## Facts

- Francisco and Sonia Pages encountered Julio Rafael Seliman-Tapia and his wife in the Dolphin Mall parking lot in Miami-Dade County on December 27, 2009.
- Tapia accused Dr. Pages of parking too close to Tapia’s car, leading to a confrontation.
- Witness testimony credited at the immunity hearing described Dr. Pages as agitated, aggressive, and repeatedly moving into Tapia’s space while Tapia backed away with his hands in his pockets.
- Mrs. Pages stepped between the men; Dr. Pages then moved aggressively toward Tapia’s wife, who was disabled and was telling Dr. Pages to calm down.
- Tapia, concerned for his wife’s safety, rushed toward Dr. Pages and pushed him down, causing Dr. Pages to fall and hit his head.
- Mrs. Pages testified Tapia lifted and threw Dr. Pages and also made contact with her, causing temporary back pain; the court noted she was the only witness claiming Tapia contacted her.
- In a related criminal case, Tapia pled guilty to misdemeanor battery; the felony battery charge regarding Dr. Pages was dismissed by nolle prosequi.

## Issues

1. Whether Tapia’s misdemeanor battery conviction established he was “engaged in unlawful activity,” thereby disqualifying him from civil immunity under Florida’s self-defense statutes.
2. Whether, at a pretrial immunity hearing under section 776.032, Florida Statutes (2009), the defendant bears the burden to prove entitlement to immunity by a preponderance of the evidence.
3. Whether section 776.032’s immunity from “civil action” applies despite a prior criminal plea arising from the same incident.

## Decision

- The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the orders adopting the general magistrate’s recommendation and dismissing the amended complaint with prejudice.
- The court held Tapia established entitlement to immunity under section 776.032 by a preponderance of the evidence at the evidentiary hearing.
- The court rejected the argument that Tapia’s misdemeanor battery plea automatically barred a later determination, in the civil case, that his use of force was justified and immune.
- The court upheld the magistrate’s factual findings as supported by competent substantial evidence, including that Tapia acted defensively to protect his disabled wife from Dr. Pages’ aggressive advance.

## Legal Principles

- Under section 776.032(1), Florida Statutes (2009), a person justified in using force under the specified self-defense provisions is immune from both criminal prosecution and civil action arising from that use of force.
- Entitlement to self-defense immunity is determined in a pretrial evidentiary hearing, where the defendant bears the burden to prove entitlement by a preponderance of the evidence.
- A prior criminal conviction based on a plea is not, by itself, dispositive of the civil self-defense immunity determination; the civil court may make an independent justification finding based on the immunity-hearing record.
- Appellate review defers to supported factual findings made by the factfinder at the immunity hearing (as adopted by the trial court).

## Conclusion

The court affirmed dismissal of the tort claims because Tapia proved, by a preponderance of evidence at a pretrial hearing, that his use of force was justified in defense of his disabled wife, and his earlier misdemeanor battery plea did not automatically defeat statutory civil immunity.


Pages v. Seliman-Tapia, 134 So. 3d 536 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)