Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem #77 - Discussion Item004 CITr OR MfAMI. RL,pR/pA 100 INTSM-OPWICE MI MOAANONM TO Cesar E. Odio, City Manager Att: Aurelio Peres-Lugones `ROM' Lu a ug rty CS y At rorne OATS March 29, 1988 Alt sut.tcT City Commission Meeting Agenda, April 14, 1988 RtrcRt"�:•: 1987 Annual Report to the City Commission by the ENCLOSUR[t. City Attorney (1) My annual report to the City Commission for 1987 is enolosed for plaoement on the next City Commission Agenda. LAD:RFC:bse:P524 /00 -1 CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM TO Honorable Mayor and Members DATE March 25, 1988 oILE of the City Commission SUBJECT 1987 Annual Report to the City Commission by the City Attorney FROM Lucia A. Dougherty REFERENCES City Attorney ENCLOSURES I. Cases Disposed by Judicial Determination The attached list of cases comprises all the cases that have been concluded by trial or by judicial determination. Previously, you have been advised of all cases in which a settlement has been made over $4,500.00. You will note that this list contains 77 cases. All but 5 were decided in favor of the City. The City paid a total of Sixty -Five Thousand Three Hundred Twenty -Seven Dollars ($65,327.00) as the result of jury vosreliotR in these 5 cases. The City prevailed in 9jury trials in which no money was awarded to the plaintiff. II. Collection and Forfeitures The aggressive collection and forfeiture procedures implemented by this office in concert with the administration have resulted in the collection of the following sums: 125,000 delinquent solid waste liens. 22,000 occupational licenses collected through code enforcement board. 4,205 liens collected as a result of eminent domain actions. 141,800 judgments and awards for liens or bad checks. 734,500 demand letter procedure for delinquent bills. 25,000 legal fees for bond issues. 449,200 forfeited cash. 350_1,00_0 recovery from State Disability Fund. 1,851,705 III. Code Enforcement Prosecution In the past violators before Administrative fee $4,915.00. Pines in Certificate of Use year, the s have this office has City's Code been collected excess of $4,800 have prosecutions have prosecuted over 500 Enforcement Board. in the amount of been collected and netted $1,030.00. 2 E ak Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Commission March 25, 1988 Page 2 Additionally, we have increased the 6% interest rate for liens to the statutory 12%. IV. Other Revenue Matters This office has filed its first special assessment lien foreclosure case in which the City stands to collect in excess of $190,000.00. V. Eminent Domain This office prepared the documents and closed on the Sibley Marina property, the Little Havana Police Substation and is working on the Golden Arms acquisition. VI. Contracts This office has prepared or reviewed 725 contracts and 125 use agreements. Among the most significant of such contracts which have been executed or are under present consideration are: 1. The Japanese Gardens grant. 2. The MCA construction contract. 3. The Dinner Key Boat Yard Lease. 4. The Freedom Tower loan. S. The Coconut Grove Playhouse renovation. 6. The $658,171 Knight Foundation Grant for the laser light at Bayfront Park. 7. The Port Boulevard Bridge Agreement. 8. The renovation of the Olympia Building. 9. The Overtown Park West Development Agreements. 10. The Parking Agreements for the arena area. VIZ. Ordinances and Resolutions This office prepared or reviewed 1,118 pieces of legislation in the form of ordinances and resolutions. Some of the more significant have been: 3 0 06 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Commission March 25, 1988 Page 3 1. The DRI's for Downtown and Overtown Park West. 2. The Impact Fee ordinance. 3. The Telecommunications ordinance which is projected to return 2,000,000 in new reviews to the City. 4. The occupational license tax ordinance. S. Bayfront Park trust ordinance. VIII. Claims Division On January 1, 1987 this office assumed the responsibility for the management and administration of the claims handling function of the Self Insured Program of the City. This has resulted in increased productivity, professionalism and a savings to the City. IX. Municipal Practice Clinic Program Law students from the University of Miami Law School, Nova University and St. Thomas Schools of Law have participated in this Program in which the students work for the City for free and receive school credit. During 1987, 16 students participated in the Program. The City of Miami is the first City to implement this Program in the State of Florida. X. Professional Accomplishments 1. Assistant City Attorney G. Miriam Maer is a Member of the Board of Directors of the Local Chapter of the South Florida Planning and Zoning Association. She co- chaired the statewide FPZA conference in Miami in October 1987. 2. Assistant City Attorneys Rafael E. Suarez -Rivas and G. Miriam Maer are co-editors of the Dade Bar Bulletin. 3. Deputy City Attorney John J. Copelan, Jr. was the recipient of the Ralph Marsicano Award of the Local Government Law Section of the Florida Bar and the National Institute Municipal Law Officers Award for Assistant Municipal Attorney. 4. Assistant City Attorney Judith Secher is the Chairperson of the Florida Association of Chiefs of Police. q rt 0 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Commission March ZS, 1988 Page 4 S. Assistant City Attorney Martha D. Fornaris is a member of the board of Directors of the Cuban American Bar Association. S. Chief Deputy City Attorney Robert F. Clark is a member of the Board of Directors of the Dade County Bar Association. 7. City Attorney Lucia A. Dougherty was the recipient of the Florida Municipal Attorney's Association Municipal Attorney of the Year Award. LAD/wpc/pb/ebg/P004 5 ;y LIST OF CASES DISPOSED By JUDICIAL DETERMINATION L 1. ALBS Bt12i fliB[i CIDfTER8 va . City of Miami; Case No. 85-08508 (26); L-88-035 (AV) Foreolosure, Judgment and sale of the Overtown Shopping Center (property owned by the City of Miami); lower Court set aside the judgment and sale; Third District Court of Appeals affirmed the lower Court. Pur Curiam Affirmed without opinion. The 3d DCA upheld the lower court's ruling in the City's favor. 2. ALLAPATTAR COMM ITY ASSnrTATION vs. City of Miami; Case No. 88-23157 (05) •87-018 (AV) Plaintiff attempted to assert a cause of action against the City of Miami to pay for Plaintiff's attorney's fees expended in attempting to get the City to enforce certain zoning ordinance provisions. Lower Court dismissed for failure to state a cause of action. 3. Jerry A. ANDJ=QN vs. City of Miami; Case No. 88-06952; L-88-011 (RLA) Plaintiff alleged that monies belonging to him were illegally kept Prom him by the City of Miami. Dismissal of the action sought by the City and granted by the Court. 4. Jerry B = . et al. vs. City of Miami_ et al.; Case No. 82-23696 (16); L-82-163 (CCM) The plaintiff, a Metro -Dade police officer sustained permanent injury to his back as a result of stepping into a hole in a city sidewalk. Mr. Bell claimed that the City negligently maintained the sidewalk because of the uncovered hole. The evidence showed that the hole had existed for several months. His wife sued for loss of consortium. In July 1987 Order Taxing Costs of $500.00 in favor of City of Miami was entered, as a result of a Jury verdict in favor of City of Miami. 5. David Sandra BETANCOQRT vs. City of Miami; Case No. 86-40558 (15); L-86-173 (JLF) On June 1988, plaintiff (City employee) filed a lawsuit, Case No. 86-20338 (07) against Equitable claiming that his third wife was hospitalized under the City's plan administered by Equitable. However, when Equitable received the medical claims, the same were denied. Plaintiffs alleged that the City was responsible for all medioal bills since Equitable was an agent of the City. Dade and Broward County Court files were reviewed for a copy of -2- 7 0 the Betanoourt's marriage license. However, no record was found as to their marital status. After this information was communicated to plaintiffs' attorney they filed a notice of voluntary dismissal. On September 1986. Plaintiffs filed a new lawsuit, naming the City of Miami as defendants, alleging the same as above. Discovery never matured. On November 10, 1987, an Order Dismissing with prejudice to the Plaintiffs, with each party bearing their own costs was entered by the Court. 6, iQhard BRTTBQ vs. City of Miami; Case No. 85-46305 (27); L-86-049 (LMF) This case involved an arrest for disorderly conduct at the Orange Bowl. The City was granted summary judgment and the plaintiff appealed. On appeal, the Third District Court affirmed the entry of summary judgment. 7. Barbara Boney vs. City of Miami; Case No. 83-3180 (RYSKAMP); L-84-009 (CCM) The plaintiff filed suit in federal court for employment discrimination. She claimed that she was denied promotion opportunities and continued employment because of racial and sesx discrimination. She sought reinstatement, back wages and other damages. An Order of Dismissal was entered in favor of the City of Miami arising out of federal civil rights claim. 8. William G . BDR1[SISTER vs. City of Miami, et al . ; Case No. 86-10323 (19); L-86-050 (ABS) On September 8, 1987, the City won an appeal in this lawsuit filed by William G. Burmeister alleging violation of civil rights and of Chapter 295 of the Florida Statutes. Burmeister was discharged from the United States Army in 1965 and began employment with the City of Miami in 1986. Burmeister's employment with the City was never interrupted for active military service, and he is currently employed as a Lieutenant in the City of Miami Fire Department. Burmeister took and passed promotional examinations for the rank of Fire Captain in 1979, 1981 and 1983. and on those occasions he requested that veterans' preference points be added to his exam soores pursuant to Chapter 295, Florida Statutes (1979). The City declined to add the points. Burmeister has not had veterans' preference points added to any exam soore during his employment with the City. Prior to 1978, Section 295.09 provided that the preference points would be awarded only to certain veterans who had worked for a municipality prior to their military service and had been reemployed or reinstated. In 1978, however, the statute was amended, effective June 20, 1978, to read: "This provision shall -3- apply only to such person's first promotion after employment, reinstatement or reemployment." Section 295.09, F1a.Stat. (1979). After the new law became effective, the City's position was that employees such as Burmeister, who were initially employed after their military service and received a promotion prior to the 1978 amendment to the statute, were not entitled to preference points after their first promotion. In actions brought by other City employees in this situation, however, the courts held that the City was required to give the preferential points to such employees even though they had had prior promotions. After those court interpretations, the statute was amended again in 1980 to provide as it does now that the preference points "shall apply only to a veteran's first promotion after reinstatement or reemployment, without exception." Section 295.09(i)(c), F1a.Stat. (1985). This amendment, which deleted the word "employment" and added the phrase "without exception", became effective July 5, 1980. Burmeister claimed that, since the