December 2020, January 2021, & February 2021 Litigation Report
See full text below. If you prefer to view a pdf of this document, you can do so here(PDF, 167KB).
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: MEMORANDUM
In order to keep you informed of the status of pending litigation matters currently handled by the Office of the City Attorney, provided below is a summary of significant results and new cases in December 2020, January 2021, and February 2021, and other important updates.
SIGNIFICANT RESULTS IN DECEMBER 2020, JANUARY 2021, & FEBRUARY 2021:
SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN BERT J. HARRIS ACT LITIGATION: Karenza Apartments, LLP v. City of Miami, Miami-Dade County Circuit Court, Case No. 19-4477 CA (31) (EJE/HJH). Karenza Apartments L.L.P. sued the City of Miami claiming it was entitled to compensation under the Bert J. Harris Act. Karenza claimed, through their counsel, Stearns Weaver, that, when the City modified the Mural Boundary Area in 2017, the value of its property dropped by $4.83 million. With interest and attorneys’ fees, this claim was in excess of $6 million. After extensive discovery, both the City and Karenza moved for Summary Judgment. A three-hour hearing on those Motions was argued December 14, 2020. On December 22, 2020, Judge Spencer Eig granted the City’s Summary Final Judgment and found that Karenza should receive nothing. Karenza has appealed.
APPELLATE DECISION ON INTERVENTION IN HEP MATTERS: Bayshore in the Grove, et al. v. City of Miami, Miami-Dade County Circuit Court, Appellate Division, Case No. 20-000157-AP-01 (JAG). This issue in this appeal was whether there is a right to intervene in a historic preservation appeal before the City Commission. In this case, Carrollton filed applications for permission to develop the subject property. HEPB denied the application, and Carrollton appealed to the Commission. Although the Commission ultimately indefinitely deferred the appeal, those who opposed the development sought to intervene before the Commission. The Commission denied intervention. On appeal, the Court affirmed the denial of intervention. Among other things, the Court found that the HEPB ordinance did not allow for intervention (in contrast to the zoning ordinance). Further, the Court found there was no violation of due process as the petitioners were represented by counsel and had an opportunity to present their objections to the Commission. Second Reading of Legislation on this issue is scheduled for March 25, 2021.
APPELLATE AFFIRMANCE OF CODE ENFORCEMENT VIOLATIONS: Calle Ocho Marketplace v. City of Miami, Miami-Dade Circuit Court, Appellate Division, Case No. 18-299 AP (JAG). The Appellant, Calle Ocho Marketplace, LLC, appealed from an Order of the Code Enforcement Board which authorized the City of Miami to remove unpermitted structures cargo containers/kiosks) from the owner’s property. Following briefing and oral argument, the Appellate Division affirmed, holding that the Order of the Code Enforcement Board was supported by competent substantial evidence, complied with the essential requirements of the law, and afforded due process.
APPELLATE DECISION ON MAYORAL VETO: Miami-Dade County v. City of Miami, Third District Court of Appeal, Case No. 3D20-1195 (KLM): In this appeal, Miami-Dade County sought second-tier certiorari review of a decision of the appellate division, which had dismissed the County’s petition for writ of certiorari for lack of jurisdiction. This issue on appeal was whether a mayoral veto of a quasi-judicial decision of the City Commission was itself a quasi-judicial decision. The court granted the County’s petition for second-tier certiorari. The panel held that the Mayor’s veto of a quasi-judicial decision must itself also be quasi-judicial to comport with due process requirements.
SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON MAYORAL VETO: Cuesta, et al. v. City of Miami, et al., Miami-Dade County Circuit Court, Case No. 2020-6298 CA 01 (OUTSIDE COUNSEL). In this lawsuit, the plaintiffs asserted, among other things, that the Mayor’s veto of the West Flagler settlement agreement was valid under the Charter. Both the Plaintiffs and Defendants moved for summary judgment on the sole issue of the validity of the mayoral veto. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the trial court issued an Order granting the Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and denying the Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. In its Order, the Court ruled that Mayor’s veto was valid because the settlement agreement fell within the category of a land use decision which may be vetoed under the Charter. Outside Counsel filed an appeal on behalf of the City.
RED-LIGHT CAMERA VIOLATION AFFIRMED ON APPEAL: Jorge Luis Suarez, Jr. v. City of Miami, Third District Court of Appeal, Case No. 3D20-0804 (EJE). This case arises from a red-light camera capturing images of the petitioner running a red light. The City’s red light camera ordinance was still in effect at that time. The violation occurred at the intersection of NW 57th Avenue and NW 7th Street. After a special master found a red-light violation, the petitioner appealed the order to the Circuit Court Appellate Division. The Circuit Court affirmed. The petitioner then filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the Third District Court of Appeal. He raised two issues: (1) whether a due process violation occurred when the officer who issued the citation did not testify at the hearing before the special master; and (2) whether the notice of violation satisfied the statutory requirements. The City filed a response disputing both claims. After consideration, the Third District affirmed. This appears to be the City’s last red light camera case.
SUMMARY JUDGMENT AFFIRMED ON APPEAL IN CIVIL RIGHTS CASE: Jamie Brown v. Ti'Andre Bellinger, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, Case. No. 19-14586 (EJE/HJH). This was a civil rights case brought by Joseph Klock, Esq., on behalf of Plaintiff Jamie Brown claiming that Officer Ti’Andre Bellinger sexually assaulted him during a search incident to a marijuana arrest. The Plaintiff sought damages and attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. 1983 for (1) a violation of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and (2) intentional infliction of emotional distress. The City filed a Motion for Summary Judgment based on the Plaintiff’s deposition testimony. It argued that no constitutional violation occurred, and no evidence supported a finding of intentional infliction of emotional distress. After reviewing the deposition, along with other documents in the record, the district court granted Summary Judgment in favor of Officer Bellinger on all claims. On appeal, the Plaintiff claimed that factual disputes precluded summary judgment, that the district court improperly made credibility determinations against him, and that, in any event, Officer Bellinger was not entitled to summary judgment. The City responded and disputed all these assertions. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion affirming the summary judgment for Officer Bellinger. In doing so, the Eleventh Circuit essentially adopted the City’s position on all material points.
DEFENSE VERDICT AFFIRMED ON APPEAL IN CIVIL RIGHTS CASE: Alberto Ruiz v. Officer Jennifer Wing, et al., United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, Case No. 18- 10912 (KLM). In this matter, plaintiff Alberto Ruiz appealed from a full defense verdict in favor of the City in his claim that on September 24, 2014, he was subjected to excessive force as a result of his apprehension by City of Miami Police Officer Danny Fals and tasering by City of Miami Police Officer Jennifer Wing, when Plaintiff was arrested for Carjacking, Attempted Murder, Aggravated Battery, Resisting Arrest with Violence, and Resisting Arrest without Violence. During his apprehension, Plaintiff broke his jaw in two places, fractured several ribs, and injured his back. The Plaintiff's underlying criminal prosecution resulted in Plaintiff pleading guilty to three separate carjacking cases that occurred in downtown Miami/Brickell area in 2014 for which he received a 20-year prison sentence to the Florida State Prison System. On appeal, Ruiz asserted a number of evidentiary and procedural errors during his trial, including improper arguments by counsel for the officer, improper admission of video evidence of his underlying crime, and that the trial court judge improperly questioned Ruiz while he was testifying and improperly admonished his trial counsel in front of the jury. Following full briefing and oral argument, the Eleventh Circuit issued its opinion affirming in all respects.
SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN NEGLIGENCE ACTION (TRIP AND FALL CASE): Teresa Matta v. City of Miami, Miami-Dade County Circuit Court, Case No. 17-25778 CA 23. (JTM). The Plaintiff filed suit against the City alleging that on March 4, 2015, she tripped, fell, and was injured due to a negligently maintained uneven City sidewalk at Flagler Street and SE 2nd Avenue in Miami. The City filed a Motion for Summary Judgment based on a lack of notice of the alleged dangerous condition. The Plaintiff filed a response. A hearing was held during which the trial court granted the City’s Motion for Summary Judgment.
MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS: In addition, from December 2020 through February 2021, this Office handled a total of 612 hearings before the Code Board, Code Magistrate, and Unsafe Structure Panel.
NEW CASES OPENED IN DECEMBER 2020, JANUARY 2021 & FEBRUARY 2021
FIRST AMENDMENT CASE: Magda Gonzalez, Denise Galvez Turros and Juan Turros v. City of Miami, Miami-Dade Circuit Court, Case No. 20-025537 CA 23 (CAG). Plaintiffs filed this action for declaratory relief claiming the City disallowed their public comments at the November 19, 2020 Commission Meeting. Plaintiffs allege they provided recorded public comments on the agenda item related to amending the City's noise ordinance and the City decided not to play the recorded comments upon the advice of the City Attorney. Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that the City violated state law on public meetings, that the City violated their First Amendment rights under the United States Constitution, the City violated their rights to equal protection, and that the City violated their Fourteenth Amendment Due Process rights by censoring speech pursuant to arbitrary standards.
