 2d 1266 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 4th Dist. 2006)