HomeMy WebLinkAboutR-96-0007J-96-21
1/10/96
96-
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE DIRECTOR OF
FINANCE TO PAY RUVALCABA SERVICE CORPORATION
and JOVITA A. MARTINEZ, OWNER, THE SUM OF
$80,000.00, WITHOUT ANY ADMISSION OF
LIABILITY, IN FULL AND COMPLETE SETTLEMENT OF
ANY AND ALL CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AGAINST THE
CITY OF MIAMI IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF DADE
COUNTY, FLORIDA, CASE NO. 92-10873 CA (30);
ALLOCATING FUNDS THEREFOR FROM THE CITY OF
MIAMI SELF INSURANCE AND INSURANCE TRUST
FUND, INDEX CODE NO. 620103 -661 .
WHEREAS, on February 20, 1992, the City of Miami, through
its attorney, filed a claim and lawsuit against the Ruvalcaba
Service Corporation and Jovita A. Martinez, Owner, in the Circuit
Court of Dade County, Florida, Case No. 92-10873 CA (30), for
being in possession of currency which constituted proceeds from
illegal gambling devices and were, therefore, subject to
forfeiture pursuant to the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act; and
WHEREAS, at the time of seizure, 101 gambling machines were
additionally confiscated for being illegal gambling devices as
defined by Florida Statute 849.15 and 849.16, and forfeiture
proceedings were not initiated on same; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Ordinance No. 8417, the above claim and
lawsuit have been investigated by the Miami Police Department,
The Forfeiture Unit of the Miami Police Department and the City
Attorney's Office; and
CITY COMMISSION
MEETING_ OF
JAN 2 5 1996
Revolution No.
4-a- 17
V.,
J-96-21
1/10/96
9 6 -- '7
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE DIRECTOR OF
FINANCE TO PAY RUVALCABA SERVICE CORPORATION
and JOVITA A. MARTINEZ, OWNER, THE SUM OF
$80,000.00, WITHOUT ANY ADMISSION OF
LIABILITY, IN FULL AND COMPLETE SETTLEMENT OF
ANY AND ALL CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AGAINST THE
CITY OF MIAMI IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF DADE
COUNTY, FLORIDA, CASE NO. 92-10873 CA (30);
ALLOCATING FUNDS THEREFOR FROM THE CITY OF
MIAMI SELF INSURANCE AND INSURANCE TRUST
FUND, INDEX CODE NO. 620103 -661 .
WHEREAS, on February 20, 1992, the City of Miami, through
its attorney, filed a claim and lawsuit against the Ruvalcaba
Service Corporation and Jovita A. Martinez, Owner, in the Circuit
Court of Dade County, Florida, Case No. 92-10873 CA (30), for
being in possession of currency which constituted proceeds from
�ff illegal gambling devices and were, therefore, subject to
forfeiture pursuant to the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act; and
{ WHEREAS, at the time of seizure, 101 gambling machines were
1
additionally confiscated for being illegal gambling devices as
defined by Florida Statute 849.15 and 849.16, and forfeiture
proceedings were not initiated on same; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Ordinance No. 8417, the above claim and
lawsuit have been investigated by the Miami Police Department,
The Forfeiture Unit of the Miami Police Department and the City
Attorney's Office; and
CITY COMMISSION
MEETING OF
JAN 2 5 199E
Resolution No.
9 6 - 7
J-96-21
1/10/96
N
96-
RESOLUTION NO.
6
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE DIRECTOR OF
FINANCE TO PAY RUVALCABA SERVICE CORPORATION
and JOVITA A. MARTINEZ, OWNER, THE SUM OF
$80,000.00, WITHOUT ANY ADMISSION OF
LIABILITY, IN FULL AND COMPLETE SETTLEMENT OF
ANY AND ALL CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AGAINST THE
CITY OF MIAMI IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF DADE
COUNTY, FLORIDA, CASE NO. 92-10873 CA (30);
ALLOCATING FUNDS THEREFOR FROM THE CITY OF
MIAMI SELF INSURANCE AND INSURANCE TRUST
FUND, INDEX CODE NO. 620103-661.
WHEREAS, on February 20, 1992, the City of Miami, through
its attorney, filed a claim and lawsuit against the Ruvalcaba
Service Corporation and Jovita A. Martinez, Owner, in the Circuit
Court of Dade County, Florida, Case No. 92-10873 CA (30), for
being in possession of currency which constituted proceeds from
illegal gambling devices and were, therefore, subject to
forfeiture pursuant to the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act; and
WHEREAS, at the time of seizure, 101 gambling machines were
additionally confiscated for being illegal gambling devices as
defined by Florida Statute 849.15 and 849.16, and forfeiture
proceedings were not initiated on same; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Ordinance No. 8417, the above claim and
lawsuit have been investigated by the Miami Police Department,
The Forfeiture Unit of the Miami Police Department and the City
Attorney's Office; and
CITY COMMISSION
MEETING OF
JAN 2 5 1996
Resolution No.
9.6- 7
WHEREAS, said Offices recommend that the sum of $80,000.00
be paid without any admission of liability;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF MIAMI, FLORIDA:
Section 1. The recitals and findings contained in the
Preamble to this Resolution are hereby adopted by reference
thereto and incorporated herein as if fully set forth in this
Section.
Section 2. The Director of Finance is hereby authorized
to pay Ruvalcaba Service Corporation and Jovita Martinez, Owner,
the sum of $80,000.00, without any admission of liability, in
full and complete settlement of any and all claims and demands
against the City of Miami in the Circuit Court of Dade County,
Florida, Case No. 92-10873 CA (30), with funds therefor hereby
allocated from the City of Miami Self -Insurance and Insurance
Trust Fund, Index Code No. 620103-661.
Section 3. This Resolution shall become effective
immediately upon its adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 25th
ATTEST:
WALTER F
CITY CLERK
- 2 -
— day of January
1996.
&_ a- emaj
EPHEN P. CLARK, MAYOR
am
SELF-INSURANCE TRUST FUND REVIEW:
FRANK K..-ROLLASON, DEPUTY CHIEF
CHIEF OF RISK MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT
FINANCIA AND BUDGETARY REVIEW:
MANO SURANA
ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER
PREPARED AND APPROVED BY:
4�i-�c Sri
HAYD C./'INO
ASSI TANT CITY ATTORNEY
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CORRECTNESS:
7 /
A. NN 0 ES, III
CITY ATT EY
HCP/BSS/ d/W520
- 3 -
96"
13 CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA ',' '
INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM
_ Honorable Mayor and Members January 11, 1996 J-96-21
of the Cityom Commission DATE FiLE
I _
FROM A. Qu' J e , III
City Atto
Settlement: Case No. 92-10813 (CA 30)
SUBJECT: Ruvalcaba Service Corporation and
Jovita A. Martinez
REFERENCES: City Commission Agenda
January 25, 1996
ENCLOSURES: (2)
The attached proposed Resolution is submitted for Commission
consideration concerning the settlement for the above -referenced
case. The details of said case are set forth in the attached
Tort Memorandum.
This item has been submitted to the Agenda Coordinator for
placement on the January 25, 1996 City Commission Agenda.
W051:13SS
it
j
i
1:
96-
ALI-
96-
CITY OF MIAMI, FWRIDA
INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM
-o A. Quinn Jones, III, City Attorney ca-=- December 19, 1995 = L= F95-15
and Members of the Tort Committee
Sue;EC7 Forfeiture of $16,582.00 U.S. Currency
and 101 gambling machines
Circuit Court Case 92-10873 CA (30)
Haydee C. Pirc,.M� =E aE"c=s
Assistant City Attorney ENCLOSURES
I herewith request ratification of a settlement in the above captioned case in the amount
of $80,000.00.
On February 19, 1992, 101 gambling machines and Sixteen Thousand Five Hundred
Eighty-two Dollars and 00/100 ($16,582.00) in cash was seized from Ruvalcaba Corporation.
It was the City's position that the machines were illegal gambling devices as defined by Florida
Statute 849.15 and 849.16. It was also the City's position that the money constituted proceeds
from the illegal gambling devices and were, therefore, subject to forfeiture under Florida
Statutes 932.701-707.
On March 19, 1992, the State Attorney's Office entered an Order directing the City to
preserve all items of potential evidentiary value, i.e., the gambling machines. The City stored
the machines under the expressway for several years. Due to weather conditions, i.e.,
Hurricane Andrew, the machines were damaged.
On April, .1992, the Law Firm of Parenti, Falk, Waas & Frazier, P.A., outside counsel
for the Forfeiture Unit filed a forfeiture action, via Petition for Rule to Show Cause, seeking to
forfeit the $16,582.00 in U.S. Currency. Counsel for Ruvalcaba Corporation filed an
intervenor's complaint, (see attached Complaint) seeking the return of the 101 gambling
machines and/or damages for conversion. In their complaint, they alleged that the City of
Miami was under an Order by the State Attorney's Office to protect and preserve the property
and failed to do so.
An adversarial Preliminary Hearing was heard on the City's Petition. At said hearing, it
was determined that the $16,582.00 was not contraband and the City was ordered to.return said
currency, plus accrued interest at twelve (12%) percent and also reserved jurisdiction to award
attorney's fees to counsel.
4
t
f
A. Quinn Jones, III, City Attorney December 19, 1995
and Members of the Tort Committee Page 2
On April 19, 1995, a trial was held on the Intervenor's Complaint. The Court ruled in
favor of Ruvalcaba Corporation and found that there was no evidence that the gambling
machines were illegal. The court has reserved jurisdiction to determine any damages that may
i have been sustained to Ruvalcaba.
Ruvalcaba Corporation is claiming $139,170.00 in lost revenue, and $74,000.00 for
value of the 101 gambling machines. However, a representative from Ruvalcaba testified that
to the 101 gambling machines seized, approximately fifty (50%) percent were not working at
the time of the seizure. No testing was performed on the machines at the time of the seizure,
thereby precluding us from presenting evidence as to which of the machines were actually
contraband due to the fact that the machines deteriorated while in City's possession.
Ruvalcaba Corporation alleges that its total damages are $213,970.00 plus whatever
attorney's fees and costs might be awarded in this matter. Due to the current conditions of the
machines, it is difficult to determine how one would assess the value of said machines. Thus
without even assessing the exposure for attorney's fees or the claim of loss of revenue, the
value of this portion of the claim alone almost equals the settlement offer of $80,000.00
Based on the foregoing, it is respectfully submitted that a settlement in the amount of
$80,000.00 is in the best interest of the City.
It ID/DISAPPROVED $80,000.00
tll
A. Qui Jone , II
City Attorney
Charles C. Mays
Chief Assistant City Attorney
8 96-
f,.
A. Quinn Jones; III, City Attorney
and Members of the Tort Committee
V* en Bittner
sistant City Attorney
Leon M.:'Firtel
Assistant City Attorney
Christopher F. Kurtz r
Assistant City Attome
pl,
brvid Forestier, Jr.
Assistant City Atto
Theresa L. Girten
Assistant City Attorney
December 19, 1995
Page 3
Wit` ` L��� �- ��`�,` ��� .� � •:�
s
�W'
A. Quinn Jones, III, City 1..jrney
and Members of the Tort Committee
i
David Z. Stone
Assistant City Attorney
Reviewed as to Content and Proposal
r p,. Frank K. Rollason, Deputy Chief
Chief of Risk Management
HCP/kd
Jec�mber 19, 1995
Page 4
�� �1 � ,�-'� �•J , cam. r �C C�'1 ��!
I QCt 2 6 W
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE Y1,T:VFNTH JUDI
IN AND F•OR DAD). COU14TY, YI-OI:IDA
IN RE: FORFEITURE OF THE GE14ERAL JURISDICTIO14 DIVISIO14
FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PROPERTY:
CASE NO. 92-10873 CA 30
$16,582.00 in U.S. Currency.
1
INTERVENORIB COMPLAINT
RUVALCABA SERVICE CORPORATION as intervenor sues the City of
Miami and alleges:
1. This is an action for damages in excess of the minimum
jurisdictional limits of the Court.
2. Intervenor is the owner of certain items that will be set
forth hereinbelow.
3. The City of Miami, Florida, is an incorporated political
subdivision of the State of Florida which at all times material
maintained and operated a police department.
4. The subject property is as follows:
A. Cash;
B. Business records; and
C. Video gage machines
(See. "Return of Inventory" from the City of Miarni Police Department
i for a comprehensive list of the items; it is attached hereto as
Exhibit A .)
FACTS APPLICABLE TO.ALL COUNTS
5. On Thursday, the 20th day of -.February, 1992, the City of
I
Miami Police Department sei&-ed the subject property referred to in
1 Paragraph No. 4 above. -
f
j
11 V �,r [FFK ES 5T:%«EK 6-ZJK:?;r !SS SQUTh WAM 4'.'EKUE. PEN'HDUSE , ta..: <<OA�D► 7J!7� pos, . • :)�1 M ''_5 'p6,!'-`• `
li
a
6. Said seizure, way.. wrongful and an unlnwful taY.ing. No
violations -of law on thc, part of Povalcaba : ervic:c Corporation have
been proven.
7. In said seizure, Jovito Martinez was charged with a crime.
8. In the course of the proceedings against Martinez, the
Court entered an order to preserve the subject property (see
Exhibit B attached hereto).
9. Martinez was not found guilty, as he was placed in a
diversion program.
10. Ruvalcaba Service Corporation has made demand upon the
City of Miami for the return of its property..
11. The City of Miami has refused to return any of said
property.
COUNT I
CONVERSION - TREBLE DAMAGES
12. Ruvalcaba Service Corporation sues the City of Miami for
Conversion, realleges the allegations contained in Paragraph Nos.
1 through 11 hereinabove, and states as follows:
13. The City.of Miami is in possession of property belonging
to Ruvalcaba Service Corporation.
14. Said possession was secured through a search and seizure
that did not result in an adjud-ication of guilt against Ruvalcat-
Service Corporation.
15. The City of Miami is under court order to protect and
preserve the subject property.
16. Ruvalcaba Service Corporation has r;ade an appropriate f
E
- - t
_2_
i
12 1
96- 7 F
LAIA OFe.ZES OF S'-' +Ev M ZUKJF- 155 5^J'n M.A1.4..:c4JE ?ff:'nCJ5E .' AMI FLORIDA 33'?: i7?' 314.4331 Fk ,?75, 75P• t':5
T
demand for the return of its property; the City of Miami ha::
refused to -.comply with such.
17. The City of Miami has, no legal grounds for continuing its
possession of the subject property.
WHEREFORE, Ruvalcaba Service Corporation demands judgment
against the City of Miami for treble damages.
COUNT II
REPLEVIN
18. Ruvalcaba Service Corporation sues the City of Miami for
Replevin, realleges the allegations contained in Paragraph Nos. 1
through 11 hereinabove, and states as follows:
19. The City'of Miami is in possession of property belonging
to Ruvalcaba Service Corporation.
20. Said possession was secured through a search and seizure
1 that did not result in an adjudication of guilt against Ruvalcaba
i Service Corporation.
21. The City of Miami is under court order to protect and
j preserve the subject property. I
� f
i
22. Ruvalcaba Service Corporation has made an appropriate
demand for the return of its property; the City of Miami has
refused to comply with such.
23. The City of Miami has no legal grounds for continuing i zs
possession of'the subject property.