CIVIL RIGHTS CASE: Lamont Collins v. City of Miami, et al., United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, Case No. 20-cv-23589-DPG (DAH). Pro Se Plaintiff filed suit in Federal Court against the City of Miami, City of Miami Police Officer Kenneth Lewis, City of Miami Police Officer Wandler Phillippe, and Doubletree Grand Hotel alleging civil rights violations for a pattern/custom of City of Miami Police Internal Affairs Investigations that validate Officer violations of Department Policy; the City of Miami's lack of supervision/training of Officers; illegal detainment and false arrest under the Fourth Amendment; and violation of Equal Protection and Due Process Rights under the Fourteenth Amendment related to his arrest for accosting and threatening guests at the Doubletree Grand Hotel while brandishing a knife on February 13, 2018. Pro Se Plaintiff is seeking monetary damages.
NEGLIGENCE ACTION (TRIP AND FALL CASE): Iris Sanchez v. City of Miami, Miami Dade County Circuit Court, Case No. 20-018784 CA 01 (09) (JPO). Plaintiff claims that on April 30, 2017, she tripped and fell at the Marlins Parking Lot, where the City failed to properly maintain the premises and allowed a hole where a tree had been removed to create a dangerous condition causing Plaintiff to trip and fall sustain injuries.
NEGLIGENCE ACTION (MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT): Mariela Rojas v. City of Miami & Damian Nikolas Hernandez, Miami Dade County Circuit Court, Case No. 20-26156 CA 01 (JTM). The Plaintiff has filed suit against the City and Officer Hernandez alleging that on March 16, 2018, at WB State Road 112 and NW 36th Street in Miami, Officer Hernandez negligently caused a motor vehicle accident while the Plaintiff was in the backseat of his cruiser. The Plaintiff alleges she was injured because Officer Hernandez failed to secure her seatbelt.
NEGLIGENCE ACTION (TRIP AND FALL): Mennal Shatata v. City of Miami and Diversible Investments, Miami-Dade County Circuit Court, Case No. 20-16930 CA 01 (JTM). The Plaintiff has filed suit against the City & Diversible Investments alleging that on October 10, 2018, she fell and was injured on a cracked sidewalk at 97 NW 27th Street in Miami due to tree roots that grew under the sidewalk from Diversible's adjacent property. The Plaintiff's claim against the City is based on its failure to enforce Ordinance 54-55.
NEGLIGENCE ACTION (TRIP AND FALL): Franklin and Maria Boet v. City of Miami, Miami Dade County Circuit Court, Case No. 20-24176 CA 01 (JTM). Plaintiff Franklin Boet filed suit against the City alleging that on May 13, 2017, at 2255 SW 32nd Avenue in Miami, he tripped, fell, and was injured due to a negligently maintained "parking lot area." Plaintiff Maria claims a loss of consortium.
NEGLIGENCE ACTION (TRIP AND FALL): Susan Ward v. City of Miami & Miami-Dade County, Miami Dade County Circuit Court, Case No. 20-25041 CA 01 (JTM). The Plaintiff alleges that on April 5, 2019, at 3485 Main Highway, Coconut Grove, she tripped and was injured due to a negligently maintained sidewalk.
APPEAL (UNSAFE STRUCTURES ORDER): East Coast Investments LLC v. City of Miami, Miami-Dade Circuit Court, Case No. 20-026942 CA 01 (KLM): This is an appeal of a final order of the unsafe structures panel to repair or demolish.
APPEAL (LAND USE MATTER): Save Grove Isle, LLC, et al v. City of Miami, et al, Third District Court of Appeal, Case No. 3D20-1548 (KLM). This is an appeal of an order dismissing the complaint below on the basis of the plaintiffs' lack of standing and the fact that the claims at issue had been previously litigated and settled by the developer and condominium association (on behalf of the plaintiffs and all condominium owners).
NEGLIGENCE ACTION (MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT/POLICE PURSUIT): Carlos Lopez v. City of Miami, Miami-Dade County Circuit Court, Case No. 20-27448 (HJH). This is an action for personal injuries alleging a negligent police pursuit on May 5, 2020, resulting in a motor vehicle collision between a criminal offender and Plaintiff's vehicle at an intersection of Northwest 36th Street in the City of Miami.
NEGLIGENCE ACTION (MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT: Diaz, Leyman v. City of Miami, Miami Dade County Circuit Court, Case No. 20-27897 CA 01 (JTM). The Plaintiff alleges that on January 2, 2018, at NW 17th Avenue and NW South River Drive in Miami-Dade, a 2016 City freightliner operated by Elier Paez failed to secure its trailer which caused it to collide with the Plaintiff's vehicle and injure him. The Plaintiff alleges expenses in excess of $250,000.
