HomeMy WebLinkAboutExhibit 1CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA
INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM :
Julie O. Bru
City Attorney
ief Financial Officer
DATE :
SUBJECT:
REFERENCES:
ENCLOSURES:
Apri128, 2011
Matter ID No.:11-785
Case No. 11-11738 CA-5
FILE :
Please proceed with providing the correspondence referenced in your memo dated
April 27, 2011 regarding the above -mentioned matter. Thank you.
CITY OF MIAMT
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
h9 KNIOR.& DLTM
• TO: Tony E. Crapp, Jr., City Manager
FROM: Julie O. Bru, Cite Attozzie5��_= _
DATE: April 27, 2011
RE: Orlando Cordoves v. America Teve Network, Inc.; Miguel Exposito,
Alfredo Alvarez and Pedro Sevicec, Case No. 11-11738 CA-5
Matter ID No.: 11-785
Mir. Manager, .as you are aware, Chief Miguel Exposito and Major Alfredo Alvarez have been
sued in circuit court in the above reference lawsuit. The lawsuit alleges that they acted outside
the course and scope of employment in making slanderous statements against the plaintiff on a
television show.
The City Charter provides that "[T]he chief of police shall devote his or her entire time to the
discharge of his or her official duties..]". Also, the City Charter provides that you, as the head .
of the administrative branch of the city government, have the exclusive control over the
conduct of the Chief of Police and would be the city official responsible for determining the
scope of the chiefs official duties.
Attached; please find a copy of draft letters that memorialize the conditions under which the
city would provide a defense to Chief Miguel Exposito and to Major Alfredo Alvarez which
has been discussed with them this week. We are prepared to send the letters if it is your
position that the Chief and the Major acted within the course of their official duties.
The complaint has been filed and therefore time is of the essence. Please provide your written
,response to me, by Monday, May 2, 2011.
Thank you.
Enclosures)
271698
Miguel Exposito, Chief of Police
City of Miami Police Department
400 N.W. 2nd Avenue
Miami, FL 33128
Re: Orlando Cordoves v.
Alfredo Alvarez and
Miami -Dade County
April 27, 2011
America Teve Netrork, Exposit°,
Pedro Sevcec
Circuit Court Case No.: 11-11738.CA 5
Dear Chief Exposito:
With reference to the above -captioned case, please be advised that the Plaintiff,
Orlando Cordoves, alleges, inter crl%a;: that on March 2:3 2011, you and the other
defendants in this lawsuit made certa# al`s':e .defamatory statements during a Channel 41
television program resulting in damages'to tl e'PIainti
The City of Miami; under the law, can and w 1,:.provide for defense counsel to
defend you for your acts'or orussions arising;out of, and in the course and scope of', your
employment. See,,s-,i1 :1;1.07, F. { (2010). The City will also provide you with defense
counsel to defend you"on.fhose .e .aims. even thou l`h the Plaintiff is alleging that you acted
D
. Yii in bad faith, with malicious purpose, and in
outside the scope of your'`e�p1'b��ri`e�t:��aeted:;'
a manner e] nbrt ng_ T.anton and.w illful` disregard of human rights, safety or property, and
•
is seeling punitive damages.
Hov .ever, please .beOvised`that under § 111.071(1)(a), F.S. (2010), in tart claims
arising unders;.768.28, F.Sc such as this case, the limitations and provisions of s. 768.28
governing payment shall apply. Thus, if it is determined in the final judgment that you
acted outside the `sc:3;peofyour employment, or were acting in bad faith; maliciously or in
a manner exhibiting' g7aiton and willful disregard of human rights, safety or property, the
City cannot pay anylart of the judgment, either compensatory or punitive. Furthermore,
even if it is determined in the final judgment that you did not act in bad faith, maliciously
or in a manner exhibiting wanton and willful disregard of human rights, safety or
property, but the court awarded damages, the City could only pay, absent a legislative
claims bill, up to the statutory cap imposed under s. 768.28(5), F.S., of $100,000 per •
person and $200,000 per incident/occurrence.
In addition, please be advised that under s. 111.07, F.S, (2010), any attorney's
fees paid from public funds for any officer, employee, or agent who is found to be
personally liable by virtue of acting outside the scope of his or her employment, or who
was acting in bad faith, with malicious purpose, or in a manner exhibiting wanton and
Miguel Exposito, Chief of Police
April 27, 2011
Page 2
willful disregard of human rights, safety, or property, may be recovered by the
municipality in a civil action against such officer, employee or agent.
Accordingly, we have selected, and with your consent, will retain and provide,
outside counsel, Oscar Marrero, Esq., to act as your defense counsel in this case, at no
cost to you.
Of course, you have the right to instead retain defense counsel of your own
choosing. However, in that case, because the City has provided defense counsel to you at
no cost, the City would not have the statutory authorization to reimburse you for court
costs or reasonable attorney's fees, even if you prevail in the ;case. See ss. 111.07
11.071(1)(c), F.S. (2010).
After you have had an opportunity to consider tge'-coif.E6ks. of this letter, please
return a signed copy of this letter to me either consenting=to defensejcounsel provided by
the City or declining same.
truly yours,
Julie O. Brie
,ity Attorney
I HEREBY ACKN O W ED ';:THAT I HAVE FULLY READ AND UNDERSTAND
THE TERMS OF14 CITY*PROVISICskj OF DEFENSE COUNSEL TO ME IN
THIS LITIGATION, AS:_DETA LID IN THIS LET1'h:R, AND CONSENT TO SAME.
1A1G: LEXPOSITO
CHIEF `O:E;TOLICE
I HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I HAVE FULLY READ AND UNDERSTAND
THE I LRMS O THE;.CITY'S PROVISION OF DEFENSE COUNSEL TO ME IN
THIS LITIGATION S'DETAILED IN THIS LETTER, AND DECLINE SAME.
DATE
MIGUEL EXPOSITO, DA 1'E
CHIEF OF POLICE
JOB:WB271681
April 27, 2011
Alfredo Alvarez, Major of Police
City of Miami Police Department
400 N.W. 2nd Avenue
Miami, FL 33128
Re: Orlando Cordoves v. America Teve Net* ork, Inc _1�!Iiguel Exposito,
Alfredo Alvarez and Pedro Sevicee,.
Y,.
Miami -Dade County Circuit Coth-t, Case No.: 11-1173 :MCA 5
Dear Major Alvarez:
With reference to the above -captioned case, please be advised that the Plaintiff,
Orlando Cordoves, alleges, inter ali hat on March`i23 ,., 2011, you and the other
defendants in this lawsuit; suit; made certain f i e d_efam atory state a ents during a Channel 41
television program resulting in damages to the li-�ii;
The City of M a der the law,' -Van end wi 1` provide for defense counsel to
defend you for your.;aets or omissions arising=out of and in the course and scope of your
employment. See`s:` 111,07, F: (2010). Tlie:.,C ty will also provide you with defense
counsel to defend you on. ..ose;d1alms;.gven•tho`ngh the Plpintiff is alleging that you acted
outside the scope:;.nf, your ei zplpyment -acted in bad faith, with malicious purpose; and in
a manner ex:hibigV'''' T ton diawillful
is see :a punitive dara2es.
However, please beadvised that under §111.071(1)(a) F.S. (2010), in tort claims
arising under;s 768.28, F.S;.- such as this case, the limitations and provisions of s. 768.28
governing paytei?.:shall apply. Thus; if it is determined in the final judgment that you
acted outside the sca peof your employment, or were acting in bad faith, maliciously or in
a manner exhibiting,wanton and willful disregard of human rights, safety or property, the
City cannot pay any part of the judgment; either compensatory or punitive. Furthermore,
even if it is determined in the final judgment that you did not act in bad faith, maliciously
or in a manner exhibiting wanton and willful disregard of human rights, safety or
property, but the court awarded damages, the City could only pay, absent a legislative
claims bill, up to the statutory cap imposed under s. 768.28(5), F.S., of 1100,000 per
person and $200,000 per incident/occurrence.
In addition, please be advised that under s. 111.07, F.S. (2010), any attomey's
fees paid from public funds for any officer, employee, or agent who is found to be
personally liable by virtue of acting outside the scope of his or her employment, or who
Major Alfredo Alvarez
April 27, 2011
Page 2
was acting in bad faith, with malicious purpose, or in a manner exhibiting wanton and
Willful disregard of human rights, • safety, or property; may be recovered by the
municipality in a civil action against such officer, employee or agent.
Accordingly, we have selected, and with your consent, will retain and provide,
outside counsel, Oscar Marrero, Esq., to act as your defense counsel in this case, at no
cost to you.
Of course, you have the right to instead retain defense counsel of your own
choosing. However, in that case, because the City has provided defense counsel to you at
no cost, the City would not have the statutory authorization to;reimburse you for court
costs or reasonable attorneys fees, even if you prevail in.;,Che case. See ss. 111.07 &
11.071(1)(c), F.S. (2010).
After you have had an opportunity to considiyrthe .contents o;this letter, please
return a signed copy of this letter to me either consenting to defense conrisel provided by
the City or declining same.
I HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE ;T]=HAT I HAVE,FULLY READ AND li DERSTAI\TD
THE TERMS OF TPRNOVISIObF DEFENSE COUNSEL TO 1\4E IN
THIS LITIGATION, AS DETa-17EIS LETTER, AND CONSENT TO SAME.
ALFREDDO' ALVAREZ,
MAJOR OF'POLICE
DATE
I HEREBY ACK rgyvII EDGE THAT I HAVE FULLY READ AND UNDERSTAND
THE TERMS OF W CITY'S PROVISION OF DEFENSE COUNSEL TO IvIF IN
THIS LITIGATION; AS DETAILED IN THIS LETTER, AND DECLINE SAME.
ALFREDO ALVAREZ, DAL
MAJOR OF POLICE
.JOB:WB:271654
CTt#g f
JULIE O. BRU
City Attorney
April 29, 2011
Miguel Exposito, Chief of Police
City of Miami Police Department
400 N.W. 2nd Avenue
Miami, FL 33128
Telephone: (305) 416-1800
Telecopier: (305) 416-1801
E-MAIL: Law@ci.miami.fl.us
Re: Orlando Cordoves v. America Teve Network, Inc. Miguel Exposito,
Alfredo Alvarez and Pedro Sevcec
Miami -Dade County Circuit Court, Case No.: 11-11738 CA 5
Dear Chief Exposito;
With reference to the above -captioned case, please be advised that the Plaintiff,
Orlando Cordoves, alleges, inter alia, that on March 23, 2011, you and the other
defendants in this lawsuit, made certain false defamatory statements during a Channel 41
television program resulting in damages to the Plaintiff.
The City of Miami, under the law, can and will provide for defense counsel to
defend you for your acts or omissions arising out of, and in the course and scope of, your
employment. See s. 111.07, F.S. (2010). The City will also provide you with defense
counsel to defend you on those claims, even though the Plaintiff is alleging that you acted
outside the scope of your employment, acted in bad faith, with malicious purpose, and in
a manner exhibiting wanton and willful disregard of human rights, safety or property, and
is seeking punitive damages.
However, please be advised that under §111.071(1)(a), F.S. (2010), in tort claims
arising under s. 768.28, F.S., such as this case, the limitations and provisions of s. 768.28
governing payment shall apply. Thus, if it is determined in the final judgment that you
acted outside the scope of your employment, or were acting in bad faith, maliciously or in
a manner exhibiting wanton and willful disregard of human rights, safety or property, the
City cannot pay any part of the judgment, either compensatory or punitive. Furthermore,
even if it is determined in the final judgment that you did not act in bad faith, maliciously
or in a manner exhibiting wanton and willful disregard of human rights, safety or
property, but the court awarded damages, the City could only pay, absent a legislative
claims bill, up to the statutory cap imposed under s. 768.28(5), F.S., of $100,000 per
person and $200,000 per incident/occurrence.
In addition, please be advised that under s. 111.07, F.S. (2010), any attorney's
fees paid from public funds for any officer, employee, or agent who is found to be
personally liable by virtue of acting outside the scope of his or her employment, or who
was acting in bad faith, with malicious purpose, or in a manner exhibiting wanton and.
Miguel Exposito, Chief of Police
April 29, 2011
Page 2
willful disregard of human rights, safety, or property, may be recovered by the
municipality in a civil action against such officer, employee or agent.
Accordingly, we have selected, and with your consent, will retain and provide,
outside counsel, Oscar Marrero, Esq., to act as your defense counsel in this case, at no
cost to you.
Of course, you have the right to instead retain defense counsel of your own
choosing. However, in that case, because the City has provided defense counsel to you at
no cost, the City would not have the statutory authorization to reimburse you for court
costs or reasonable attorney's fees, even if you prevail in the case. See ss. 111.07 &
11.071(1)(c), F.S. (2010).
After you have had an opportunity to consider the contents of this letter, please
return a signed copy of this letter to me either consenting to defense counsel provided by
the City or declining same.
Very truly yours,
Julie O. Btu
City Attorney
I HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I HAVE FULLY READ AND UNDERSTAND
THE TERMS OF THE CITY'S PROVISION OF DEFENSE COUNSEL TO ME IN
THIS LITIGATION, AS DETAILED IN THIS LETTER, AND CONSENT TO SAME.
MIGUEL EXPOSITO,
CHIEF OF POLICE
I HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I HAVE FULLY READ AND UNDERSTAND
THE TERMS OF THE CITY'S PROVISION OF DEFENSE COUNSEL TO ME IN
THIS LITIGATION, AS DETAILED IN THIS LETTER, AND DECLINE SAME.
DATE
MIGUEL EXPOSITO, DATE
CHIEF OF POLICE
JOB:WB:271681
JULIE O. BRU
City Attorney
Tag a# glianti
April 29, 2011
Telephone: (305) 416-1800
Telecopier: (305) 416-1801
E-MAIL: Law@ci.miami.fl.us
Alfredo Alvarez, Major of Police
City of Miami Police Department
400 N.W. 2nd Avenue
Miami, FL 33128
Re: Orlando Cordoves v. America Teve Network, Inc. Miguel Exposito,
Alfredo Alvarez and Pedro Sevcec
Miami -Dade County Circuit Court, Case No.: 11-11738 CA 5
Dear Major Alvarez:
With reference to the above -captioned case, please be advised that the Plaintiff,
Orlando Cordoves, alleges, inter alia, that on March 23, 2011, you and the other
defendants in this lawsuit, made certain false defamatory statements during a Channel 41
television program resulting in damages to the Plaintiff.
The City of Miami, under the law, can and will provide for defense counsel to
defend you for your acts or omissions arising out of, and in the course and scope of, your
employment. See s. 111.07, F.S. (2010). The City will also provide you with defense
counsel to defend you on those claims, even though the Plaintiff is alleging that you acted
outside the scope of your employment, acted in bad faith, with malicious purpose, and in
a manner exhibiting wanton and willful disregard of human rights, safety or property, and
is seeking punitive damages.
However, please be advised that under §111.071(1)(a), F.S. (2010), in tort claims
arising under s. 768.28, F.S., such as this case, the limitations and provisions of s. 768.28
governing payment shall apply. Thus, if it is determined in the final judgment that you
acted outside the scope of your employment, or were acting in bad faith, maliciously or in
a manner exhibiting wanton and willful disregard of human rights, safety or property, the
City cannot pay any part of the judgment, either compensatory or punitive. Furthermore,
even if it is determined in the final judgment that you did not act in bad faith, maliciously
or in a manner exhibiting wanton and willful disregard of human rights, safety or
property, but the court awarded damages, the City could only pay, absent a legislative
claims bill, up to the statutory cap imposed under s. 768.28(5), F.S., of $100,000 per
person and $200,000 per incident/occurrence.
In addition, please be advised that under s. 111.07, F.S. (2010), any attorney's
fees paid from public funds for any officer, employee, or agent who is found to be
personally liable by virtue of acting outside the scope of his or her employment, or who
was acting in bad faith, with malicious purpose, or in a manner exhibiting wanton and
Major Alfredo Alvarez
April 29, 2011
Page 2
willful disregard of human rights, safety, or property, may be recovered by the
municipality in a civil action against such officer, employee or agent.
Accordingly, we have selected, and with your consent, will retain and provide,
outside counsel, Oscar Marrero, Esq., to act as your defense counsel in this case, at no
cost to you.
Of course, you have the right to instead retain defense counsel of your own
choosing. However, in that case, because the City has provided defense counsel to you at
no cost, the City would not have the statutory authorization to reimburse you for court
costs or reasonable attorney's fees, even if you prevail in the case. See ss. 111.07 &
11.071(1)(c), F.S. (2010).
After you have had an opportunity to consider the contents of this letter, please
return a signed copy of this letter to me either consenting to defense counsel provided by
the City or declining same.
Very truly yours,
Julie O. Bru
City Attorney
I HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I HAVE FULLY READ AND UNDERSTAND
THE TERMS OF THE CITY'S PROVISION OF DEFENSE COUNSEL TO ME IN
THIS LITIGATION, AS DETAILED IN THIS LETTER, AND CONSENT TO SAME.
ALFREDO ALVAREZ, DATE
MAJOR OF POLICE
I HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I HAVE FULLY READ AND UNDERSTAND
THE TERMS OF THE CITY'S PROVISION OF DEFENSE COUNSEL TO ME IN
THIS LITIGATION, AS DETAILED IN THIS LETTER, AND DECLINE SAME.
ALFREDO ALVAREZ, DATE
MAJOR OF POLICE
JOB:WB:271684
May 27, 2011
Julie 0. Bru, City Attorney
City of Miami
Office of the City Attorney
444 SW 2" d Avenue, Suite 945
Miami, Florida 33130
RE: Orlando Cordoves v. America Teve Network, Inc., Miguel Exposito,
Alfredo Alvarez and Pedro Sevicec
Miami -Dade County Circuit Court, Case No: 11-11738-CA 5
Dear Ms. Bru:
This will serve as my response to your correspondence of April 29, 2011, pursuant to my
request for a defense to be paid by the City, for counsel (Amy own choosing and now your rejection
through Florida Statute, s. 111.07 (2010).
I have researched my right to legal representation at tax payer expense and will provide the
analysis to you. Prior to doing so however, I wish to record certain established facts: the City
Manager has determined that any actions I have taken including those alleged in the Orlando
Cordoves' Complaint are and were within the course and scope of my employment as a City of
Miami Police Officer.
Therefore, in accordance with Florida Statutes, section 111.065 (201 1) I hereby demand a
legal representation of my choosing.
The common law "right to legal representation at taxpayer expense in defending themselves
against litigation arising out of their public duties and while serving a public purpose" is broadly
stated as follows, in Maloy v. Board of County Commissioners of Leon County, 946 So.2d 1260,
1263 (Fla. l s` DCA 2007):
Our supreme court has enunciated a common law doctrine affording
public officials the right to legal representation at taxpayer expense -
in defending themselves against litigation arising out of their public
duties and while serving a public purpose. See Thornber v. City of Ft.