{ WHEREFORE, Ruvalcaba Service •Corporation demands that its
property be returned to it forthwith by the City of Miami and that
J
the City of Miami be held liable for all other damages afforda'lle
• 1
-3-
{ ry
g6_ ( 13
` lAW 1,1MC£S ✓< STQP,4EN M ZUKOFC 16$ SO.:Tti MAMI A'ANUE, PENTNOuSE i. WAV F.OFb:.• 3?':� Ins; 374•4311 FAA i3?5; ?c: •u
gw
�J
by law.
9OUNT,- IIX
CONS F.QUENTIAI,_ DAMAOFS
24. Puvalcaba Service Corporation sues the City of Miami for
consequential damages, realleges the allegations contained in
Paragraph Nos. 1 through 11 hereinabove, and states as follows:
25. The City of Miami is in possession of property belonging
to Ruvalcaba Service Corporation.
26. Said possession was secured through a search and seizure
that did not result in an adjudication of guilt against Ruvalcaba
Service Corporation.
27. The City of Miami is under court order to protect and
preserve the subject property.
28. Ruvalcaba Service Corporation has made an appropriate
demand for the return of its property; the City of Miami has
refused to comply with such.
-29. The City of Miami has no legal grounds for continuing its
possession of the subject property.
30. As a result of the wrongful procurement and possession of
the subject property by the City of Miami, Ruvalcaba Service
Corporation has lost revenue it otherwise would have earned from
the operation of the machines.
WHEREFORE, Ruvalcaba Service Corporation demands judgment for
consequential damages against the City of Miami.
14 LA%% o"ICES OF STEP-i M ZJKDFF 155 SJCT, M14Mi AVENJE. PENTHOUSE if Mi. FLMDA 3.13: OM 3'4•4331 Vwc 735; 35B +?55
9 6 '7
�OUNT�Y
F-L. _€ 57-t I Q �_ .D&RhgU
31- kuvalcaba Sorvicc Corporation sues tho City of Miami for
F.S. §57.105 damage--, re a 1 11 c, r3 c� c the allegations contained in
Paragraph Nos. 1 through 11 hereinabove, and states as follows:
32. There is no basis in law or fact for the City of Miami to
allege that the subject property is in violation of State statute.
33. Similarly, there was no legal basis for the City of Miami
to seize the subject property, and there is no such basis for its
continued possession of said property.
WHEREFORE, Ruvalcaba Service Corporation demands damages from .
the City of Miami pursuant to F.S. §57.105.
Respectfully submitted,
CF FiCE OF S T EFHEN 414. Zt:r::r'F
Attorney for Intervenor
155 South Miami Avenue, PH I
Miami, Florida 33130
305/374-4331
Florida Bar No. 177061
i
i
BY:
�KOFF
an -
MICHAEL A. LEVIN, ESQUIRE
Attorney for Intervenor
2750 Douglas Road, Suite 300
Coral Gables, Florida 33133
305/441-1950
i
— 5 —
LA. ?MCES OG STEPMEN M. ZVKOFF 155 S. vTl+ M;Arl: AVENUE PEI,T-:_,SE I. MLAMI, F !^ , M; 7a.� i • F ; ,c 2ct"Sc
_ LOFi ..�A ] ] t ]., 7�.. ] ]. tic ]. ' S
15
9 6 - 7
RT I CAFE QF -9zByI CE
I iIL1tF:isY CL••J<7•li•'Y th,�t a cc,py of tt,c foregoing was hz,nd
dc,l iverrd to Norman M. H, iar L•EE,Juirc, Ilai•enti, Falk & Waac:,
Courthouse Tower, Suite 1180, 44 West Flagler Street, Miami,
Florida 33130, this C1 day of ��a=-�--- 1992.
STE E14 M KOFF
• i
i
i
f
y
1
t
1(
E
(
t
.. I
i
_6_ t
16 _ar. =F•• _S Oc M. Z.:':'IF F +55 SO *m N.LL k AOENVE PEN'- 5= MJ.M( F:OFIDA 33130 (3351 >>t•4»> FAUc PM, 366
96-� '7
Y
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 11TH
JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR DADE
COUNTY, FLORIDA
GENERAL JURISDICTION DIVISION
CASE NO.: 92-10873 CA 30
FLORIDA BAR NO.: 614432
IN RE: &
FORFEITURE OF THE FOLLOWING
DESCRIBED PROPERTY:
*
$16,582.00 in U.S. Currency.
