Desiree Perez, et al. v. Javon Hadley

Published by Crandall Consulting · Informational litigation intelligence · Last substantive update: August 23, 2026

Docket / citation: 1:25-cv-22162-BB · Filed: 2025-08-06

Summary

A magistrate judge in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida issued a Report and Recommendations (Feb. 6, 2026) on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion: recommending denial of the motion as to federal and related privacy statutory claims (Counts I–V) and recommending dismissal with prejudice of state tort claims for nuisance and IIED (Counts VI–VII). The R&R declined to rely on extrinsic factual materials submitted with the motion and leaves final decision to the district judge.

Litigation Status

Status, direction, and weight describe how tracked public sources characterize this matter as of our last review — they are informational classifications, not legal assessments.

Procedural Posture

Consolidated Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint (ECF No. 198) on August 6, 2025 asserting seven counts. Defendant moved to dismiss (ECF No. 227) on August 25, 2025. The motion was referred for a report and recommendations; the magistrate issued the R&R on February 6, 2026 recommending partial grant/denial.

Reported Holding

The magistrate judge recommended denying Defendant Hadley’s motion to dismiss as to Counts I–V (CFAA, Stored Communications Act, Federal Wiretap Act, Florida Security of Communications Act, and intrusion upon seclusion), concluding plaintiffs plausibly alleged unauthorized access and wrongful use of home surveillance systems. The magistrate recommended granting the motion as to Counts VI and VII (private nuisance and intentional infliction of emotional distress) and dismissing those counts with prejudice, concluding they were deficient and amendment would be futile. The R&R also declined to judicially notice or rely on extrinsic factual materials submitted with the motion to dismiss.

What the Court Decided

Recommended that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss be GRANTED in part (Counts VI and VII dismissed with prejudice) and DENIED in part (Counts I–V to survive).

What the Court Did Not Decide

The district judge has not yet ruled on the magistrate’s recommendations; the R&R did not resolve the merits of the underlying factual disputes or award relief; it declined to take judicial notice of extrinsic factual materials attached to the motion to dismiss. It did not decide any post-pleading or damages issues.

Significance

Generally viewed as plaintiff-favorable. Characterizations of significance describe how the matter has generally been discussed in tracked public sources; individual holdings are often narrow, procedural, or fact-specific, and this page does not state or imply broader holdings than the sources support.

What This Page Does and Does Not Say

This page reports what our tracked public sources say about this matter — including, where identified, the procedural posture (for example, a ruling on a motion to dismiss is not a final merits decision). It does not report legal conclusions beyond those sources, does not predict outcomes, and does not constitute legal advice.

Technologies at Issue

• home security cameras
• audio/video surveillance
• remote access mobile app/location tracking

Statutes Invoked

• 18 U.S.C. § 1030; 18 U.S.C. § 2701; 18 U.S.C. § 2511; Fla. Stat. § 934.10

Claims Asserted

Claims identified in tracked public sources; pleadings may include additional or amended claims.

• Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030)
• Stored Communications Act (18 U.S.C. § 2701)
• Federal Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511)
• Florida Security of Communications Act (Fla. Stat. § 934.10)
• Intrusion upon seclusion (privacy tort)
• Private nuisance (Florida law)
• Intentional infliction of emotional distress (Florida law)

What This Matter May Mean for Website Operators

Because this matter is pending, anything reported here is procedural — allegations and interim rulings, not final determinations.

Detection of a similar technology on a website is an informational risk indicator, not a legal conclusion, and nothing in this section is legal advice.

Related Intelligence

Sources

• Report and Recommendations (Case No. 1:25-cv-22162-BB) — govinfo / U.S. District Court (Southern District of Florida) · Tier A (Primary authority) · 2026-02-06

About This Page

Publisher: Inspection-Ready Institute, Inc. (DBA Crandall Consulting), an independent website compliance and risk consultancy. We are not a law firm and nothing on this page is legal advice.

How this content is produced: Facts are extracted from publicly available sources — court and government materials, recognized legal press, professional analysis, and industry reports — by our litigation intelligence engine, stored with full source provenance, and rendered from the database. Risk guidelines are computed by a deterministic formula, never by an AI model directly. See the full methodology.

Limitations: Counts labeled "Tracked" reflect matters identified in our source set and are not official court statistics. We report what courts decided and did not decide; we do not predict outcomes.

Corrections: If you believe anything on this page is inaccurate, contact us via the contact page and we will review the underlying sources promptly.