Two lawsuits challenging Sarasota County’s operation of a traffic signal near the southern entrance to Siesta Key have concluded in the county’s favor.

County Attorney Josh Moye updated Sarasota County commissioners July 7 on litigation filed by Siesta Key resident Dr. James Wallace III involving the signal at Stickney Point Road and Avenue B and C.

“I just wanted to provide the board with a positive result our office received in the Wallace lawsuits,” Moye said.

Wallace filed lawsuits against the county in 2024 and 2025, both seeking to prevent operation of the signal. He alleged the additional traffic stop would worsen congestion on Stickney Point Road and increase travel times for emergency medical services and hurricane evacuations to and from Siesta Key.

Wallace voluntarily dismissed the 2024 lawsuit, Moye said. In the 2025 case, the County Attorney’s Office filed a motion to dismiss, which a judge granted.

“David Pearce from our office was the lead attorney on the case for the county,” Moye said. “No action is required from the board at this time. I just wanted to give the board an update.”

Moye added that Pearce has defended county actions involving the area and traffic signal for at least 10 years.

A June 18 memorandum from Moye provides additional details. Wallace filed the second complaint June 27, 2025, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief concerning operation of the signal. According to the memo, the lawsuit contained essentially the same allegations as his earlier case.

Wallace voluntarily dismissed the first lawsuit Dec. 8, 2024, after the county submitted several written discovery requests, according to the memo. The county later sought dismissal of the 2025 case, arguing Wallace lacked standing and that the Florida Department of Transportation had issued the permit required to operate the signal.

Circuit Judge Hunter Carroll issued a June 15 order confirming dismissal of the second lawsuit.

The order overruled Wallace’s objections to an April 1 recommended order from General Magistrate Medisa Turner. Carroll approved the recommendation and adopted its findings as the court’s order.

Turner recommended granting the county’s motion to dismiss on two primary grounds: sovereign immunity and lack of standing.

The magistrate concluded that the county’s decision whether to upgrade and operate the intersection was a discretionary, planning-level governmental function protected by sovereign immunity.

Turner also found that Wallace had not alleged a special injury distinct from that experienced by other Siesta Key residents.

The injuries described in the amended complaint were speculative and shared by the public generally, according to the recommended order. Wallace was “no more impeded than any other Siesta Key resident” in evacuating the island or receiving emergency medical treatment, Turner wrote.

Wallace’s original complaint, filed April 19, 2024, argued that operating the signal would create further delays on a roadway already burdened by congestion.

Stickney Point Road is one of only two routes providing access to Siesta Key.

Wallace’s attorney at the time, Ralf Brookes of Cape Coral, wrote that operation of the signal would affect Wallace and other residents attempting to reach hospitals or doctors during medical emergencies and those trying to evacuate during hurricanes.

“The operation of the traffic signal at Ave B&C would create a new and dangerous condition causing unreasonable additional significant traffic delays placing human lives at risk,” the complaint stated.

Wallace had raised the issue publicly before filing the lawsuit. During a February 2024 meeting of the Siesta Key Association, he threatened legal action against the county over its approval of Siesta Promenade, a mixed-use development planned for the northwest corner of U.S. 41 and Stickney Point Road.

The development is planned to include 414 apartments or condominiums, a 130-room hotel, 33,000 square feet of retail space and 7,000 square feet of office space.

The Avenue B and C intersection is intended to provide access to the development, and the traffic signal was required as part of the county’s approval.

Although the signal had been installed, it had not been activated for regular operation when Wallace filed his original complaint. Wallace argued that traffic studies showed it would stop traffic every 85 seconds on a roadway already affected by gridlock.

His lawsuits also cited provisions of the Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan addressing constrained roads and the maintenance of existing levels of service.

Wallace pointed to earlier rulings involving the county’s approval of high-rise hotels on Siesta Key. Those cases addressed the island’s limited evacuation routes and the county’s responsibility not to further degrade operating conditions on constrained roadways.

In the 2025 amended complaint, Wallace again sought declaratory and injunctive relief to stop operation of the signal, arguing it was inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan because it would significantly increase travel times on and off Siesta Key.

The county responded that Florida law gives state and local governments authority over traffic-control devices and that private citizens generally cannot challenge those decisions without demonstrating a particularized injury.

Turner agreed, finding that the complaint did not allege the signal failed to comply with FDOT regulations. Instead, Wallace argued it conflicted with the county’s Comprehensive Plan.

The magistrate concluded that Wallace had not provided legal authority showing the Comprehensive Plan eliminated the county’s sovereign immunity over traffic-planning decisions.

Carroll’s June 15 order adopted those findings, ending the second lawsuit at the trial court level.