*
ANSWER and AMENDED MOTION TO DISMISS
The Petitioner, CITY OF MIAMI, by and through its undersigned
attorneys files this Answer and Amended Motion to Dismiss the
Intervenor's Complaint herein and states as follows:
ANSWER
A. PREAMBLE PARAGRAPHS
1. The CITY OF MIAMI lacks sufficient knowledge within which
to answer paragraphs 1 and 2 and, therefore, denies same.
2. Paragraphs 3 and 5 are admitted.
3. Each and every allegation of paragraphs 1 through 11 not
heretofore admitted is specifically denied and strict proof is
demanded thereof.
i
B . COUNT 11
I
4. As to Count II of the Intervenor's Complaint (replevin),
the CITY OF MIAMI denies paragraphs 18, 22 and 23 of the Complaint.*
5. It is admitted that the CITY OF MIAMI is under Court
Order to protect and preserve the subject property.
4
6. Each and every allegation of Count II not heretofore
96- 7
21
admitted is specifically denied and strict proof is demanded
1 thereof.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
1. At all times material hereto, the Intervenor has failed
to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted.
2. At all times material hereto, the Intervenor has failed
to comply with Florida Statute 5768.28, which is a condition
precedent to this action and, accordingly, this action is barred.
3. At all times material hereto, the property seized
constitutes contraband under the Florida law and, therefore, is not
the proper subject of a replevin action.
AMENDED MOTION TO DISMISS
The CITY OF MIAMI readapts and realleges its Motion to Dismiss
as filed on February 4, 1993 as if more fully set forth herein and
further states as follows:
1. Counts I and III of the Intervenor's Complaint fail to
state a cause of action upon which relief can -be granted.
2. The Intervenor has failed to allege compliance with
Florida statute 5768.28 which is a condition precedent to this,
action and, accordingly, this action is barred.
3. There is no basis in law for the Intervenor to claim
treble damages for an action involving conversion and, as such,
this claim ought to be stricken.
4. There is no cause of action in Florida law known as
"consequential damages" and, as suEh, this claim ought to be
stricken.
S. There is no cause of action for Florida Statute S57.105
96-- i
:-J
damages. Further, there is no basis in law for the recovery of
attorney's fees against the CITY OF MIAMI and, as such, this action
is barred.
WE HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the
foregoing was mailed this day of May, 1993 to: STEPEEN
ZUROFF, ESQUIRE, Attorney for Claimant, 155 South Miami Avenue,
Penthouse 1, Miami, Florida 33130 and MICHAEL LE'VIN, ESQUIRE,
Attorney for Martinez, 2780 Douglas Road, Coral Gables, Florida
33134.
PARENTI, FALK, WAAS & FRAZIER, P.A.
Attorneys for Petitioner
113 Almeria Avenue
Coral Gables, Florida 33134
(305) 447-6500
BY)
_L�Ocoo -
Norman M. Waas
i
C-3
f
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 11TH
JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR DADE
COUNTY, FLORIDA
GENERAL JURISDICTION DIVISION
CASE NO.:
FLORIDA BAR NO.: 614432
IN RE:
FORFEITURE OF THE FOLLOWING
DESCRIBED PROPERTY:
$16,582.00 in U.S. Currency.
PETITION FOR RULE TO SHOW CAUSE
The Petitioner, CITY OF MIAMI, by and through its undersigned
counsel, petitions this Honorable Court for a rule to show cause
why the following items, to -wit: $16,582.00 in U.S. Currency,
should not be forfeited for the use of or sold by CITY OF MIAMI
under the authority of the Statutes of Florida authorizing the
forfeiture of property used, or attempted to be used, in violation
of provisions of the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act, Sections
932.701 through 932.704, Florida Statutes (1991) and shows this
Honorable Court as follows: "
1. This Honorable Court has jurisdiction pursuant to Florida
Statute, Section 932.701, et seq., (Florida Statutes 1991).
2. That on or about February 20, 1992, Officers of CITY OF
MIAMI seized the aforementioned property from JOVITO A. MARTINEZ
J
and that on or about February 20, 1992, JOVITO A. MARTINEZ, knew. or
should have known that said property was being used in violation of
the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act.
f
4. Attached hereto.and marked as Exhibit "A" is a true and
I
20
PARENTI, FALK 8 WAAS, ATTORNEYS AT LAW -
SUITE It50 COURTHOUSE TOWER, 44 WEST FLAGLER STREET, MIAMI. FLORIDA 33130 TELEPHON.E (305) 358.7799
96- I
�. • yam. �, t
correct copy of the police report concerning this matter.
5._.Preliminary notices were mailed to JOVITO A. MARTINEZ on
April 22, 1991, copies of said letters and return receipts are
attached hereto and marked as Exhibit "B".
5. Further, pursuant to the Florida Contraband Forfeiture
Act, a notice was published in The Miami Review. A copy of said
notice is attached hereto and marked as Exhibit "C".
WHEREFORE, the Petitioner moves this Honorable Court to enter
its Rule to Show Cause directed to JOVITO A. MARTINEZ, to show
cause why the aforementioned property should not be forfeited for
the use of or sold by CITY OF MIAMI and to serve a copy of any and
all pleadings upon the attorney for CITY OF MIAMI to the attention
of NORMAN M: WAAS, ESQUIRE, Parenti, Falk & Waas, P.A., 44 West
V1--I-- 04----4- Q..:4.... 11iA m_.._— .e!___—1---- 3_ -•n. --
a
STATE OF FLORIDA )
} ss:
COUNTY OF DADE )
BEFOM ME, the undersigned authority, personally appeared
OFFICER R. CHANG-MUY, and after first being duly sworn, deposes and
states that the police report attached to the Petition for Rule to
Show Cause is a true and correct representation of what occurred.
FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NOT.
OFC.
OFFICER R. C G-
Signed and sworn to (or affirmed) before me on
by (r• - He%she is personally known to me or
c .
NOTARY PUHLI to f Florid
Commission N 2�
a
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 11TH
JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR DADE
COUNTY, FLORIDA
GENERAL JURISDICTION DIVISION
CASE NO.: 92-10873 CA 30
I IN RE:
FORFEITURE OF THE FOLLOWING
DESCRIBED PROPERTY:
$16,582.00 in U.S. Currency.
ORDER ON CITY OF MIAMI'S MOTION TO DISMISS
THIS CAUSE having come on before the Court on Tuesday, May 11,
j q;;2 the C I'_ 1 OF Ti7.W-i'E I:CL •C`" to Dismiss the intervenor s
Complaint and the Court having heard a*rgument of counsel and being
otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is hereby:
ORDERED and nuJuDGED as follows:
1. Counts III and IV of the Intervenor's Complaint be and
the same are hereby stricken.
I
2. The Motion to Dismiss as to paragraph 1 is denied insofar
.
as this Court has. construed this to be a cause of action for
conversion. However, since it is a cause of action for conversion,
the Clain:, for tf eYsl a d alr.aces be and the same are hereby s=r1C}:c
f
3. The trial of this natter will be on the Intervenors
claims for conversion and replevin.
i
f ,
4. The CITY OF 2•ilTyhiI shall file their Answer to the
Commplaint within ten (10) days cf t-he date of this Order.
f i
t
23 916- 7 }
I
x
Case No.: 92-10873 CA 30
Order on Motion to Dismiss
Page Two
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Dade County, Florida
this day of , 1993.
JUDGE, CIRCUIT COURT
Copies furnished to:
Stephen M. 2ukoff, Esquire
Michael Levin, Esquire
Norman M. Waas, Esquire