HomeMy WebLinkAboutCover MemoCITY OF MIAMI
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
MEMORANDUM
TO: Honorable Mayor '��d Memb : of e City Commission
FROM: Jorge L. Fernand ;1't • ttorne
DATE: February 20, 2
RE: Proposed Resolution for City Commission Meeting — March 8, 2007
Ric -Man International, Inc., vs. City of Miami, et al.
Miami -Dade Circuit Court Case No. 98-13051 CA (13)
(File No. 07-00283)
The attached proposed Resolution pertains to the enforcement of a settlement agreement
arising from litigation in Ric -Man International, Inc., vs. City of Miami, et al., Case No. 98-
13051 CA (13). In 1998, Ric -Man International, Inc., brought this breach of contract against the
City of Miami and Utility Directional Drilling, Inc. The action arose from a construction project
involving the connection of sanitary sewers to Watson Island. Ric -Man alleged that the City
breached its contract by imposing specifications for construction inconsistent with the
requirements of the project and failing to provide accurate plans and specifications. The City
employed Carney -Neuhaus, Inc., an engineering corporation, for the design and engineering
work on the Watson Island Project. Carney was not a party to the breach of contract suit filed by
Ric -Man against the City.
In 2002, the City settled this case with Ric -Man. As part of the settlement agreement,
the City assigned to Ric -Man its right to pursue a cause of action against Eleanor Carney
Engineering, Associates, Inc., on the City's behalf. The agreement provided that Ric -Man was
to pay over to the City 50% of any monetary proceeds it received from pursuing an action
against Eleanor Carney Engineering, Associates, Inc., after deducting its litigation costs and
expenses, which were to be capped at 25% of the settlement amount.
In 2002, Ric -Man filed suit against Eleanor Carney Engineering, Associates, Inc.,
individually and as an assignee of the City's claim. In late 2003, Ric -Man settled with Eleanor
Carney Engineering, Associates, Inc. for the total amount of $600,000, including interest,
attorney's fees and costs. The settlement made no distinction regarding the amount paid for Ric-
Man's claim versus the amount paid for the assigned City claim. In December 2003, Carney
disbursed settlement proceeds to Ric -Man. The City filed a motion to enforce the settlement
agreement, which was opposed by Ric -Man. Ric -Man now contends that the City's assigned
claim had no merit because the former Director of Public Works testified favorably for Carney
Neuhaus Engineering. In our motion, we contend that we are entitled to at least $225,000, which
is half of the settlement proceeds less Ric-Man's attorney's fees and costs capped at 25%. In
January of 2007, on the eve of a second hearing on the City's motion to enforce the settlement
agreement, Ric -Man' s counsel made an offer to settle this claim for $112,000. The hearing was
canceled so that Ric-Man's offer could be presented to the City Commission for its
consideration.
cc Pedro G. Hernandez, City Manger
Elvi G. Alonso, Agenda Coordinator
67055