points he was entitled to in 1979 were not given to him. his requests for the opportunity to use them on the 1981 and 1983 exams should have been granted. On October 10, 1985, Burmeister presented his argument to the Civil Service Board. The Board determined by a unanimous vote that Burmeister should have been awarded the preference points to be applied to the 1981 exam. However, the City Manager rejected the Board's interpretation of the new law and the recommendation of the Board. Burmeister then brought this action. After a hearing on motions for summary judgment filed by both parties, the trial court entered judgment for Burmeister and directed that he be promoted to the rank of Fire Captain retroactive to the date he would have been promoted if his 1981 exam had been augmented by the preference points. Pursuant to the City's appeal, the Third District Court of Appeal reversed the judgment and directed the trial court to enter summary judgment for the City of Miami based on the following reasons. Section 295.09(1)(c), Florida Statutes (1985), is a clear expression of the legislative intent to award veterans' preference points only to veterans who have been reinstated or reemployed. Applying the unambiguous language of the statute, Burmeister, who was not employed by the City until after his service in the Armed Forces, was not entitled to have points added to any exam taken after the current statute became effective in 1980. The Court also ruled that Burmeister's argument that he had a "vested" interest in the preference points not used in 1979 and that he could therefore use the points in 1981 was without merit and specifically agreed with the City's position that the plain language of the 1980 amendment contains no provision for the vesting of rights to preference points. Therefore the Court -4- C reasoned that Burmeister could not rely on earlier statutes as creating vested entitlements to preference points for use on any examination taken after July 5, 1980. After the case was remanded to Circuit Court, an order entering summary judgment for the City was issued. The City also won summary judgments in two other cases involving similar facts- Rice v. City and Reisman v. City. The Supreme Court of Florida denied Burmeister's petition for review. 9. in Re Casino Villas_ Inc.; Bankruptcy Case No. 84-00286-BKC-SUK (ALF) City received a check for $9,719.04 - full payment on our claim. Generally, in bankruptcy oases, the claimant only receives 10 cents to the $1.00, and we received 100 percent. 10. $afeala and Candido CRJAS vs. City of Miami; Case No. 86-51138 (20); L-87-039 (CCU) An Order of Dismissal was entered in favor of City of Miami arising out of an automobile negligence. 11. $laine COMM vs. Citz of Miami; Case No. 85-27459 (13); L-85-091 (CCU) Summary Judgment in favor of City of Miami arising out of false arrest claim was granted in April 1987. Affirmed by DCA in October 1987. 12. vs. City of Miami. et al; Case No. 86-27683 (12); L-86-110 (CCU) In March 1987 Summary Judgment was granted in favor of City of Miami arising out of a premises liability claim. •• ;y ;0:4;y �: - • City's Motion to dismiss for Lack of Prosecution granted. 14. Stephen and Margi COOPER vs. City, of Miami; 88-11417 (12); L-86-054 (RLA) Summary Judgment entered in favor of the City. Plaintiffs filed a claims bill through Representative Elaine Gordon, seeking an -5- �0 amount in excess of $10,000.00. Claims bill argued before hearing officer and House committee. Plaintiffs' claims bill was denied. 15. nnpj-aED ELECTRIC vs Bomin Contracting. City of Miami; Case No. 85-446882 (30); L-86-094 (CCM) Alleged public records violations by Housing Agency. Case dismissed with prejudice 16. ('h&r7 aa CORNETT vs. City of Miami: Case No. 79-453 (22); L-86-085 (AV) Police shooting leaving the plaintiff wheelchair bound. Claims made by plaintiff pursuant to Section 1983, excessive use of force, improper training. Jury verdict in favor of City. 17. City of Miami vs . DADE Hffi.TCOP=_ INC.; Case No. 85-21415; L-88-006; City of Miami vs. BLLBN GILMOR �Ibla SMYLARM HELICOPTER; Case No. 85-5304; L-86-002;s City of Miami vs. TROPICAL HELICOPTER; Case No. 85-21453; L-86-007;s Ciitt-v of Miami vs. MIAMI HELICOPTBR SERVICE, INC.; Case No. 85-53042; L-86-003s (AV) Each defendant maintained leases on Watson Island. In order to secure the leased area for future use by the City, each were evicted and their respective leases were terminated without payment of any money for termination of their respective leasehold interests. Judgments entered in favor of the City for the eviction of each of the defendant in separate cases. Subrogation action by insurance company and action for damages by third party plaintiff. Selig, against the City as a result of a motor vehicle accident involving a City vehicle. City's Motion to Dismiss granted by the Court. 19. Talakkottur R. DAVID vs. City of Miami, et al.; (ABS) On September 30, 1987, a federal judge issued a summary judgment in favor of the City in this lawsuit filed by a job applicant in 1983. In Count I of his Complaint, brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000(e), at &M., the plaintiff alleged that he was not hired by the City for cum various secretarial positions because of his gender, race, color and national origin. Count II of the complaint alleged that the City had violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 29 'U.S.C. Seotion621, r& M. In issuing the summary judgment, the Court ruled that the defendants indisputably had articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason why plaintiff was rejected as to each position for which he was qualified. The Court also said that the City need not prove that any qualified person who was hired for these positions was more qualified than the plaintiff. 