Palm Bay Litigation Status Update – October 2025
Navigating Legal Challenges: An Overview of Ongoing Cases and Their Impact on the City of Palm Bay
Introduction
Welcome to the October 2025 Palm Bay Litigation Status Update. This report is published periodically and provides a comprehensive overview of ongoing legal matters involving the City of Palm Bay, Florida. Our goal is to keep residents, stakeholders, and interested parties informed about the status of litigation that may impact the city’s operations, finances, and policy decisionsThe timing of future updates may vary based on developments in ongoing litigation. The data in this report was pulled from the PACER (Public Access to Court Electronic Records) system at 0600 on 20 October 2025..
This update covers active cases, recent developments, newly filed litigation, and cases that have reached resolution. We strive to present this information in a clear, accessible format while maintaining accuracy and objectivity.
Total Active Cases: 5
Cases by Category:
Employment & Labor: 2 cases (Forish v. City of Palm Bay Police Department - two related cases)
Constitutional/Civil Rights: 3 cases (MacIntyre, Pedersen, Maloof, Enlow)
Total Estimated Exposure: Information not publicly available
Cases Filed In This Update Period: 0 (as of October 2025)
Cases Resolved In This Update Period: 0 (as of October 2025)
Resolved Cases
Danny Edward Parsons v. Palm Bay Police Department et al.
Case Number: U.S. District Court, M.D. Fla., 6:24-cv-01960-WWB-UAM
Resolution Date: March 27, 2025
Resolution Type: Dismissed without prejudice
Summary: This case was a pro se civil rights action filed by Danny Edward Parsons, an incarcerated individual, on November 7, 2024. Parsons alleged that the Palm Bay Police Department and unnamed officers violated his constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. As is common in prisoner lawsuits, the claims likely related to the conditions of his confinement, the circumstances of his arrest, or his medical care. Throughout the case, Parsons filed multiple amendments to his complaint in an attempt to meet the court’s pleading standards, but he was ultimately unsuccessful. On March 27, 2025, the court dismissed the case in its entirety for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. This means Parsons failed to allege sufficient facts to support a legally recognized claim for a constitutional violation.
Impact: Because the dismissal was without prejudice, Parsons has the option to refile the case if he can correct the complaint’s deficiencies, but the case remains closed as of October 2025. Minimal financial or operational impact to the City.
Active Case Summaries
Case 1: Scott MacIntyre v. City of Palm Bay, et al.
Case Number: U.S. District Court, M.D. Fla., Case No. 6:24-cv-00988; Appeal: 11th Circuit, No. 25-11089
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Filed: Original case filed 2024; Appeal filed April 3, 2025
Category: Constitutional/Civil Rights (42 U.S.C. § 1983)
Status: Appeal pending
Summary: This case stems from a December 2022 police encounter where Scott MacIntyre alleges he was unlawfully stopped, thrown to the ground, and arrested without cause while riding a Segway, which aggravated a pre-existing hernia. MacIntyre filed a lawsuit asserting federal civil rights claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for unlawful stop, false arrest, and excessive force against three Palm Bay police officers, alongside state law claims for false arrest and battery. The defendant officers moved to dismiss the case, arguing they were protected by qualified immunity. The district court found that the facts alleged did not overcome the officers’ qualified immunity defense, holding that the officers had at least arguable reasonable suspicion for the stop and arguable probable cause for the arrest. On March 6, 2025, the court dismissed all federal claims with prejudice and declined to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims, which were dismissed without prejudice.
Recent Developments: MacIntyre appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit on April 3, 2025. The parties have filed their appellate briefs as of July 2025. The case is now awaiting a decision on whether oral argument will be scheduled or if the appellate panel will rule based on the submitted briefs.
Next Steps: The appeal will determine if the district court erred in granting qualified immunity and dismissing the federal claims. Awaiting appellate court decision.
Potential Impact: An appellate reversal could reinstate the lawsuit, exposing the City to potential liability and litigation costs. The case highlights officer conduct during street-level encounters and the legal standards for qualified immunity.
Case 2: Pedersen v. City of Palm Bay et al.
Case Number: U.S. District Court, M.D. Fla., 6:24-cv-02250-PGB-LHP
Court: U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida
Filed: Removed from state court to federal court on December 10, 2024
Category: Constitutional/Civil Rights
Status: Active in discovery
Summary: This complex civil rights case was removed from state court to federal court on December 10, 2024. The plaintiff, Jeffery R. Pedersen, is acting as an estate representative, which typically indicates the case involves a death or catastrophic injury. The lawsuit names the City of Palm Bay, Brevard County, and numerous individual law enforcement officers from both the Palm Bay Police Department and the Brevard County Sheriff’s Office as defendants. Publicly available filings do not detail the specific incident that led to the lawsuit. However, the nature of the case—a civil rights action filed by an estate representative against multiple law enforcement agencies and officers—suggests allegations of significant constitutional violations, such as excessive force, wrongful death, or deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.
Recent Developments: The defendants have responded by filing several motions to dismiss, and the plaintiff has amended the complaint in response. The case is currently in the discovery phase, with both sides exchanging information and evidence. The court has issued orders regarding discovery disputes and deadlines for serving all named defendants.
Next Steps: A mediation session is scheduled for July 2026, with a pre-trial conference to follow in August 2026, indicating a long and potentially complex litigation path ahead.
Potential Impact: Wrongful death and serious injury cases involving multiple agencies present significant financial and reputational risk. The involvement of both the City and County suggests a multi-jurisdictional incident that will require extensive coordination and defense efforts.
Case 3: Karen Maloof v. City of Palm Bay et al.
Case Number: U.S. District Court, M.D. Fla., 6:25-cv-00197-ACC-RMN
Court: U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida
Filed: February 2025
Category: Constitutional/Civil Rights (malicious prosecution, false arrest)
Status: Active in discovery against one officer
Summary: This case arises from a wrongful arrest caused by identity theft and an allegedly negligent police investigation. In 2017, Georgia resident Karen Maloof reported her driver’s license stolen. In 2022, thieves used her stolen ID to rent a U-Haul truck in Palm Bay, a city Maloof had never visited. Despite numerous red flags—including a mismatched selfie photograph, a fake address, and non-existent contact information—Palm Bay Police Officer Cody Spaulding secured an arrest warrant for Maloof for grand theft auto. In May 2023, Maloof was arrested at the Atlanta airport while preparing to board a flight to Ireland. She was jailed for three days in deplorable conditions before bonding out. Prosecutors quickly dropped the charges against her upon learning the facts. Maloof filed a federal lawsuit alleging malicious prosecution, false arrest, and other civil rights violations against the City of Palm Bay, its police department, and Officer Spaulding. The lawsuit contends that no reasonable officer would have concluded Maloof was the suspect given the evidence.
Recent Developments: The court has dismissed the claims against the City of Palm Bay and the police department with prejudice. However, the case is proceeding against Officer Spaulding on the claim of malicious prosecution.
Next Steps: A jury trial is currently scheduled for November 2026.
Potential Impact: Although the City is no longer a direct defendant, the case against its officer raises serious questions about investigative standards and training. A verdict against the officer could still have financial implications and damage the department’s reputation.
Case 4: Lisa and John Enlow v. City of Palm Bay et al.
Case Number: U.S. District Court, M.D. Fla., 6:25-cv-00964-JSS-LHP
Court: U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida
Filed: June 2, 2025 (refiled and reopened September 2025)
Category: Constitutional/Civil Rights (42 U.S.C. § 1983)
Status: Active in early stages
Summary: Lisa and John Enlow, representing themselves pro se, filed this civil rights lawsuit against the City of Palm Bay, its police department, and several city officials on June 2, 2025. The specific allegations have not been detailed in public filings, but the case is categorized as a general civil rights action, likely brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, indicating claims of constitutional violations by government actors. The case had a difficult start, having been initially dismissed due to procedural errors in the paperwork, a common issue for pro se litigants. However, the Enlows successfully refiled their complaint, and the case was officially reopened in September 2025.
Recent Developments: The plaintiffs are currently in the process of formally serving the lawsuit on the named defendants. The Enlows have a history of litigation against the City, having filed a previous federal lawsuit in 2022.
Next Steps: The next step will be for the defendants to file their official response to the complaint, after which the court will schedule a case management conference.
Potential Impact: Pro se lawsuits can be time-consuming and unpredictable for a municipality’s legal department, even if the underlying claims lack legal merit. This case represents an ongoing and contentious relationship between the Enlows and the City.
Case 5: Stacey Forish v. City of Palm Bay Police Department
Case Number: U.S. District Court, M.D. Fla., 6:25-cv-00375 and 6:25-cv-01853
Court: U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida
Filed: First case filed March 2025; Second case filed September 2025
Category: Employment & Labor (Equal Pay Act, Title VII)
Status: Active in discovery; pending consolidation
Summary: Stacey Forish has filed two separate but related federal lawsuits against the City of Palm Bay Police Department, alleging systemic gender-based discrimination in the workplace. The first case, filed in March 2025, claims violations of the Equal Pay Act, asserting that Forish was paid less than male counterparts for performing substantially equal work. In September 2025, Forish filed a second lawsuit alleging broader employment discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This newer case likely includes claims beyond unequal pay, such as discrimination in promotions, a hostile work environment, or retaliation. Together, these lawsuits suggest a pattern of alleged gender discrimination within the police department.
Recent Developments: The first case is already in the discovery phase. A motion to consolidate the second case with the first lawsuit is pending, which would allow the court to handle both matters concurrently for efficiency.
Next Steps: Mediation is scheduled for April 2026, with a trial date set for February 2027 for the first case.
Potential Impact: These parallel lawsuits present significant financial and policy exposure. Allegations of systemic discrimination can lead to costly legal battles, substantial damages, and court-ordered reforms of department-wide employment practices. They also pose a risk to recruitment and internal morale.
Methodology & Sources
This litigation status update is compiled from publicly available court records, city council meeting minutes, official city communications, and other reliable sources. Information is gathered through:
Review of federal and state court dockets
Analysis of city council agendas and meeting materials
Monitoring of local news coverage and legal filings
Consultation with legal databases and court filing systems
We make every effort to ensure accuracy, but readers should note that litigation is dynamic and case statuses may change between update periods. For the most current information on any specific case, we recommend consulting official court records or contacting the City of Palm Bay’s legal department.
Closing Statement
Transparency in government operations, including litigation matters, is essential for maintaining public trust and accountability. This periodic update is part of our commitment to keeping the Palm Bay community informed about legal matters that affect their city.
Litigation is a normal part of municipal operations, and the presence of legal cases does not necessarily indicate wrongdoing or mismanagement. Many cases involve routine matters, disputes over interpretation of laws or regulations, or claims that may ultimately be resolved in the city’s favor.
We will continue to monitor these cases and provide updates as significant developments occur. If you have questions about any of the cases covered in this report, please feel free to reach out or consult the public records available through the appropriate court systems.
Thank you for reading. Stay informed, stay engaged.
A big THANK YOU to Thomas Gaume for The Palm Bayer for keeping us informed of what's happening in Palm Bay. With all the litigation, one question comes to mind. Does the City have liability insurance? I realize the ultimate payer is the taxpayers for premiums.