HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem #01 - Attorney-Client Sessiona
CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA
INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM
Edward Marquez, City Manager DATE : January 27, 1997 FILE
To : Attn: Elvi Gallastegui-Alonso
Agenda Coordinator SUBJECT : Attorney -Client Closed Session
Pottinger vs. City of Miami
ajyj/� City Commission Meeting
FROM: A. Q inn Jone , REFERENCES :
City Attorney February 20, 1997, 8:00 A.M.
ENCLOSURES:
An attorney -client closed session of the City Commission is required on February 20, 1997
at 8:00 A.M.
Please place the item on the Agenda as follows:
8:00 A.M. AN ATTORNEY -CLIENT SESSION, CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC,
j WILL BE HELD FOR THE PURPOSE OF DISCUSSING PENDING
i LITIGATION IN POTTINTGER V. CITY OF MIAMI, UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT CASE NUMBER 88-2406 CIV-
ATKINS, APPEALS PENDING, UNITED STATES COURT OF
j APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT CASE NUMBERS 91-
5316, 92-5145 AND 95-4555.
CC: Walter J. Foeman, City Clerk
LB: W 009.doc
AK
• n`
1154 76 FEDERAL REPORTER, 3d SERIES
three referrals per month; Garcia averaged
slightly less than that over apprommately
fifteen months time. The $3000 payments
occurred at approximately two- to five -week
intervals. The evidence supports the district
court's finding that Garcia received payments
,,as long as both sides wanted to perform."
II Supp.App. doe. 223 at 4-.5. The district
court's conclusion that these periodic pay-
ments embodied separate bribes was not
clearly erroneous.
AFFIRMED.
William T. O'Neil, Covington & Burling,
Washington, DC, for amicus curiae.
Appeals from the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Florida.
Prior report: 40 F.3d 1155.
Before HATCHETT and ANDERSON,
Circuit Judges, and FAY, Senior Circuit
Judge.
INTERIM ORDER:
The panel heard oral argument in this case
@E:�
on January 24, 1996. After hearin oral
p g argument, the panel is of the opinion that
this case can be and should be settled.
The panel hereby refers this appeal to the
Eleventh Circuit Conference Attorney for
Michael POTTINGER, Peter Carter, settlement discussions, pursuant to Federal
Berry Young, Plaintiffs— Rule of Appellate Procedure 33 and Eleventh
Appellees, Circuit Rule 33-1.
V.
CITY OF ML4LMI, Defendant —Appellant.
Nos. 91-5316, 92--5145 and 954555.
United States Court of Appeals,
Eleventh Circuit.
Feb. 7, 1996.
A. Quinn Jones, City Atty., Leon M. Firtel,
Asst. City Atty., Kathryn S. Pecko, Theresa
L. Girten, Miami, FL, for appellant.
Kraig A_ Conn, Nancy Ann M. Stuparich,
Harry Morrison, Jr., Tallahassee, FL, for
amicus curiae Fla. League of Cities.
Thomas K. Braun, Becky S. James, Frieda
A. Taylor, O'Melveny & Myers, Los Angeles,
CA, for amicus curiae Nat'l Coalition for the
Homeless.
';. Benjamin S. Waxinan, ACLU of Florida,
Miami, FL, Jeffrey S. Weiner, Miami, FL,
Stephen J. Schnably, University of Miami
Law School, Coral Gables, FL, for appellees.
:1 Maria Foscarinis, Washington, DC, for
V.
amiews curiae National Law Center on
t Homelessness and Poverty.
The parties and their counsel are directed
to contact this court's Appellate Conference
Office not later than fifteen days from receipt
of this order to explore a resolution of their
differences.
Before settlement discussions, counsel for
the parties must consult with their clients
and obtain as much authority as feasible to
settle the appeal. Counsel and the parties
are expected to ?iscuss all issues in good
faith.
The conference attorney shall issue an or-
der as contemplated by Eleventh Circuit
Rule 33-1(d) or issue a report to the panel
not later than April 15, 1996.
w
p SKEYNUNBERSYMM
T
Beth I
cl
CITY 01
division
dan
B
Uri
Form
against e
harassmeE
claiming s
Both plait
law claim:
and again:
supervisioi
States DLS
trict of Flu
Highsmith
judgment
against cit
§ 1983 ciai
was entere
tiffs § 198:-
plaintiffs of
on their n,
tiffs appeal
Corot of A
that: (1) d.
neous in fi
perceive he
(2) that pla
offensivene:
satisfy test
harassment:
sufficiently .
ditions of e)
plaintiff; (4
liable for hE
ment:, absen
acting withi
creating ho: