Listen to this article
Palm Bay, FL -- The federal lawsuit filed by the estate of Jeffery W. Pedersen against the City of Palm Bay has been dismissed with prejudice, closing a case that began with a 2020 incident in which police officers tased and arrested a man in mental health crisis instead of taking him to the hospital. Pedersen went into cardiac arrest after being pepper-sprayed in handcuffs at the Brevard County Jail. He spent 16 days in the ICU. He later died.
No money changed hands. Under the settlement agreement provided to The Palm Bayer by City Attorney Patricia Smith, the defendants agreed not to seek fees or costs from the plaintiff's estate, and in exchange, the estate released all claims. Each party bears its own attorneys' fees and costs. A City Council executive session transcript reveals the city budgeted $140,460 to defend the case and carries up to $5 million in excess insurance coverage for death claims.
Judge Paul G. Byron signed the dismissal order on February 25, 2026, in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida. The case number is 6:24-cv-02250. “Dismissed with prejudice” means the estate can never refile these claims. The case is permanently closed. No appeal. No second chance. When a dismissal with prejudice follows a notice of settlement, it almost always means money changed hands.
What happened on September 25, 2020
According to court filings, Palm Bay police officers Jarkkar Lampkin and Amber Samuels responded to a call about Pedersen needing assistance. They found him in extreme distress, frightened, confused, and showing signs of paranoia and hallucinations. The officers determined he met the criteria for involuntary examination under Florida’s Baker Act and called Brevard County Fire Rescue.
The system was working. Then a supervisor showed up.
Sgt. Jessie Eakin arrived on scene and reversed the plan. Instead of the hospital, Eakin ordered Pedersen arrested for resisting without violence and transported to the Brevard County Jail Complex. When Officer Samuels questioned why they were taking a man in mental health crisis to jail instead of the hospital, Eakin’s response, quoted in court filings, was blunt: “Need to write Jeffery up for resisting because we don’t want him just Baker Acted.”
Officers had already tased Pedersen and bound his limbs. They put him in the back of a patrol car and drove him to jail.
What happened at the jail
Pedersen arrived at the jail still in crisis. He had to be carried into the changing room. According to the complaint, corrections officers Richard Weaver, Travis Oxrieder, and Bradley Chapman physically restrained Pedersen while he was handcuffed. Then Weaver pepper-sprayed him in the face until he became unresponsive.
Officer John Anderson and another corrections officer attempted to dress Pedersen in a jail-issued shirt. When Anderson picked up his left hand, it was limp. They checked for a pulse and called for the nurse.
EMTs transported Pedersen to Rockledge Regional Medical Center. His diagnoses included cardiopulmonary arrest, sepsis, acute renal failure, and metabolic acidosis. He was admitted to the ICU, where he remained for 16 days. He died after the lawsuit was filed. His son, Jeffery R. Pedersen, continued the case on behalf of the estate.
The legal claims
The estate sued under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, the federal civil rights statute, alleging false arrest and excessive force by Palm Bay officers and deprivation of civil rights by county corrections officers. State tort claims for false arrest and civil battery were also filed against the City of Palm Bay and Sheriff Wayne Ivey under respondeat superior, meaning the agencies were held responsible for their employees’ actions.
The lawsuit named twelve defendants, including ten individual officers and two entities. Six of them, including Sgt. Eakin, were dismissed without prejudice in June 2025 because plaintiff’s attorney Ariel Lett failed to complete service. That is a significant procedural failure. Eakin arguably bore the most individual responsibility for what happened. He made the call to arrest instead of hospitalize. His dismissal was without prejudice, meaning the estate theoretically could have refiled against him. The settlement closed that door.
The sanctions sideshow
The City of Palm Bay filed a motion for sanctions against attorney Lett on January 14, 2026. By February 12, Magistrate Judge Leslie Hoffman Price had issued a show cause order directing Lett to explain himself. On February 17, the court confirmed an in-person hearing for March 4 at the Orlando courthouse.
Then, on February 24, both sides filed a notice of settlement. On February 25, the case was dismissed with prejudice. The sanctions motion was denied as moot. The hearing was canceled. The show cause orders were discharged.
Lett walked away without sanctions. The case resolved as a walk-away agreement with no payment to either side. What prompted the resolution in those six weeks between the sanctions motion and the settlement notice is not clear from the public record.
