HomeMy WebLinkAboutM-99-0978CITY OF MIAMI 0
CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
' MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Members ofthe FROM: Alejandro Viiarello, City
oupey
DATE: December 17, 1999
RE: Miami Association o ref ters, Local 587, et al.
vs. City of Miami, Walte .Foeman, et al.
DCCC Case No.: 99-23 58 CA 08
r r
Attached is a copy of the firm's status report to me dated December 16,
1999 concerning the above -referenced matter. Said report does not contain
litigation strategy or privileged information. As you are aware, there was a
hearing on defendant's motion to dismiss the third amended complaint at 9:30 a.m.
this morning; however, Judge Smith has reserved ruling at this time. As soon as
she renders a decision, I will inform you immediately of the results.
Attachments
cc: Donald H. Warshaw, City Manager w/attach.
Walter E. Foeman, City Clerk w/attach.
W493
I
c� r
+61
N
Tom.
1
09 ct i1JJ
I
AKERMAN. SENTERFITT 6 EIDSON, P. A.
SUNTRUST INTERNATIONAL CENTER
r\•
_
.i
ONE SOUTHEAST THIRO AVENUE
J r•
..-
MIAMI. FLORIOA 33131•1716
` �.
(305) 3 4-S900
v K�
FACSIMILE (303) 37e.5095
`;!
December 16, 1999
VIA FACSIMILE & FIRST CLASS MAIL
Alejandro Vilarello,'Es"4.
City Attorney
City of Miami
444 S.W. 2nd Avenue - Suite 945
Miami, Florida 33130-1910
Re: Mayor Carollo and Miami Association of
Fire gbters. Local 557, et al., v. i of Miami, et al.
Dear Mr. Vilarello:
Please accept the following as a status report in the referenced matter.
On November 15, 1999, plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint ("complaint") which
named three additional parties, added one new claim and inserted additional facts. More specifically,
the complaint added Mayor Joe Carollo, Mayor of the City of Miami; Nevie George and Gertha
Peirre (both of whom are alleged residents, citizens, taxpayers and electors of the City of Miami) as
plaintiffs. The complaint also raised a claim not previously part of this suit -- that the November 2,
1999 ballot question was defective because it was not translated into Creole. In addition, the
complaint sought to block the scheduled March 2000 election for Mayor of the City of Miami and
alleged that the adoption of the ballot question and the scheduled election constituted an illegal recall
of the Mayor. It should be noted that each of the claims raised in the second amended complaint,
including the claims challenging the November ballot were again raised in the third amended
complaint.
On December 6, 1999, the City of Miami filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. The
defendant sought dismissal on the following grounds: (1) plaintiffs' claims related to the November
2, 1999 election are moot in that the election has already occurred; (2) the single subject issue is
currently on appeal to the Florida Supreme Court and therefore the trial court does not have
jurisdiction over such claims; (3) the complaint fails to state a cause of action for illegal recall or for
due process violations; (4) plaintiffs, by not raising the Creole issue before the election, have waived
their right to assert such claim at this time; and (5) individual plaintiffs (including the Mayor), who
MI455801;1
FORT LAUDERDALE MIAMI
ORLANDO • TALLAHASSEE
09a 9,7160
TAHPA WEST PALM BEACH
s d.49 . • .
Alejandro Vilarello, Esq.
December 16. 1999
Page "_
were not named as parties to the suit prior to the election waived their rights to claim deficiencies
related to the November 2, 1999 election.
A hearing on the defendant's motion to dismiss the third amended complaint is scheduled for
Friday, December 17,1999, at 9:30 A.M. before Judge Fredricka Smith. Former Chief Judge Joseph
Hatchett will be arguing the motion on behalf of the City of Miami.
On November 8,1999, plaintiffs, pursuant to the applicable rules of appellate procedure, filed
a Notice to Invoke Discretionary Jurisdiction (of the Florida Supreme Court) with the Third District
Court of Appeal. Pursuant to the rules (and a requested enlargement of time) plaintiffs were to. file
a brief with the Florida Supreme Court explaining why they sought to invoke the Courfs
discretionary jurisdiction on November 29, 1999.
On December 6,1999, plaintiffs filed their jurisdictional brief with the Supreme Court, out
of time. Along with the brief, plaintiffs filed a motion for permission to file the brief out of time.
Defendants opposed such motion and sought to have plaintiffs' appeal dismissed because of the
untimely filing. Notwithstanding (and before the Court reviewed defendants' opposition papers,
which were filed immediately upon receipt of the motion), on the same day that the brief was filed,
the Court granted plaintiffs' motion to file their brief out of time.
Plaintiffs' seek to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction of the Court by arguing that the Third
District Court of Appeal's decision regarding the applicability of the single subject rule "construed"
a provision of the Florida Constitution and that the Third District's decision conflicted with decisions
of other district courts of appeal. Defendants will challenge the arguments raised by the plaintiffs
in this matter. Pursuant to the applicable rules, the City must respond in opposition to plaintiffs'
request for discretionary jurisdiction on December 27, 1999.
We will continue to keep you advised of the status of the litigation.
Very truly yours,
AKERMAN, SENTERFITT & EIDSON, P.A.
IA*'A0- � * �,
Nina K. Brown
NKB/dl
cc: Joseph W. Hatchett, Esq.
ff_
(j l b
M
M1455801; I