20. Tresses DBA1[ vs . City of Miami; Case No. 86-38984 0 7); L-87-007 (AV) Plaintiff alleged that the Community Development Department recommended a contractor in connection with a home rehabilitation loan. The work was done in an unworkmanlike fashion. Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed her complaint against the City. 21. TTB vs. Citg of Miami; Case No. 87-0817 (17); L-87-041 (RLA) Plaintiff alleged that he suffered physical injuries and monetary damages as a result of a train colliding with the car vhich he was driving. Plaintiff alleged that the City failed to remove debris, adjacent to railroad tracks, which obstructed his view of the oncoming train. City filed its Motion for Summary Judgment and Plaintiff filed his Notice of Voluntary Dismissal on the eve of Summary Judgement Motion hearing. 22. John_ !! S s n DIIMM vs. Seaboard Seaboard System Railroad. et al; Case No. 84-00169 (09); L-88-88 (JLF) This case involves a plaintiff who was riding on a motorcycle travelling south on Northwest loth Avenue and who made a right hand turn onto Northwest 22nd Street. This involved over a railroad track. The wheel of the motorcycle, in which the plaintiff allegedly was driving, was caught in the space between the railroad track and the pavement, which threw plaintiff from the motorcycle onto the roadway. Plaintiff alleged that Seaboard was negligent in that an excessive amount of deterioration of the road surface was allowed to occur, which caused an increase in the distance between the edge of the rail and the edge of the pavement. In turn Seaboard System Railroad enjoined the City in this lawsuit, and alleged 1) that the City was negligent in its failure to pave the roadway which would have prevented or diminished the space between the rail and the pavement; and 2) -7- /I the City was negligent in its failure to maintain the roadway which would have prevented deterioration and the enlargement of the space between the rail and the pavement. On July 23, 1986, the City of Miami filed a Motion for Summary Judgment in which it showed that the City had no duty of care to plaintiffs, pursuant to Section 1 of Resolution No. 2927 passed and adopted on August 30, 1928, in which the City authorized Seaboard System Railroad, Inc. to ". construct, operate and mal la= a line or lines of standard gauge railway. . across the abovementioned street. This same duty to maintain the trackage was acknowledged by Seaboard on January 29, 1985. On March 31, 1987, the City's Motion for Summary Judgment was granted. 23. Ma3orie Stoneman DOUGLAS vs. City of Miami; Case No. 85-214; L-85-043; (JEM) This case involved an appeal of the City Commission Resolution which allowed developers of a proposed massive project on a tract of land known as "Commodore Plaza" in the Coconut Grove area to come back before the City Commission for a requested zoning change prior to expiration of a mandatory "cooling off period". The City vigorously pursued the defense of the City Commission's action and the Plaintiff eventr.aily A:greeA to dicmi.ss the action proper to the Court's decision. 24. State of Florida. eta. vs. DOIINTONN H. INC.; Case No. 86-37242; L-88-151 (LMF) This is a pornography case. By stipulation, the Court entered a permanent injunction including a finding of obscenity and awarded costs to the City. 25. Richard FABIAN vs. City of Miami; Case No. 86-50125 (15); Case No. 87-18028 (15); L-87-188 (AV) Plaintiff alleged Section 1983 claim, false arrest, excessive use of force, police brutality. Case was dismissed on statute of limitation. Pur Curiam Affirmed without opinion. 26. Ray. FAUNTROY vs. City of Miami, et al.; Case No. 86-1101 (KEHOE); L-86-091 (CCM) Plaintiff and other peace activists were issued a permit by the City to stage a publio demonstration against military aid to the Nicaraguan contras. Subsequent to the issuance of the permit the City issued a permit to Alpha 66, a Cuban -exile group, to stage a -8- I3 I 0 oounter-demonstration approximately 60 feet away from the plaintiff and his group. The Plaintiff and his group were assaulted and physically attacked by some violent members of the Alpha 66 group. Plaintiff sued the City and several of its officials under various federal civil rights statutes contending that they were negligent or otherwise responsible for the violation of their First Amendment rights. The jury returned a verdict for the defendants. 27. Jose FSRNANDSZ vs. City of Miami; Case No. 81-4123 (01); L-81-032 (LMF) This case involved an alleged claim of excessive use of force by City of Miami police officers. The case was tried to a jury by outside counsel and a verdict was rendered for negligence against the City for $250,000.00 and also against the police officer for punitive damages. The City paid $50.000.00 based upon the existing "state law cap" under Section 768.28, Fla. State.. and the matter was concluded after certain Court determinations were made, including the Court's dismissal of plaintiff's 1983 cause of action. 28. tins FERNANDEZ vs. Clarence Dickson et Ai,; Case No. 85-3601 (DAVIS); L-85-150 (ABS) On July 8, 1987, a federal judge issued a summary judgment in favor of the City and two police officials dismissing this lawsuit that had been filed by a police officer who was relieved of duty with pay. The Court ruled that relief of duty is not a punishment or sanction and thus, defendants' failure to provide the procedural protections afforded by the Civil Service Rules did not unconstitutionally deprive the plaintiff of a property interest protected by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The City and Chief Dickson were represented by the City. A police official named as a defendant in his individual capacity was represented by outside counsel. 