Walton Beach, 568 So.2d 914, 917 (Fla. 1990) (Fla. 1990) ("This
entitlement to attorney's fees arises independent of statute, ordinance,
or charter."); see also Markham v. State, Dep't ofRevenue, 298 So.2d
210, 211 (Fla. 151 DCA 19784) ("Public officers are, of course,
entitled to a defense at the expense of the public in a law suit arising
from the performance of the officer's official duties and while serving
a public purpose."); Ellison v. Reid, 397 So.2d 352, 354 (Fla. 1"DCA
1981) ("If a public officer is charged with misconduct while
performing his official duties and while serving a public purpose, the
public has a primary interest in such a controversy and should pay the
reasonable and necessary legal fees incurred by the public officer in
successfully defending against unfounded allegations of official
misconduct."); Alumni v. Valdez, 407 So.2d 277, 279 (Fla. 3d DCA
1981) ("This statute [section 111.07, Florida Statutes (1979)]
recognizes the conimon law principle that a public officer is entitled
to representation at the public expense in a lawsuit arising from
performance of official duties while serving a public purpose.");
Lomelo v. City of Sunrise, 423 So.2d 974, 976 (Fla. 4°i DCA 1982)
("These cases establish that a municipal corporation or other public
body is obligated to furnish or pay fees for counsel to defend a public
official subjected to attack either in civil or criminal proceeding
where the conduct complained of arises out of or in connection with
the performance of his official duties. This oblig_ation arises
independent of statute. ordinance or charter. It is not subject to the
discretion of the keepers of the city coffers."). This common law
right applies to county officials and to ethics proceedings. See
Ellison, 397 So.2d at 354 (finding county property appraiser entitled
to attorney's fees under the common law for the successful defense
of misconduct charges before the Commission). Public officials
seeking entitlement to reimbursement of attorney's fees must meet a
two -prong test: "[T]he litigation must (1) arise out of or in connection
with the performance of their official duties and (2) serve a public
purpose." Thornber, 568 So.2d at 917.
You have clearly declared you and your office (the City Attorney for the City of Miami) have
a conflict. As a result of your clear conflict of interest it would only seem fair that you not select the
attorney who would represent my interests because of the very conflict you have and are trying to
avoid. Further if you wish to set a limit on the hourly rate that may or may not be within your
purview; however, the selection of an attorney who is going to represent me as a result of the
allegations is a personal choice and must be a person of such character so that they are free from any
City influence or appearance of control.
.1 have -attached copies of my Motion to Dismiss together with my Notice of Deposition.
Please afford me the opportunity to retain counsel of my choosing so that I can more properly defend
myself and achieve a result that will benefit not only protecting myself but that of the City of
Miami.
I have always acted in the best interest for the City of Miami and I only ask that you
equally act so that the best interest of me and my family are protected as well.
I await your prompt response.
Very truly yours,
Miguel A. Exposito
May 27, 2011
Julie O..Bru, City Attorney
City of Miami
Office of the City Attorney
444 SW 2'd Avenue, Suite 945
Miami, Florida 33130
RE: Orlando Cordoves v. America Teve Network, Inc., Miguel Exposito,
Alfredo Alvarez and Pedro. Sevcec
Miami -Dade County Circuit Court, Case No: 11-11738-CA 5
Dear Ms. Bru:
This will serve as my response to your correspondence of April 29, 2011, pursuant to my
request for a defense to be paid by the City, for counsel of my own choosing and now your rejection
through Florida Statute, s. 111.07 (2010).
I have researched my right to legal representation at tax payer expense and will provide the
analysis to you. Prior to doing so however, I wish to record certain established facts: the City
Manager has determined that any actions I have taken including those alleged in the Orlando
Cordoves' Complaint are and were within the course and scope of my employment as a City of
Miami Police Officer.
Therefore, in accordance with Florida Statutes, section 111.065 (2011) I hereby demand a
legal representation of my choosing.
The common law "right to legal representation at taxpayer expense in defending themselves
against litigation arising out of their public duties and while serving a public purpose" is broadly
stated as follows, in Maloy v. Board of County Commissioners of Leon County, 946 So.2d 1260,
1263 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007):
Our supreme court has enunciated a common law doctrine affording
,public, officials the right to legal representation at taxpayer expense
in defending themselves against litigation arising out of their public
duties and while serving a public purpose. See Thornber v. City of Ft.
Walton Beach, 568 So.2d 914, 917 (Fla. 1990) (Fla. 1990) ("This
entitlement to attorney's fees arises independent of statute, ordinance,
or charter."); see also Markham v. State, Dep 't ofRevenue, 298 So.2d
210, 211 (Fla. ls` DCA 19784) ("Public officers are, of course,
entitled to a defense at the expense of the public in a law suit arising
from the performance of the officer's official duties and while serving
apublic purpose."); Ellison v. Reid, 397 So.2d 352, 354 (Fla. 1s` DCA
1981) ("If a public officer is charged with misconduct while
performing his official duties and while serving a public purpose, the
public has a primary interest in such a controversy and should pay the
reasonable and necessary legal fees incurred by the public officer in
successfully defending against unfounded allegations of official
misconduct."); Nuzum v. Valdez, 407 So.2d 277, 279 (Fla. 3d DCA
1981) ("This statute [section 111.07, Florida Statutes (1979)]
recognizes the common law principle that a public officer is entitled
to representation at the public expense in a lawsuit arising from
performance of official duties while serving a public purpose.");
Lomelo v. City of Sunrise, 423 So.2d 974, 976 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)
("These cases establish that a municipal corporation or other public
body is obligated to furnish or pay fees for counsel to defend a public
official subjected to attack either in civil or criminal proceeding
where the conduct complained of arises out of or in connection with
the performance of his official duties. This obligation arises
independent of statute, ordinance or charter. It is not subject to the
discretion of the keepers of the city coffers."). This common law
right applies to county officials and to ethics proceedings. See
Ellison, 397 So.2d at 354 (finding county property appraiser entitled
to attorney's fees under the common law for the successful defense
of misconduct charges before the Commission). Public officials
seeking entitlement to reimbursement of attorney's fees must meet a
two -prong test: "[T]he litigation must (1) arise out of or in connection
with the performance of their official duties and (2) serve a public
purpose." Thornber, 568 So.2d at 917.
You have clearly declared you and your office (the City Attorney for the City of Miami) have
a conflict. As a result of your clear conflict of interest it would only seem fair that you not select the
attorney who would represent my interests because of the very conflict you have and are trying to
avoid. Further if you wish to set a limit on the hourly rate that may or may not be within your
purview; however, the selection of an attorney who is going to represent me as a result of the
allegations is a personal choice and must be a person of such character so that they are free from any
City influence or appearance of control.
I have attached copies of my Motion to Dismiss together with my Notice of Deposition.
Please afford me the opportunity to retain counsel of my choosing so that I can more properly defend
myself and achieve a result that will benefit not only protecting myself but that of the City of Miami.
I have always acted in the best interest for the City of Miami and I only ask that you equally
act so that the best interest of me and my family are protected as well.
I await your prompt response.
