Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutsubmittal aLAW OFFICES RONES & NAVARRO 16105 N. E. 18t Ave., N. Miami Beach, FL 33162 Please Reply To: P. O, Box 190737 Miami Beach, FL 33119 June 22, 2004 Via Facsimile (305) 381-9982 Dario Perez, Esquire Shuns & Bowen, LLP 1500 Miami Center 201 South Biscayne Blvd. Miami, FL 33131 (305) 945-6522 Telephone (305) 940-2277 Facsimile SUBMITTED INTO THE PUBLJC RECORD FOR ITEM Pzz. ON 6-,2Li-olk Re: Waterman, DeArâ–ºrlas and Sanchez v. City and Flagstone, et al. Case No. 03-18314 CA 21 Dear Mr. Perez: Thank your for your letter of June 16, 2004. First, allow us to respond to the various points raised in your correspondence and then, we will address the various constructive matters to proceed. Paragraph 2 of your letter clarifies that a binding sublease agreement is not feasible. As indicated in my prior correspondence, your statement appears to he at odds with the representation of your client under oath that a binding proposed sublease was proposed to our client. It would thus appear that your correspondence reflects that Mr. Herndon apparently mis- stated the position of Flagstone on this point. Addressing the more substantive aspects of the paragraph, we are not in accord with your position. It would appear that the contingencies (conditions precedent) referenced in your letter could be easily incorporated as conditions precedent in any binding agreement which would be entered into between our clients. Thus, any conditions imposed by your agreement would merely be engrafted into the binding agreement between our clients. If the conditions are resolved, then our clients would be bound and ifthe conditions do not occur and your are unable to proceed, once again the parties are protected. The foregoing is needed because my clients are being placed in the awkward position of the City advising that they will work with them when and if Flagstone and my clients enter into a binding resolution; however, Flagstone is claiming that it will not enter into a binding resolution. Dario Perez, Esquire June 22, 2004 Page Two Paragraph 3 of your letter addresses the non -binding letter of intent. Your client claimed to the City, the public and the Planning Advisory Board that this was a binding obligation and we appreciate your clarification of the error of this statement. As you are aware, the letter of intent was received and further information was provided by my clients as to the specifications needed. We then asked for further details and the requisite agreement needed by the City to work with us. The City has advised that under its agreement with Flagstone, the City cannot work with us because they are contractually bound to you to only proceed against us and may not vary from this obligation unless you enter into a binding agreement that relieves them of this obligation. Paragraph 4 of your letter is incorrect, We desperately sought to continue the negotiations as this ping pong game between Flagstone and the City proceeded. We even requested your attendance at the mediation with the City wherein all these issues could be resolved. Your firm filed the objection to attend the mediation and advised the court that unless and until Flagstone was sued and made a party it would not attend. Mediation then proceeded, with the City and our clients both anxious to resolve the matter; however, nothing could be done nor accomplished without the input and attendance of Flagstone. Ergo, although the City and my clients both wanted to resolve, your client's refusal to participate stymied and doomed the mediation, Since your firm and your client advised that no participation in mediation would occur unless and until Flagstone was made a party, my clients had no alternative but to proceed with your invitation and file suit. Now, of course, Flagstone has taken a predictable tact: Option 1: Flagstone will not attend mediation because it has not been sued! This was set forth in your objection and confirmed by court order of Judge Gordon, a copy of which is attached hereto, Option 2: Flagstone will not attend mediation because it has been, sued! This is your client's latest proclamation in public meetings, Note that regardless of whichever option is chosen, Flagstone will not submit to mediation, contrary to the claims of your letter. Worse, Flagstone has appeared before the City and the public under oath and claimed that it has provided a binding proposed lease to my clients when indeed, no such proposal was ever made as acknowledged by your firm! The portions of Paragraph 4 which appear on page two of your letter claim that my clients have no further interest in being a part of this matter. Considering the various hoops which my clients have jumped through, at your client's direction, this contention is amazing! Especially in light of the actual facts of this matter. Our clients are 3 industrious, hard working familie, struggling continuously to maintain and operate businesses on Watson Island They have been dangled with one promise after another, each time fully performing the current hardship being Dario Perez, Esquire June 22, 2004 Page Three imposed upon them at the moment. We have respectfully refrained from bringing this injustice to them and all the citizens of the City of Miami, the taxpayers, in an effort to resolve this matter. At all times our clients have been eager to consummate the protection of the future of not only their businesses and their families, but also what has been promised to them and the taxpayers. You will note that under the options provided to us above, we were invited to sue and have done so pursuant to your request. The City has several suggestions for temporary relocation (which are of interest to my clients) if an agreement is reached with Flagstone. However, Flagstone will not even attend non -binding mediation. My clients are quite anxious to resolve this .natter and look forward to mediation. Furthermore, my clients are at a loss to t mderstand your clients true intent (i,e, no mediation until Flagstone is sued and now, no mediation because Flagstone is sued!). The City has been anxious to resolve this with my clients but advises that Flagstone has tied their hands, Instead of all this posturing, come in good faith to the mediation. If your client is really interested in working with us, come and negotiate. The mediation is nonbinding. As for contingencies or conditions precedent, it would seem quite simple to incorporate such matters into an agreement so that all are protected. Indeed, our office has even gone further...we have indicated that we will go with whoever the City and Flagstone designate as mediator. Thus, chose your mediator and show that indeed you are operating in good faith. Thank your for your attention to this matter. Yours truly, VICTOR K. RUNES cc: Manuel A. Diaz, Mayor Angel Gonzalez, Commissioner Joe Sanchez, Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr., Commissioner Johnny L. Winton, Commissioner Tomas Regalado, Commissioner Joe Arriola, Chief Administrator/City Manager Alejandro Vilarello, City Attorney Judith Burke, Esquire Warren Bittncr, Esquire