29. FIRST NATIONVID$ BANK vs. City of Miami; Court Case No. 88-30838 (CA 06); 87-37990 (CA 05) L-87-138; (ALF) First Nationwide sought a temporary injunction to prohibit the City from demolishing the property located at 4400 Sabal Palm Road. The Circuit denied the temporary injunction but granted a stay of the demolition to afford First Nationwide an opportunity to seek review of the denial of the temporary injunction. First Nationwide appealed the Circuit Court's decision. The City filed a Response to First Nationwide's Motion to Stay in the Third Iq 40 olk Distriot Court of Appeal and prevailed. The City had the property demolished. 30. Charles T. PL�[2NGys. CitT of Miami and AnMA 7 &M71; Case No. 86-0671 (10); L-86-039 (ABS) On May 20, 1987, the Court granted a partial summary judgment in this case. On that same date, plaintiff's motion for summary judgment- was denied. Plaintiff, a City of Miami police officer filed this lawsuit alleging in Count I that the City and Angela Bellamy violated State law in failing to promote him to Sergeant; in Count II that the City violated his civil rights under Title 42, Section 1983 of the United States Code and under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution; and in Count III that Angela Bellamy should be ordered to forfeit her position as Personnel Director based on the alleged violation of State law. The Court dismissed Count III pursuant to the City's motion for summary judgment and plaintiff voluntarily dismissed Count II in open court. The parties will go to trial on Count I. 31. State of Florida _ etc . vs FLORIDA LITERARY DISTRIBDTING CORP d/b/A RICB'S MSwSTAND; Case No. 84-7539 (04); L-84-166 (LMF) This is a pornography case. After trial. the Court entered an Order granting the injunction and finding the materials obscene. Plaintiff appealed; but the appeal was dismissed by Stipulation of the parties. 32. State of Florida_ eta. vs. FLORIDA LITEMARY DISTRiRUTrur; Case No. 83-25330/84-36075/84-43049/87-11426 L-83-125/L-84-145/L-84-166/L-87-055 (LMF) These are pornography cases. By stipulation the Court entered a permanent injunction including a finding of obscenity and awarded costs to the City. 33. Blaine LASS vs. City ogMj,&ml; 86-28357 (05); L-86-135 (RLA) Plaintiff alleged that she had suffered physical injuries and monetary damages as a result of a City owned tree (Royal Palm) falling onto the windshield of the car which she was driving. Plaintiff is a left handed stenographer and suffered injury to her left hand. Summary Judgment entered in favor of the City. -10- 15 �1 P 34. ; 87-1728 (30); L-87-029 (RLA Plaintiff alleged that she had suffered physical injuries and monetary damages as a result of a trip and fall accident which occurred while she was crossing a City street. Summary Judgment entered in favor of the City. 35. John (CCM) GAY vs. City of Miami. at al.; In October 1987 Summary Judgment in favor of City of Miami was entered, arising out of premises liability claim. 36. Tony GONs GONZALEZ vs. City of Mi mi; Case No. 85-46960; L-85-147 (JLF) Plaintiffs alleged that the City of Miami police officers entered their apartment without provocation, and negligently and carelessly assaulted them by hitting, striking and abusing them. Plaintiffs also claimed that their personal property was damaged and destroyed. Not much activity oo0++rr0A- jr *h i +s City was served with the summons and complaint on November 18, 1985. The City filed a Motion to Dismiss on December 11, 1985. Plaintiffs noticed said motion for hearing several times, however, same were oanoelled. The last action taken on this case was October 27, 1986 when the City filed it's Answer and Affirmative Defense. Since that time no action had taken place by either party or the Court. The City filed its Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Prosecute and City's Memorandum of Law in Support thereof. On November 10, 1987 said hearing was held and on November 30. 1987 an Order Granting Defendant's, City of Miami. Motion to Dismiss for failure to prosecute and final judgment was entered by the Court. 37. Andrew HAIL vs. City of Miami; Case No. 85-29798 (12); L-85-098 (RSR) Dismissal of declaratory judgment injunction action against City for violations of "Matson Island Development Laws" and City Charter dismissed with prejudice. -11- /b /"\ 40 38. City of Miami vs_ I f 8 Store Fixtures; (RSA) Eviotion/damages cases against Southeast Overtown Park West business which would not leave the premises settlement results in vacating the premises by defendants and dismissal of counterclaims against City. 39. Edna and Ronda JOKES vs. City of Miami; Case No. 85-17857 (23); L-86-190 (RLA) Plaintiff is the mother of her minor daughter who was struck by an automobile while crossing City street. Plaintiff alleged physical injuries were suffered by her daughter and monetary damages incurred by herself. Summary Judgment entered in favor of the City. 40. Eli Abeth JUNOD vs. Metropolitan Dade County, Mercy Hospital. Ina.. and the City of Miami; Court Case No. 82-7049 (09); L-83-092 (JLF) Plaintiff was riding her bicycle in front of Mercy Hospital on the sidewalk bike path. Plaintiff was looking to the side and did not see the sign post ahead of her and hit it with the front wheel of the bicycle and went over the handle bars. She claims medical bills and loss of wages of $100.000.00. Case went to trial on May 4. 