What it cost Palm Bay
No money was paid to the plaintiff. The settlement agreement, provided to The Palm Bayer by City Attorney Patricia Smith on March 12, 2026, confirms a walk-away: the defendants agreed not to seek fees or costs from the estate, and the estate released all claims. Each side pays its own attorneys' fees. But the executive session transcript tells us what the city spent on defense.
On February 27, 2025, City Council held a closed attorney-client session under F.S. 286.011(8) to discuss the Pedersen case. Deputy City Attorney Patricia Smith briefed the Council on the lawsuit and requested authorization to retain a police practices expert witness, Richard Hough, Sr., for the defense. The transcript became a public record when the case was dismissed with prejudice on February 25, 2026. The Palm Bayer obtained it through a Chapter 119 request.
Smith presented a litigation budget of $140,460 to cover everything from pleadings through trial. That figure included depositions, expert discovery, motions, mediation, trial preparation, and trial expenses.
The city carries a $200,000 self-insured retention on claims involving a death. For anything above that threshold, excess coverage runs to $5 million through the Florida Municipal Insurance Trust. Smith told the Council the estimated defense costs would fall within the self-insured retention.
Mayor Rob Medina, Deputy Mayor Mike Jaffe, Council Member Mike Hammer, and Council Member Chandler Langevin voted unanimously to authorize the expert witness and proceed with the defense. Council Member Kenny Johnson was not present. Interim City Manager Scott Morgan and City Attorney Erich Messenger also attended.
The settlement agreement is not on the public docket but was provided directly by the City Attorney. A court filing from February 27, 2026 references a seal expiration under Local Rule 1.11(e), confirming that at least one document in the case had been sealed.
Federal civil rights claims under Section 1983 have no statutory damages cap. Florida’s tort liability cap of $200,000 per claimant under F.S. 768.28 applies only to the state law claims. The estate sought compensatory damages, punitive damages, medical expenses, pain and suffering, and attorney’s fees. Despite this legal exposure, the case resolved without any payment to the plaintiff.
One of eleven
Pedersen is the first case from Palm Bay’s current litigation wave to fully close. It is not the last. The city is currently defending eleven active lawsuits, six in federal court and five in state court. The claims range from excessive force to employment discrimination to First Amendment retaliation.
Several of those cases share patterns with Pedersen. The MacIntyre case involves a Segway arrest where officers allegedly used excessive force. Faulkenberry-Ruiz involves a traffic stop. Steelman involves officers drawing guns on a homeowner. In multiple cases, the key decision was made by a supervisor who escalated a situation that officers on scene were handling.
The city has not won a single case on the merits in this portfolio. The two that have closed, Pedersen and Langevin, both ended in walk-away agreements with no payment to the plaintiffs.
The question the city has not answered
Jeffery Pedersen’s encounter with Palm Bay police happened in September 2020. That is more than five years ago. The central failure was a supervisor overriding a Baker Act determination and ordering an arrest instead.
Does the Palm Bay Police Department have a policy governing when and whether a supervisor can override a Baker Act determination made by officers on scene? Has the department changed its use-of-force procedures since 2020? Has anyone been disciplined for what happened to Jeffery Pedersen?
The Palm Bayer has asked the city these questions. We will report the answers when they come.
Sources
Executive Session Transcript, Palm Bay City Council, February 27, 2025 (Pedersen portion, 24 pages; obtained via F.S. 119 public records request, March 9, 2026)
U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida, Case 6:24-cv-02250-PGB-LHP
Doc #97: Order of Dismissal with Prejudice (02/25/2026, Judge Paul G. Byron)
Doc #94, #96: Notice of Settlement and Joint Notice of Settlement (02/24/2026)
Doc #99: Notice of Local Rule 1.11(e) re seal expiration (02/27/2026)
Doc #59: Order dismissing six defendants without prejudice (06/25/2025)
Florida Statute 768.28 (sovereign immunity waiver and tort liability caps)
Florida Statute 394.463 (Baker Act, involuntary examination)
42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act)
Settlement Agreement and Release, Pedersen v. City of Palm Bay, Case No. 6:24-cv-02250-PGB-LHP (e-signed by plaintiff March 8, 2026; provided by City Attorney Patricia D. Smith on March 12, 2026)
All factual claims about the September 2020 incident are drawn from the plaintiff's court filings. No court ruled on the merits of any claim. The case resolved before trial.
Correction, March 12, 2026: The original version of this article stated the settlement amount was sealed and implied a financial payment was made. City Attorney Patricia Smith provided the settlement agreement, which shows this was a walk-away agreement with no payment to the plaintiff. The article has been updated to reflect the actual terms.