Very truly yours,
4/(,
City 4alitmi
JULIE O. BRU
City Attorney
May31,2011
VIA HAND DELIVERY & E-MAIL
Miguel Exposito, Chief of Police
City of Miami Police Department
400 N.W. 2nd Avenue
Miami, FL 33128
Telephone: (305) 416-1800
Telecopier: (305) 416-1801
E-MAIL: Law@ci.miami.fl.us
Re: Orlando Cordoves v. America Teve Network, Inc. Miguel Exposito,
Alfredo Alvarez and Pedro Sevcec
Miami -Dade County Circuit Court, Case No.: 11-11738 CA 5
Dear Chief Exposito:
I am in receipt of your letter of May 27, 2011, concerning the City's offer of
representation to you pursuant to s. 111.07, F.S., in the above -captioned matter. Your
letter raises several issues which I would like to address.
First, you state that I have declared that I and my Office have a conflict in
representing you in this matter. To the contrary, I have only orally advised you that there
is a potential for a future conflict.
Second, the City has not made any rejection of representation to you under s.
111.07, F.S., rather we have only offered to provide you with representation under that
statute.
Third, you are demanding legal representation of your own choosing under s.
111.065, F.S. That statute does not provide the City with authorization to retain counsel
in a civil case; it merely gives the City Commission, under certain limited circumstances,
the option to reimburse your reasonable attorney's fees expended at the conclusion of the
litigation should you prevail in the action.
Accordingly, by your letter of May 27, 2011, you have neither accepted, nor
declined the City's offer of representation, but rather demanded counsel of your own
choosing at the City's expense. The City has no obligation to pay for counsel of your
own choosing, and we decline to do so. Nevertheless, the City's offer of representation as
stated in our letter of April 29, 2011, still stands, and we await your acceptance or
rejection of our offer of representation.
Finally, although you have not advised us concerning the status of service of
process, we would like to point out that the Clerk's docket reflects that you were served
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY/444 S.W. 2nd Avenue, Suite 945/Miami, Florida 33130-1910
Miguel Exposito, Chief of Police
May 31,2011
Page 2
on May 11, 2011. Generally, a defendant has 20 days in which to file a response. Your
deadline, absent an extension, would be today. Accordingly, we would urge you to take
immediate action to protect your rights.
We look forward to hearing from you as soon as possible.
Very truly yours
Julie O. Bru
City Attorney
JOB:WB:275084
Ithg o f t�mz
JULIE O. BRU
City Attorney
May 31, 2011
VIA HAND DELIVERY & E-MAIL
Alfredo Alvarez, Major of Police
City of Miami Police Department
400 N.W. 2nd Avenue
Miami, FL 33128
Telephone: (305) 416-1800
Telecopier: (305) 416-1801
E-MAIL: Law@ci.miami_fl.us
Re: Orlando Cordoves v. America Teve Network, Inc. Miguel Exposito,
Alfredo Alvarez and Pedro Sevcec
Miami -Dade County Circuit Court, Case No.: 11-11738 CA 5
Dear Chief E rto: A / Vi9/CE Z
I am in receipt of your letter of May 27, 2011, concerning the City's offer of
representation to -you pursuant to s. 111.07, F.S., in the above -captioned matter. Your
letter raises several issues which I would like to address.
First, you state that I have declared that I and my Office have a conflict in
representing you in this matter. To the contrary, I have only orally advised you that there
is a potential for a future conflict.
Second, the City has not made any rejection of representation to you under s.
111.07, F.S., rather we have only offered to provide you with representation under that
statute.
Third, you are demanding legal representation of your own choosing under s.
111.065, F.S. That statute does not provide the City with authorization to retain counsel
in a civil case; it merely gives the City Commission, under certain limited circumstances,
the option to reimburse your reasonable attorney's fees expended at the conclusion of the
litigation should you prevail in the action.
Accordingly, by your letter of May 27, 2011, you have neither accepted, nor
declined the City's offer of representation, but rather demanded counsel of your own
choosing at the City's expense. The City has no obligation to pay for counsel of your
own choosing, and we decline to do so. Nevertheless, the City's offer of representation as
stated in our letter of April 29, 2011, still stands, and we await your acceptance or
rejection of our offer of representation.
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY/444 S.W. 2nd Avenue, Suite 945/Miami, Florida 33130-1910
Alfredo Alvarez, Major of Police
May 31, 2011
Page 2
Finally, although you have not advised us concerning the status of service of
process, . we .would like to point out that the Clerk's docket reflects that you were served
on May 11, 2011. Generally, a defendant has 20 days in which to file a response. Your
deadline, absent an extension, would be today. Accordingly, we would urge you to take
immediate action to protect your rights.
We look forward to hearing from you as soon as possible.
Very truly yours,
Julie O. Bru
City Attorney
JOB:WB:275090
)Ui.IE O. BRU
City Attorney
April 29, 2011
Miguel Exposito, Chief of Police
City of Miami Police Department
400 N.W. 2nd Avenue
Miami, FL 33128
Telephone: (305) 416-1800
Telecopier: (305) 416-1801
E-MAIL: Law@ci.miami.fl.us
Re: Orlando Cordoves v. America Teve Network, Inc. Miguel Exposito,
Alfredo Alvarez and Pedro Sevicec
Miami -Dade Countv Circuit Court, Case No.: 11-11738 CA 5
Dear Chief Exposito;
With reference to the above -captioned case, please be advised that the Plaintiff,
Orlando Cordoves, alleges, inter alia, that on March 23, 2011, you and the other
defendants in this lawsuit, made certain false defamatory statements during a Channel 41
television program resulting in damages to the Plaintiff.
The City of Miami, under the law, can and will _provide for defense counsel to
defend you for your acts or omissions arising out of, and in the. course and scope of, your
employment. See s. 111.07, F.S. (2010). The City will also provide you with defense
counsel to defend you on those claims, even though the Plaintiff is alleging that you acted
outside the scope of your employment, acted in bad faith, with malicious purpose, and in
a manner exhibiting wanton and willful disregard of human rights, safety br property, and
is seeking punitive damages.
However, please be advised that under §111.071(1)(a), F.S. (2010), in tort claims
arising under s. 768.28, F.S., such as tliis case, the limitations and provisions of s. 768.28
governing payment shall apply. Thus, if it is determined in the final judgment that you
acted outside the scope of your employment, or were acting in bad faith, maliciously or in
a mairer exhibiting wanton and willful disregard of human rights, safety or property, the
City cannot pay any part of the judgment, either compensatory or punitive. Furthermore,
even if it is determined in the final judgment that you dicl not act in bad faith, maliciously
or in a mariner exhibiting wanton and willful disregard of human rights, safety or
property, but the court awarded damages, the City could only pay, absent a legislative
claims bill, up to the statutory cap imposed under s. 768.28(5), F.S., of $100,000 per
person and $200,000 per incident/occurrence.