1987 before Judge David Levy. There were three defendants, City, Dade County, and Mercy Hospital. Trial went on for five days. Plaintiff's had twenty-one (21) witnesses. The defense had only one (1) witness - a video movie. Plaintiff originally demanded $100,000.00, then at trial he suggested $75,000.00. Jury returned the following verdict: plaintiff 95% comparative negligent; City 4% negligent; Mercy Hospital 1% and Metropolitan Dade County got a defense verdict. The City paid $3,827.60 covering judgment and costs. 41. JA1[ES E. STRATES SHOWS. INC. vs. City of Miami; Case No. 84-6461 (03); L-84-024; (JEM) The Plaintiff had sought a preliminary and permanent injunction to restrain the City from enforcement of its zoning and/or licensing requirements pertaining to Carnivals in the City. They further had challenged to constitutionality of certain Code requirements dealing with the location of carnivals within the City. The Court denied that the Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary and permanent injunction, denied the temporary restraining order, and further, found that the co -provisions which regulated the time, place and manner of carnivals within the City was constitutional. -12- /7 n 40 42. ; Case No. 87-0619 (SCOTT); L-87-060 (CCM) In November 1987 jury returned a verdict in favor of City of Miami in an action by police officer under federal civil rights statutes and state statutes. 43. Douglas LOGA1� vs. City of Miami; Case No. 88-42111; L-88-139 (LMF) This case involved a Section 1983 claim for false arrest based upon a charge of receiving stolen property. which was node prossed in the Criminal Court. The case was removed to the District Court and fell before Judge Scott, who granted a Motion to Dismiss filed by the City and police officer. The Court dismissed the case without prejudice, allowing the plaintiff to amend and the case is now considered closed based upon the Court's dismissal of the complaint. On January 20, 1987, the Court entered an Order Taxing Costs; the City entered a Final Judgment to collect $110.00 from plaintiff for costs. 44. Humberto LOPS'L• vs. CITY OF MIAMI; Case No. 86-091; L-87-036 (AQJ) The Third District Court of Appeals affirmed the Civil Service Hoard's decision to uphold the City Manager's dismissal of a zoning inspector in August, 1983. The potential liability for the City, had the Court ordered reinstatement of the employee, would have been in excess of $100,000.00, in addition to attorney's fees. 48. Martial LOIIIS vs. City of Miami; Case No. 87-1284 (SP-20); L-87-088 (AV) Plaintiff's motor vehicle was taken at the direction of solid waste inspectors who determined the vehicle to be abandoned. Plaintiff's claim exceeded i2.800.00. Bench trial/judgment against City of $500.00. 46. Martin MATIA9 vs, City of Wlimi; Case No. 88-38217 (08); L-88-117 (LMF) This case involved a claim of negligent handcuffing due to an arrest by an off -duty police officer who arrested plaintiff in a Winn -Dixie store for carrying a concealed weapon. The police offioer did not have his key and could not loosen the cuffs and as a result, plaintiff claimed permanent disability due to the permanent injury the tight handcuffs caused to his wrists. The case went to trial on April 20, 1987 and the jury awarded -13- /V plaintiff $15,000.00 which liability the jury divided equally between the City and Winn -Dixie. Plaintiff filed an appeal, in which the City believed that he had a likelihood of success thereby resulting in a new trial and re-evaluation of the plaintiff's damages. Plaintiff's counsel contacted us and offered to settle the case for a total of $20,000.00 (including costs) as opposed to the $15,000.00 realized by the verdict. The oase was settled for $20,000.00 (the City paid t10,000.00). 47. Wilfredo NAVARRO vs. Rina Cohan, et al; USDC Case No. 83-1654-Civ-SPELLMAN; L-83-133 (LMF) This is a Section 1983 Civil Rights Violation case. After 3 1/2 years of litigation, the plaintiff dismissed all the City of Miami police officers as defendants, as well as the City. The City's Motion for Attorney's Fees and Costs was granted and the City has a Judgment in the amount of $10,340.75. 48. Nancy NSRGBT vs. City of Miami; Case No. 86-00804; L-86-021 (AV) Voluntary dismissal of property damage complaint versus City arising out of motor vehicle accident. 49. Roger NEUMANN vs. Citg of Miami; Case No. 81-8718 (10); L-82-149 (RLA) Plaintiff alleged that he suffered physical and psychological injuries and monetary damages as the result of his false arrest by Miami Police Officers. Case was dismissed. 50. City of Miami vs. NORTHSSTSRN l[BATS. INC.*- Case No. 86-0558; L-88-024 (AV) Northwestern Meats maintained a serious zoning violation which involved a dangerous commercial trucking operation in a fringe area of a residential/commeroial district. Condition existed approximately 5 years prior to the commencement of this action. Permanent injunction entered against defendant. 51. Elsa OCROA vs. City of Miami; Case No. 85-1143 (20); L-85-008 (CCM) Automobile negligence action. Jury verdict for City of Miami, sustained by the Third District Court of Appeals. -14- tq 40 04 52. lora Af Guillermo M AYA vs. Metro Dade County ff City of dams; Case No. 83-30446 (08); L-83-180 (JLF) Plaintiff's alleges that her oar was hit by another oar that ran a stop sign which was covered by shrubbery, growing on private property. Plaintiff received $100,000.00 from the other Defendant (Dade County). On February 12, 1987, an Order was entered dismissing the case for failure to prosecute. 83. State of Florida. etc, vs. ORLY VIDEO; Case No. 87-01826 (08); L-87-009 (LMF) This is a pornography case. By stipulation, the Court entered a permanent injunction including a finding of obscenity and awarded costs to the City. 84. PADRERD vs. City of Miami; (AV) Voluntary dismissal of bodily injury claim arising from a slip and fall. Basis of liability claim was premises liability. 88. Mario PffitBZ vs. City of Miami; Case No. 78-37766; L-78-174 (LMF) This matter is still in litigation with regard to the City's olaim for attorney's fees against certain co-defendant insurance companies. However, the City's insurance counsel was successful in defending the base claim. It should be mentioned that the last trial was the 2nd trial of this case. The case history is quite long in that the City was originally granted summary judgment. which was overturned by the Third District Court of Appeal. The case was tried to a jury 2 years ago and the jury was evenly divided and hung. The 2nd trial resulted in a verdict for the City which was sustained on appeal. 86. City of Miami vs. David and Wilhemena PRIECR; Court Case No. 86-13122-SP-08; L-86-121 (ALF) City obtained an $11,000.00 Stipulation for Payment and Judgment Upon Default. -16- .20 n 00 57. Yilli® M Murdiea PRZlCS vs. City of Miami; Case No. 84-02245 (05); L-84-015 (JLF) Plaintiff, Willie Prince, alleges that on October 3, 1981, at approximately 6:00 P.M. he was walking on the sidewalk when he stepped off onto the grass and into a hole which was covered by grass and fell, injuring his right knee. Plaintiff was given a 20% permanent partial disability of the right knee. On October 22. 1986, the City filed a Motion for Summary Judgment based upon the facts that the streets and sidewalks of the area where the incident occurred had been recently rebuilt by FRISA Corporation. an independent contractor. The City required FRISA to have insurance coverage in case of any accidents arising from faulty or negligent construction. The City did not have control of the property at the time of the accident. On November 17, 1986. the Court entered an Order granting the City's Motion for Summary Judgment. On November 20, 1986, Plaintiff's flied a Notice of Appeal. At this time Thomas Pflaum, Esq., was retained to handle the appeal. On June 12. 1987. oral argument was scheduled. The District Court of Appeal reaffirmed the Circuit Court's decision. 58. Samuel RAMOS vs. City of Miami; Case No. 86-19376; L-86-113 (RLA) Plaintiff alleged physical injuries and monetary damages as the result of his false arrest by City Police Officers. City's Motion to Dismiss granted by the Court. 59. Avelino & Delia RODRIGUEZ vs. City of Miami. Florida - Flo ida Power Y Light Com�a�y. Southern Bell. and Miami -Dade Water & Sewerage Denary tment; Circuit Court Case No. 85-52912 (25); L-85-169 (JLF) This is a trip and fall case. Plaintiff, Avelino Rodriguez, at approximately 9:00 A.M. was walking to his neighborhood Winn - Dixie store. He was walking west on the south side of Southwest 16th Street near the intersection of 36th Avenue. Said sidewalk was under heavy construction and a hole was left open and not barricaded. Mr. Rodriguez stepped into said hole and fell on his right hand, fracturing the distal end of the fifth metacarpal, medial and anterior displacement of the distal fragment. On January 28, 1987, the City filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. On June 29. 1987. the Court heard said Motion and reaffirmed it's June 9th decision. Plaintiff's accepted the City's offer of $1,750.00, in lieu of appealing this case. -16- d2 1 60 . R= 1=2 VA- City o Miami; Case No. 88-82119 (20); L-88-167 (RLA) Plaintiff, Julio Rodriguez. alleged that he suffered physical injury and monetary damages as a result of the car he was driving being struck by a Department of Solid Waste vehicle. Plaintiff, Mildred Rodriguez, asserted a loss of consortium claim against the City. Jury verdict for the City of Miami and costs taxed against the Plaintiffs in the amount of $1,991.00. 81. iguel R02M[BLUM, at al vs. City of Miami; Case No. 83-17074; L-84-012 (JEM) Vending case. This case questioned the constitutionality of Section 39-15 of the Code of the City of Miami. The defendant, Miguel Rosenblum, requested that this section of the Code be declared unconstitutional. Judge Nesbitt agreed that it was within the City 's police power to ban vending altogether, given valid reasons, but felt that tighter and reasonable regulations were probably the best solution. 62. William A. RQSHRM vs. City of Miami; Case No. 84-28102 (21); L-84-122 (RLA) Plaintiff alleged that he had suffered psychological injuries and monetary damages as a result of his false arrest by Miami Police Officers. Jury verdict for the City of Miami and costs taxed against the Plaintiff in the amount of $1,228.00. 63. Z Va. City of Miami; Case No. 88-08562 (17); L-88-027 (RLA) Plaintiff alleged violation of his constitutional rights and that he had suffered physical injuries as the result of being injured by a police gunshot. Case dismissed by the Court. 84. James P. SIGMAN vs. City of Miami; Case No. 88-7583 (01); L-88-016 (ABS) On January 6, 1987, the Third District Court of Appeal issued an opinion affirming the City's position that a municipality may not be required to pay attorney's fees under Chapter 298 of the Florida Statutes (the Veterans' Preference law). The Court also ruled that public policy insulates governmental entities from liability for interest on back pay in the absence of an express statutory provision or stipulation by the government. -17- 0 65. Gregcrl SL 802 vs. Citp Of Miami; Case No. 85-43117; L-86-016; (RLA) Plaintiff alleged physical injuries and monetary damages as the result of the vehicle in which he was riding having been struck by a City vehicle. City's Notion to Dismiss was granted by the Court. 66. Isabelle SMITH vs. CITY OF MIAMI; Case No. 86-17308 (10); L-86-100 (AV) Plaintiff slipped and fell on the tile sidewalk on East Flagler Street. Plaintiff alleged that the tile on Flagler Street was too slippery when wet and the side slopes of the handicapped access ramps were too steep. Plaintiff sustained a fractured hip and was noted to have a 10 to 20 percent impairment as a result of the injuries sustained in this incident. Jury verdict against the City $140.00; costs charged against plaintiff of $2.800.00. 67. Haralamboe and Maria SOTiRION vs. City of Miami. et al.; Case No. 87-34472 (02); L-87-135 (CCM) Case involves a branch falling on plaintiff's car. In December 1987 Summary Judgment was granted in favor of City or Miami. 68. SPBCTwt•TY RESTAUIL4X'S vs. City of Miami. at al: Horatio vs. Specialty Restaurants. At Al; 3d DCA Case Nos. 86-252. 86-325 (RSA V JJC) This was a cause for declaratory, injunctive and other relief brought by the "Rusty Pelican" against the City and Horatio's for allowing expansion of Horatios' services to include alcoholic beverages. The City had a Summary Judgment entered in the City's favor. Third District Court of Appeals affirms. with opinion. Summary Judgment entered in favor of City by trial court. 69. Er STEWART and Lamel LATTINORE vs. City of Miami; Case No. 87-0619 (SCOTT); L-87-060 (LMF) In this lawsuit, plaintiffs Erol Stewart and Lamel Lattimore. City of Miami police officers, filed'a complaint in Federal court' alleging in Count I that other City of Miami officers in the Internal Security Unit of the Police Department violated their rights under Fourth. Fifth. and Sixth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and in Count II that the City violated their rights under Florida Statutes, Section 112.532 (Policemen's Bill of Rights). The case was tried before a jury by Assistant City Attorneys Charles Mays and Albertine Smith on November 23-24, 1987. At the -18- �3 s otl� close of the evidence, the Court directed a verdict in favor of the City of Miami as to Count II of the complaint. Before submitting the remaining count to the jury, the Court. pursuant to the City's motion, also removed from the jury's consideration any XtrAnda issues or Sixth Amendment right to counsel issues. As to Count 1, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the City of Miami and against plaintiff Lamel Lattimore. Thus the jury determined that Lattimore was not entitled to damages. As to Count I, the jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff Erol Stewart and determined that Stewart was entitled to $1,000.00 in damages. 70. Humberto TRTZRIRO vs. City of Miami; Case No. 84-43638 (11); L-84-174 (CCM) In June 1987 Order of Dismissal was entered in favor of City of Miami arising out of a premises liability claim. 71. Christine R. T801[AS ve. City of Miami_ et al; Case No. 85-44666 (10); L-88-206 (CCM) Plaintiff's decedent was shot and killed by city police officer, Carlos Vasquez, during the execution of a search warrant. The decedent was not armed at the time he was shy* ArA kj i i ^A At the time of the shooting, Officer Vasquez was attempting to handcuff the decedent with one hand, while holding a cocked Colt .45 semiautomatic in the other. The gun discharged when the decedent's arm hit the gun. Plaintiff brought a wrongful death action against the city and Officer Vasquez under common law and under 42 USC, Section 1983. The plaintiff was able to show that under former police chief, Kenneth Harms, the Colt .45 had been rejected as a weapon of choice. Harms and former Assistant Chief, Michael Cosgrove, provided affidavits that the Colt .45 was an unsafe weapon and should not have been used by Officer Vasquez. Harms and Cosgrove criticized the decision by succeeding Chief Herbert Breslow's decision to authorize the use of the Colt .45. Subsequent to the shooting the police department discontinued the use of the weapon. In November 1987 Summary Judgment in favor of City of Miami was granted. 72. TIEDWW Va, City of Miami - Case No. 87-41720 (28); L-87-186 (LGK) Awarded $2,775.00 in attorney's fees in an action brought to enjoin the City from restricting public access to the ramp during the Coconut Grove boat show. -19- �y 0 73 . '1'SQEkT iL Ag . 1AT 02- 11C va City of Miami; Case No. 88-00486; L-85-001; (JEN) This is a zoning matter involving the challenge of Terremark's Chapter 380 Development Order and its Major Use Special Permit wherein the decision of the City Commission was appealed by Tigertail and dismissed on April 28. 1987. by Final Order of Court denying petition for writ of certiorari together with the respondents' response and petitioners' reply. City of Miami prevailed in Notion to Dissolve Consent Decree filed by the federal government and the Fraternal Order of Police. 75. IIMITED STATES vs. City of Mia l—; (AQJ) This case involved the successful defense of a challenge to the Consent Decree filed by the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP). The FOP had sought a modification of the Consent Decree which sanctioned race-aanseious and gender-con3eious remedial relief to victims of employment discrimination in the City of Miami. The United States District Court, while recognizing the City's commitment to affirmative action and progress to date, reaffirmed the terms and conditions of the Consent Decree opining that the long term goal of having the City of Miami work force mirror the proportionate representation of minorities in the labor force has not been met. 76.al.- Case No. 82-5373 (20); L-82-094 (CCU) Police Tort case. On June 1987 jury trial held resulting in a directed verdict for the defense. Costs oolleeted of $1.200.00. 77. John V1 ANS ym, City of MiAmi; Case No. 87-23586 (03); L-87-119 (RLA) Plaintiff alleged that monies belonging to him were being illegally kept from him by the City of Miami or a third party. Interpleader action by the City and subsequent dismissal of the City from the lawsuit. LAD/gfa/M070 -20-