HomeMy WebLinkAboutR-78-0761RtC/rb
1216/78
SUPPORTIVE
f)()QOttlIENTS,,.
EOLL.O‘Ar.'
RESOLUTION No, 780 78
A REsoLuTIoN APpRoViNc RATIFYING ANTI
CONFIRMING THE ACTION of' THE CITY ATTORNEY
REGARDING THE EMPtoYMENT oF THE LAW FIRM
oP PRATES FLOYD PEARSON STEWART & GRtER
TO REPRESENT TiE CITY OP MIAMI IN THE CAE
OF CA aAVIsi INc"._ETc. Y_A CITY OF MtAMI
CIRCUIT COURT CASE NO. 77..28347 CA 05 AND
CtNTRAL TITLE, INC., ET AL.V. C, A. DAVIS
INC., CASE NO, 77-18505 CA 05, LIMITING THE
COMPENSATION FOR inc AFORESAID LEGAL SERVICES TO
$50,000, UNLESS nnaHER AUTHORIZED BY THE CITY COMMISSION.
WHEREAS, the City of Miami and C.A. Davis, Inc.
entered into a contract on July 12, 1976 for the improvement
and beautification of the downtown area known as the Plagler
Street Improvement Project Nos. H-4372 and H-4391; and
WHEREAS, in the course of the beautification pro-
ject, the City rejected significant portions of the work per-
formed by C.A. Davis, Inc. as being unsatisfactory; and
WHEREAS, C. A. Davis, Inc. has filed suit against
the City of Miami for monies claimed for said beautification
project; and
WHEREAS, the City of Miami has counterclaimed for
its damages caused by C. A. Davis, Inc.'s breach of contract; and
WHEREAS, the interests of the City are best served
by legal counsel with expertise in the legal field of building
construction, and "DOCUMENT iNDEX
KtWHEREAS, due to the exigency o cir u ' e City
Attorney has entered into an interim agreement for professional
services with the Law Firm of Frates Floyd Pearson Stewart
Richman & Greer, One Biscayne Tower, Miami, Florida 3301; and
WHEREAS, the City Commission desires to ratify the
aforesaid action of the City Attorney;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA:
Section 1, The prior action of the City Attorney
regarding the employment of the Law Firm of Frates Floyd Pearson
cm COMMISSION
MEETING OF
0E04 4 1978
*78 7 131
NMARICk
„ ,•
--M-1=1-111-11r1W
vir V' • Rr ...T7g;•.!^
S teWar t Ri chmatt
& Gteer ih cohnecti'ott with represetttiftg the
City. of 11iami in the case of C.A. Davi$3 It1C►; etc, v., city
of Miami Circuit Court Case tdo, 77-28347 CA 054 and ih the
case of Central Title, ,Ines et at, v,C, A, Davis, Inc►,.
Case NO, 77=18505 CA 05 is hereby approved, ratified.attd
confirmed. The fee payable to said lard firm for its legal
services is $150 per hours subject to a maximum payment of $50 000
for said services, unless further authorized by the City Commission.
PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS 14th day of December, 1978.
Maurice A. Eerre
MAURICE A. FERRE4i M A Y 0 R
NGIE, :CITY CLERK
PREPARED AND APPROVED BYt
ROBERT F CLARK, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY
1 ,1 • 1 T1 iT
DOCUMENTS
E.N" S
FOLLOW"
8 761
r r t.3i MiAM1,
TO ' he llonorabie Meiabets of
i t V C o ni tit i.
room: eo ,e F. Ktiox, Jr
CI. Attorney
Decettber 6, 1978
C. ADavis, the Vs.
City of ftiatni, etc.
Circuit Court .G.ase . ._, ,77=28147.
On Jul9"--121976, the City of. Miami and C. A. Davis, Inc.
entered into a contract for the beautification and Improvement of
Flagler Street. As the construction work progressed, serious
difficulties arose resulting in extensive delays, damages to private
property and a creation of pedestrian hazards.
The Public Works Department rejected substantial portions of
the contractoris work as being unsatisfactory, and this Commission
ultimately removed the contract from C. A. Davis, Inc. in February
of 1978. As a result of the disputes between the City and C. A.
Davis, Inc., the contractor filed suit against the City seeking
damages in excess of $4004000 (Four Hundred Thousand Dollars), for
alleged breach of contract by the City. The City has counter-
claimed for its damages which resulted from delay and the necessity
of reawarding the contract to another general contractor.
The issues for trial in this cause involve complicated questions
of construction practice and procedure. In addition, an issue has
been raised concerning the suitability of plans and materials as used
in the project.
As a result, there is a need for a particularly specific expertise
in, the field of building construction, which the present resources of
the Law Department do not possess. Recognized experts in the field
of Construction Law recommended Larry Stewart, Esquire, of. the Firm of.
FRATES FLOYD PEARSON STEWART & GREER, as one possessed of that expertise.
It is, therefore, recommended that this Commission ratify the
association of Mr Stewart and his Law Firm for assistance in the pre-
paration and presentation of the City's case in this cause.
GFK: is