In addition, please be advised that under s. 111.07; F.S. (2010), any attorney's
fees paid from public funds for any officer, employee, or agent who is found to be
personally liable by virtue of acting outside the scope of his or her employment, or who
was acting in bad faith, with malicious purpose, or in a manner exhibiting wanton and
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY/444 S.W. 2nd Avenue, Suite 945/Miami, Florida 33130-1910
•
^r; Miguel Exposito, Chief of Police
April 29, 2011
Page2
willful disregard of human rights, . safety, or property, may be recovered by the
municipality in a civil action against such officer, employee or agent.
Accordingly, we have selected, and with your consent, will retain and provide,
outside counsel, Oscar Marrero, Esq., to act as your defense counsel in this case, at no
cost to you.
Of course, you have the right to instead retain defense counsel of your own
choosing. However, in that case, because the City has provided defense counsel to you at
no cost, the City would not have the statutory authorization to reimburse you for court
costs or reasonable attorney's fees, even if you prevail in the case. See ss. 111.07 &
11.071(1)(c), F.S. (2010).
After you have had an opportunity to consider the contents of this letter, please
return a signed copy of this letter to me either consenting to defense counsel provided by
the City or declining same.
Very truly yours,
Julie 0. Bru
City Attorney
I HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I HAVE FULLY READ AND UNDERSTAND
THE TERMS OF THE CITY'S PROVISION OF DEFENSE COUNSEL TO ME 1N
THIS LITIGATION, AS DETAILED IN THIS LETTER, AND CONSENT TO SAME.
MIGUEL EXPOSI
CHIEF OF' POLIC
DATE / /
I HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I HAVE FULLY READ AND UNDERSTAND
THE TERMS OF THE CITY'S PROVISION OF DEFENSE COUNSEL TO ME IN
THIS LITIGATION, AS DETAILED IN THIS LETTER, AND DECLINE SAME.
MIGUEL EXPOSITO, DATE
CHIEF OF POLICE
JOB:WB:271681
Tit f ivani
JULIE O. BRU
• City Attorney •
April. 29, 201,1
Alfredo Alvarez, Major of Police
City of Miami Police Department
400 N.W. 2nd Avenue
Miami, FL 33128
Telephone: (305) 416-1800
Telecopier: (305) 416-1801
E-MAIL: Law@ci.miami.fl.us
Re: Orlando Cordoves v. America Teve Network, Inc. Miguel Exposito,
Alfredo Alvarez and Pedro Sevcec
Miami -Dade County Circuit Court, Case No.: 11-11738 CA 5
Dear Major Alvarez:
With reference to the above -captioned case, please be. advised that the Plaintiff,
Orlando Cordoves, alleges, inter alia, that on March 23, 2011, you and the other
defendants in this lawsuit, made certain false defamatory statements during a Channel 41
television program resulting in damages to the Plaintiff
The City of Miami, under the law, can and will provide for defense counsel to
defend you for your acts or omissions arising out of, and in the course and scope of, your
employment. See s. 111.07, F.S. (2010). The City will also provide you with defense
counsel to defend you on those claims, even though the Plaintiff is alleging that you acted
outside the scope .of.your employment, acted in bad faith, with malicious purpose, and in
a manner exhibiting wariton and willful disregard of human rights, safety or property, and
is seeking punitive damages.
However, please be advised that under §111.071(1)(a), F.S. (2010), in tort claims
arising under s. 768.28, F.S., such as this case, the limitations and provisions of s. 768.28
governing payment shall apply. Thus, if it is determined in the final judgment that you
acted outside the scope of your employment, or were acting in bad faith, maliciously or in
a manner exhibiting wanton and willful disregard of human rights, safety or property, the
City cannot pay any part of the judgment, either compensatory or punitive. Furthermore,
even if it is determined in the final judgment that you did not act in bad faith, maliciously
or in a manner exhibiting wanton and willful disregard of human rights, safety . or
property, but the court awarded damages, the City could only pay, absent a legislative
claims bill, up to the statutory cap imposed under s. 768.28(5), F.S., of $100,000 per
person and $200,000 per incident/occurrence.
In addition, .please be advised that under s. 111.07, F.S. (2010), any attorney's
fees paid from public funds for any officer, employee, or agent who is found to be
personally liable by virtue of acting outside the scope of his or her employment, or who
was acting in bad faith, with malicious purpose, or in a manner exhibiting wanton and
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY/444 S.W. 2nd Avenue, Suite 945/Miami, Florida 33130-1910
Major Alfredo Alvarez
April 29, 2011
Page 2
willful disregard of human rights, safety, or property, may be recovered by the
municipality in a civil action against such officer, employee or agent.
Accordingly, we have selected, and with your consent, will retain and provide,
outside counsel, Oscar Marrero, Esq., to act as your defense counsel in this case, at no
cost to you.
Of course, you have the right to instead retain defense counsel of your own
choosing. However, in that case, because the City has provided defense counsel to you at
no cost, the City would not have the statutory authorization to reimburse you for court
costs or reasonable attorney's fees, even if you prevail in the case. See ss. 111.07 &
11.071(1)(c), F.S. (2010).
After you have had an opportunity to consider the contents of this letter, please
retum a signed copy of this letter to me either consenting to defense counsel provided by
the City or declining same.
Very truly yours,
Julie O. Bru ,,vt2
City Attorney
I HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I HAVE FULLY READ AND UNDERSTAND
THE TERMS OF THE CITY'S PROVISION OF DEFENSE COUNSEL TO ME IN
THIS LITIGATION, AS DETAILED IN THIS LETTER, AND CONSENT TO SAME.
ALFREDO ALVAREZ,
MAJOR OF POLICE
‘/,o/ii
DATE
I HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I HAVE FULLY READ AND UNDERSTAND
THE TERMS OF THE CITY'S PROVISION OF DEFENSE COUNSEL TO ME IN
THIS LITIGATION, AS DETAILED IN THIS LETTER, AND DECLINE SAME.
ALFREDO ALVAREZ, DATE
MAJOR OF POLICE
JOB:W3:271684
-(jhe Law Offices of Oscar E. Marrero provides high quality,
responsive representation to corporations, municipalities, state
governmental entities and individuals. Our firm takes pride in its
ability to solve the problems of clients creatively and cost
effectively, while providing the highest caliber of professional
representation and client -focused results. We are legal advisors
offering broad services, responsive support staff, vision and
leadership designed to assure unparalleled service and satisfaction to
our clients and our community.
