Officer & State Sued After Arrested for Fraud Prosecution Dismissed

By Barry Zalma on March 24, 2026

Suit Against Police Agency Dismissed

Post number 5309

See the full video at https://rumble.com/v77i8wa-officer-and-state-sued-after-arrested-for-fraud-prosecution-dismissed.html and at https://youtu.be/DEGgJhCzcA4

Conclusory Allegations, Unwarranted Deductions Of Facts Or Legal Conclusions Masquerading As Facts Will Not Prevent Dismissal.

In Hunter Seaborn Mackenzie Black v. Robert J. Perrault, Jr. and The Florida Department Of Financial Services, No. 8:25-cv-01466-WFJ-CPT, United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Tampa Division (March 19, 2026) Defendant Florida Department of Financial Services’ (“DFS”) moved to Dismiss Count II of the Amended Complaint.. Plaintiff Hunter Seaborn Mackenzie Black (“Black”) has responded in opposition.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Hunter Seaborn Mackenzie Black was an independent salesman for a licensed roofing contractor, conducting door-to-door roofing sales in Florida. Defendant Florida Department of Financial Services (“DFS”) is a state agency, which includes the Division of Criminal Investigations and the Bureau of Insurance Fraud.

Defendant Robert J. Perrault, Jr., a law enforcement officer assigned to the Bureau, investigated Black in August 2022, alleging that Black impersonated a public adjuster, initiated a fraudulent insurance claim, and acted as a contractor without a license. Based on Perrault’s affidavit, the State Attorney’s Office filed criminal charges against Black. However, after further investigation, the State dismissed all charges by filing a Notice of Nolle Prosequi.

LEGAL ISSUES

Black filed suit on June 5, 2025, alleging malicious prosecution against Perrault under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and a “negligent investigation” claim against DFS. Black asserts DFS failed to conduct a diligent investigation into the facts supporting the criminal prosecution and did not ensure probable cause before referral. DFS moved to dismiss Count II, the negligent investigation claim. The legal standard for dismissal is governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) and Rule 12(b)(6). To survive dismissal, the complaint must state a plausible claim for relief with sufficient factual matter, not merely conclusory allegations.

DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

The complaint alleged Perrault acted with “evil intent” and conducted a dishonest investigation to benefit his professional standing with the insurance industry. Black further claims DFS failed to properly investigate prior to referral for prosecution, resulting in criminal charges that were ultimately dismissed.

The court’s analysis is guided by the requirement that pleadings must provide fair notice and state a plausible claim, relying on facts rather than mere labels or conclusions. The motion to dismiss by DFS challenges whether Black’s allegations regarding negligent investigation satisfy these pleading standards.

LEGAL STANDARD

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief to give the defendant fair notice of the claims and grounds. Plaintiff is required to allege more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.

In considering a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the court must construe the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. A complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face to survive a motion to dismiss.

An examination of the Amended Complaint shows that none of DFS’s actions gave rise to a special tort duty. DFS never took Plaintiff into custody, detained him, or otherwise subjected him to danger. Plaintiff has failed to allege that DFS owed any special tort duty to Plaintiff.

The Court granted DFS’s motion to dismiss the negligent investigation claim in Count II without prejudice.

Accordingly, it was ORDERED and ADJUDGED that:

Defendant DFS’s Motion to Dismiss Count II, is GRANTED.
Plaintiff Black’s negligent investigation claim in Count II is DISMISSED without prejudice.
While the Court is doubtful any amended complaint will cure the deficiencies identified in this Order, the Court grants Plaintiff Black’s request for leave to amend his complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 15(a). See Dkt. 33 at 17. Defendant DFS will be terminated from this case, and the remaining count will proceed against Defendant Perrault.

ZALMA OPINION

No one likes to be arrested. Mr. Black, after having the charges against him dismissed by the prosecutors, sued the arresting officer and his agency. The agency defeated the claim since Mr. Black failed to allege sufficient facts to avoid the motion to dismiss but can still proceed against the officer who failed to produce enough evidence to allow the prosecution to proceed for the charges against Black for impersonating a public adjuster and initiated a fraudulent insurance claim causing it to be more difficult for the insurance industry to defeat or deter insurance fraud in Florida.

Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.

Subscribe to my substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe

Go to X @bzalma; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/account/content?type=all; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg; Go to the InsuranceClaims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk.