yu

Case 1 :05-cv-21 014-PAS Document 243

Entered on FLSD Docket 08/24/2007 Page 1 of 36
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 05-21014-CN-SEITZ/MCALILEY
ROBERT BIONDOLILLO,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ /
ORDER (1) GRANTING JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANT FOLLOWING BENCH TRIAL; (2)
DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS; AND (3) CLOSING CASE
THIS CASE came before the Court for a bench trial beginning July 25, 2007 and ending August
9, 2007. At issue was whether a grand jury's May 7, 2002 indictment of PlaintiffRobertBiondolillo for
two counts of mail fraud was based on a "righteous prosecution"- that is, whether there was probable
cause to support Plaintiffs indictment or whether the Govenunent's agent, FBI Special Agent Steffan
Nass, lied and acted with malice to secure that indictment.
The essence of Plaintiffs claim is that, when Nass failed to prove that Plaintiff, a police officer,
had been connected to a fraud scheme at a chiropractic clinic where Plaintiff was a patient, Nass became
the subject of derisive comments and jokes among his colleagues at the FBI for his failure. Thereafter,
when Nass received a tip that Plaintiff may have connnitted another type of fraud, Nass focused on nabbing
"the otie that got away," launching a rogue, secretive investigation of Plaintiff and fabricating probable
cause by lying in 32 instances to the grand jury about material facts in order to secure the indictment
against Plaintiff. Plaintiff also contends that Nass omitted material facts from his presentation to the grand
jury that would have shown he should not have been indicted for fraud.
In its April4, 2007 Order denying the Govenunent's motion for summary judgment [DE-171], this
Court advised that "at trial, Plaintiff wilt have to establish that Agent Nass lied as to material facts, and
/
Case 1 :05-cv-21 014-PAS Document 243
Entered on FLSD Docket 08/24/2007 Page 36 of 36
when he fell in the gully. This story would cover his entitlement to worker's C<Jlt1lensation because he
aggravated a pre-existing condition on the job, would justify his civil lawsuit against Shell and McDonald's
for premises liability, and would provide an explanation for why his claims could not be
misrepresentations. The difficulty with this evolution is that Plaintiff's story shifts depending on the
audience and perceived benefits, and contrasts starkly with his representations to the FBINA that, at this
same time, he had no physical impairments or limitations. Such inconsistencies prevent crediting Plaintiff's
trial testilmny.
IV. CONCLUSION
The Court finds that the grand jury had probable cause to supportits May 7, 2002 indictment of
Plaintiff for two counts of mail fraud The Court further finds that Special Agent Steffan Nass did not act
with malice in trying to secure the indictment. Based on the foregoing, it is hereby
ORDERED that:
{1) Judgment shall be ENTERED in favor of Defendant, United States of America, on Plaintiff's
claim for malicious prosecution;
{2) Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions for Discovery Violations [DE-224) is DENIED, as the
violations have not caused wtfair prejudice to Plaintiff;
(3) All other pending motions not otherwise ruled upon in this Order are DENIED AS MOOT; and
{3) This case is CLOSED.
Nf!!:
DONE AND ORDERED in Miami, Florida, day of August, 2007.
cc: All Counsel of Record


UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
36