In an increasingly litigious society, clients of The Law Offices of
Oscar E. Marrero benefit from a team litigation approach. Our
lawyers listen and respond to client concerns. We protect the
client's interest as we work together to develop and implement
our litigation strategy, keeping clients well informed as the case
proceeds. Through hard work and attention to detail, our attorneys
have achieved significant success in the litigation environment.
There is no substitute for experience, good judgment and poise
under pressure. Our firm's 'record of success gives our clients
confidence that they will be well represented. We are proud that
most of our referrals come from our clients.
Teamwork, communication and strong advocacy skills
The Law Offices of Oscar E. Marrero.
TABLE<REPRESENTATIO
ChevronCorp r
Florida•League-of Cities.
State of Florida, Department of -Financial Services
City of Plantation
City of -Miami
A STRONG NEGOTIATOR IS
ONE WHO IS PREPARED FOR TRIAL
he Law Offices of Oscar E. Marrero understands that an
attorney's major concern must be ,to find. the right solution for the
client. The best solution may be obtained at trial or through
mediation. Experience, knowledge, a comprehensive investigation
of the facts, and the willingness to go to trial, constitute the strengths
of this firm. Unlike many other law firms, if the facts do not warrant
settlement, or if the adversary will not come to reasonable terms, we
will try the case.
When we take action in a case
We have a strategic reason
The Law Offices of Oscar E. Marrero combines the personalized
service of a small firm with a large firm approach. We know our
clients by name, not by case number. By keeping them informed
through every step of the legal process, we assure a level of atten-
tion that every one of our clients deserves.
rsO 1
_ zNj
Mise
nsur efe1 se
ance-°D set
'n erit 1i se4Minaf
OSCAR E. MARRERO
Senior Partner
Oscar E. Marrero, Esq., has been
practicing law for over twenty years
and has developed a diverse litigation
practice. He is an accomplished
federal court attorney representing
governmental entities and employees in
Title VII and Section 1983 cases. His
clients have included universities and a
significant number of municipalities
in Dade, Broward and Palm Beach
Counties. He routinely handles complex
constitutional tort cases . with. multi-
milliondollarexposures. These include
First Amendment terminations, Fourth
Amendment police excessive force, false arrest, liberty interest violations,
and Eighth Amendment claims.
Mr. Marrero is equally experienced in a state court practice focused on
wrongful death and serious personal injury cases. Oscar has represented
corporations in automobile collision cases, business owners in negligent
security shooting or assault cases and contractors in road construction,
electrocution and other accident cases. Furthermore, he possesses a strong
medical knowledge base through his representation of various local
hospitals and healthcare providers in medical malpractice cases. The
advocacy and investigative expertise Oscar has refined for more than
twenty years working in the South Florida court system is an advantage
in evaluating and pursuing cases.
Born in Havana, Cuba, Oscar E. Marrero earned his Bachelor's Degree,
Cum Laude, in Business Administration from the University of Miami.
He graduated from the University of Florida Law School in 1983 with a
Juris Doctor degree. Following graduation from law school, Oscar served
as a Felony Division Chief in the Dade County State Attorney's Office and
prosecuted homicide cases.
Memberships and Associations:
• Florida Bar Association
• United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit
• United States District Court, Southern District of Florida
• President, Cuban American Bar Association 2000-2001
• Chair, Florida Bar Grievance Committee 11N
• Vice Chair, Spanish American League Against Discrimination
• Vice Chair, Florida Appleseed, organization advocating children's rights
• ecipiei t -C ildren's First Pro Bono Award, Dade County Bar Association
• Leadership Florida Class XXI ,graduate
Email: OEM@marrerolegal.com
LOURDES ESPINO WYDLER
Associate
concentrates her practice of law on Civil
Rights, Employment Law and Municipal
Liability. As an active member of the
litigation team, Ms. WydIer brings broad
experience and knowledge in the research
of complex constitutional issues: Her -
incisive legal writing and determined
advocacy have helped develop an
effective appellate practice for the firm.
Education and Qualifications:
• University of Miami School of Law,
Cum Laude, Juris Doctor, 2003
• University of Toronto, Criminology,
Master of Arts, 2000
• University of Maryland, Government and Politics, Bachelor of Arts, 1999
• Florida Bar Association
• United States Court of Appeals,
Eleventh Circuit
• United States District Court, Southern District of Florida
• American Bar Association
• Dade County Bar Association
While studying law at the University of Miami School of Law, Ms. Wydler
distinguished herself by winning the First Year Moot Court Competition,
Advanced Moot Court Competition, and by serving as the .President of the
University of Miami School of Law Moot Court Board. She also served on the edi-
torial board of Psychology, Public Policy and Law Review of the University of
A: T.. r... final t t
Miami. In her final year, she was nomrnated for the publication: Who's Who In
American Law Schools and received the George O'Keefe Memorial Award for her
outstanding dedication to oral advocacy.
Email: LE /V(a marrerolegal.com
•
ADVOCACY
Email:
OFFICES OF
PROFESSIONALISM
oem@marrerolegal.com
_rage 2or4
West[aw.
Profiler References for: MARRERO, OSCAR E. ESQ.
Profiler References: limited to Cases
Cases
H 1 Jessup v. Miami -Dade County, 2011 WL 294417, (S.D.F1a.
January 27, 2011)
14 R.J. v. Andrea Azia, 2010 WL 5341814, (S.D.Fla. Decem-
ber 09, 2010)
1 3 Jessup v. Miami -Dade County, 2010 WL 4942577,
.(S.D.Fla. November 29, 2010) .
H 4 Jessup v. Miami -Dade County, 2010 WL 4923105,
(S.D.F1a. November 29, 2010)
Fi 5 R.J. v. Azia, 2010 WL 5140591, (S.D.Fla. November 08,
2010)
l 6 Irwin v. Miami -Dade County Public Schools, 398
Fed.Appx. 503, (l lth Cir.(Fla.) October04, 2010)
7 Whittier v. City of Sunrise, 395 Fed.Appx. 648, (ilth
Cir.(Fla.) September 14, 2010)
8 Jessup v. Miami Dade County, 2010 WL 5654862,
(S.D.Fia. July 06, 2010)
)`( 9 Jessup v. Miami Dade County, 2010 WL 4922673,
(S.D.Fla. July 02, 2010)
l 10 Poole v. City of Plantation, Fla., 2010 WL 1791905, V'
(S.D.F1a. May 05, 2010)
11 Ratunuman v. Sanchez, 2010 WL 1791429, (S.D.Fla. May
05, 2010)
H 12 Jessup v. Miami -Dade County, 697 F.Supp.2d 1312,
(S.D.Fla. March 18, 2010)
13 Jessup v. Miami -Dade County, 2010 WL 883684, (S.D.Fla.
,March 10, 2010) • • -
H 14 Ratunuman v. Sanchez, 2010 WL 375680, (S.D.F1a. Janu-
ary 26, 2010)
15 Doe v. Florida Intern. University Bd. of Trustees, 20 So.3d
857, (F1a.App. 3 Dist. October 28, 2009)
16 Whittier v. Goldstein, 343 Fed.Appx. 5.17, (l 1 th Cir.(Fla.)
August 31, 2009)
.0 17 Ranck v. Rundle, 2009 WL 1684645, (S.D.F1a. June 16, ✓
2009)
https://web2.westlaw.com/print/printstream.aspx?sv---Split&p. HTMLE&mt-=Florida&vr=... 4/4/2011
Page 3 of 4
H 18 Whittier v. City of Sunrise, 2009 WL 799432, (S.D.Fla.
March 24, 2009)
19 Whittier v. City of Sunrise, 2009 WL 799434, (S.D.Fla.
March 06, 2009)
1� 20 Irwin v. Miami -Dade County Public Schools, 2009 WL
465066, (S.D.Fla. February 24, 2009)
Hi 21 Irwin v. Miami -Dade County Public Schools, 2009 WL
465054, (S.D.Fla. February 24, 2009)
}�l 22 Irwin v. Miami -Dade County Public Schools, 2009 WL
465059, (S.D.Fla. February 24, 2009)
23 Irwin v. Miami -Dade County Public Schools, 2009 WL
465042, (S.D.Fla. February 24, 2009)
ii 24 Irwin v. Miami -Dade County Public Schools, 2009 WL
465033, (S.D.Fla. February 24, 2009)
)f# 25 Ball v. City of Coral Gables, 301 Fed.Appx. 865, (i lth
Cir.(Fla_) December 04, 2008)
H 26 Whittier v. City of Sunrise, 2008 WL 5765868, (S.D.Fla.
December 03, 2008)
f 27 Irwin v. Miami -Dade County Public Schools, 2008 WL
2397622, (S.D.F1a. June 10, 2008)
28 Whittier v. City of Sunrise, 2008 WL 5501008, (S.D.Fla.
May 19, 2008)
kl 29 Ball v. City of Coral Gables, 548 F.Supp.2d 1364,
(S.D.Fla. April 09, 2008)
C 30 Woods v. City of Plantation, 2008 WL 763788, (S.D.Fla.
March 19, 2008)
31 Watts v. Florida Intern. University, 495 F.3d 1289, (11th
Cir.(Fla.) August 17, 2007)
32 Whittington v. Town of Surfside, 490 F.Supp.2d 1239,
(S.D.Fla. June 06, 2007)
G 33 Abad v. City of Marathon, FL, 472 F.Supp.2d 1374,
(S.D.F1a. February 08, 2007)
34 Sparado v. Boone, 212 Fed.Appx. 831, (l lth Cir.(Fla.) "
December 21, 2006)
G 35 Doe v. Florida Intern. University Bd. of Trustees, 464
F.Supp.2d 1259, (S.D.F1a. December 14, 2006)
H 36 Hampton v. City of South Miami, 2005 WL 5993476,
(S.D.F1a. July 29, 2005)
P 37 Watts v. Florida International University, 2005 WL
3730879, (S.D.Fla. June 09, 2005)
C 38 Alford v. Florida, 390 F.Supp.2d 1236, (S.D.Fla. March
https://web2.westlaw.cozn/print/printstream. aspx?sv=Split&prft=HTMLE&mt=Florida&vr=... 4/4/2011
Page 4 of 4
28, 2005)
39 Shotz v. City of Plantation, Fla., 344 F.3d 1161, (l lth
Cir.(Fla.) September 08, 2003)
40 Epstein v. Toys-R-Us Delaware, Inc., 277 F.Supp.2d 1266,
(S.D.F1a. April 14, 2003)
C 41 Jones ex rel. Bazerman v. Florida Department of Children
& Family Services, 202 F.Supp.2d 1352, (S.D.FIa. April
18,2002) /
42 Roes v. Florida Dept. of Children & Family Services, 176 /1
F.Supp.2d 1310, (S.D.Fla. September 24, 2001)
C 43 Ward ex rel. Bazerman v. Feaver, 2000 WL 34025227,
(S.D.F1a. February 29, 2000)
°V 44 Smith v. City of Plantation, 19 F.Supp.2d 1323, (S.D.F1a.Y`
August 11, 1998)
https ://web2.westlaw. com/print/printstream. aspx?sv=Split&prft=HTMLE&mt=Florida&vr=... 4/4/2011
Bittner, Warren
From: Oscar Marrero [OEM@marrerolegal.comj
Sent: Friday, April 22, 2011 2:13 PM
To: Bittner, Warren
Subject: Follow-up
Attachments: AR-M277_20110422_131810.pdf; LawOfficesOscarMarrero.resume.pdf
Warren,
It was a pleasure speaking with you. This supplements our telephone conversation. As we
discussed, we have been representing municipalities and government employees for
approximately 15 years. This includes serving as counsel for the Florida League of Cities.
We also represent insureds for the State of Florida Risk Management Fund. This usually
involves handling their higher-profile/larger exposure civil rights cases. Similarly, we are
conflict counsel for the City of Plantation, City of Coral Gables and City of North Miami
Beach. This conflict work usually involves representing police officers in a variety of
civil rights cases.
The firm resume and a list of reported opinions are attached. There are several significant
cases on the reported opinion list. We also handled the Department of Juvenile Justice boot
camp case in Northern Florida, by special request. Furthermore, I represented the Mayor of
the City of Sweetwater in the case involving Peter Daniel, and defended the City of
Plantation double wrongful death case involving Police Officer Joseph Alu. Finally, I served
as a homicide prosecutor and Division Chief at the Dade County State Attorney's Office. By
point of information, I represented Kathy Rundle and Bennett Brummer in their separate and
unrelated First Amendment cases. This'occurred within the past three years. Please let me
know whether you would like any additional information.
Thank you for your professional courtesy.
Oscar.E. Marrero, Esq.
Law Offices of Oscar E. Marrero
2600 Douglas Road, PH-4
Coral Gables, FL 33134
(305) 446-5528
(305) 446-0995 (fax)
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE:
THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS TRANSMISSION IS LEGALLY PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL,
INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY NAMED ABOVE. IF THE READER OF THIS
MESSAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION,
TLY
FSTHISUCOMMUNON, IR ICATIIONING IN OF THIS ERROR, PLOEASENICATION IS IMMEDIATELYS(1)CREPLYRBYIBITED. E-MAIL TOFYOU US, ANDC(2)EDELETTEY OF THIS
THIS MESSAGE.
1