NEGLIGENCE ACTION (TRIP AND FALL): Shardonay Brown v. Department of Off-Street Parking a/k/a Miami Parking Authority, Miami Dade County Circuit Court, Case No. 2020- 27503 CA 01 (JPO). The Plaintiff alleges that on December 1, 2019, she tripped and fell over a broken parking post located in the area of SW 1st Street and SW 9th Avenue, Miami, FL.
NEGLIGENCE ACTION (MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT): Progressive Select Ins. Co. a/s/o Fredric Puren v. City of Miami, Miami Dade County Circuit Court, Case No. 2021-357 CC 23 (JPO). The Plaintiff claims that on or about December 18, 2015, City of Miami employee Max Gabriel was operating a vehicle at or near I-95 and the Palmetto Expressway, when he negligently operated his vehicle causing an accident with their insured, Fredric Puren.
NEGLIGENCE ACTION (TRIP AND FALL): Williams, Tameca v. City of Miami, Miami Dade County Circuit Court, Case No. 20-27399 CA 01 (JTM). The Plaintiff alleges that on February 3, 2020, on NW 17th Street between 2nd Court and 3rd Avenue, she tripped, fell, and was injured due to a negligently maintained sidewalk.
NEGLIGENCE ACTION: Ricardo Realin vs. William Dumcombe, City of Miami, Bayside Marketplace, LLC, and XYZ Corporations, Miami Dade County Circuit Court, Case No. 20-4265 CA 05 (CAG). Plaintiff alleges that on March 4, 2016, he was assaulted at the Bayside Marina by Defendant William Dumcombe and suffered personal injuries. Plaintiff sued Dumcombe for assault and battery. In addition, Plaintiff alleges that the Bayside Marketplace, LLC, the City, and XYZ Corporation were negligent in failing to provide adequate security to protect business invitees against third-party criminal attacks.
DISCRIMINATION AND WHISTLEBLOWER MATTER: Jermaine Douglas v. City of Miami, Miami-Dade County Commission on Human Rights, Case No. F-8048 (SKP). Police Lieutenant Jermaine Douglas filed a charge of discrimination based on sex (male) and retaliation (alleged whistleblower claim) against the City before the Miami Dade County Commission on Human Rights. The Commission found no probable cause of discrimination or retaliation, but Douglas elected to appeal the Commission's decision. The matter will now proceed to an evidentiary hearing wherein Douglas will have the burden of proof. A hearing date has not yet been set.
CIVIL RIGHTS CASE: Melania Ortiz v. City of Miami, et al., United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, Case No. 20-CV-25132 (SKP). Former Police Officer Melanie Ortiz is suing the City of Miami, Rodolfo Llanes, Jorge Colina, Jose A. Rodriguez, Javier Ortiz, Fabio Sanchez, Shanetta Green, and the FOP for: (1) violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983, for allegedly forcing Ortiz to resign in violation of her 5th and 14th Amendment; (2) Conspiracy; (3) Fraud; and (4) Declaratory Relief to determine whether she is entitled to arbitrate whether her resignation was voluntary.
NEGLIGENCE ACTION (MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT): Enrique Salazar Franco vs. John Moriarty & Assoc. of Florida, Inc., et al., Miami Dade County Circuit Court, Case No. 20- 20716 CA (21) (CAG). Plaintiff alleges that on July 16, 2020, he was driving a moped through the intersection of S.W. 7th Street and S.W. 1st Court when he was involved in a collision with a motor vehicle and sustained personal injuries. Plaintiff alleged that stops signs at the intersection had been removed thereby creating a dangerous condition which led to the accident. Plaintiff alleged the City owned or maintained the property adjacent to the intersection and had a duty to maintain the stop signs or other traffic control devices for traffic traveling North on S.W. 1st Court. The City is one of ten defendants in this action which appears to arise from construction of the underline at the location in question.
NEGLIGENCE ACTION (MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT): Roberto Delgado v. City of Miami, Miami Dade County Circuit Court, Case No. 2021-622 CA 01 (JPO). The plaintiff alleges that on October 24, 2018, he was injured while riding his bicycle when City employee Troy Nixon collided into him while they were at or near 1950 NW 12th Avenue.
NEGLIGENCE ACTION (MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT): Zachary Blue v. City of Miami, Miami Dade County Circuit Court, Case No. 2021-1704 CA 01 (06) (JPO). Plaintiff alleges that on September 13, 1999, he was the passenger in the front seat of a minivan traveling east on NW 22nd Street, and City of Miami Police Officer Lazaro Gonzalez ran a stop sign on NW 18th Street and crashed into the minivan.
NEGLIGENCE ACTION (MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT): Augustin Cuesta Terry, and Alvarado Elia Maria Morales v. City of Miami, Miami Dade County Circuit Court, Case No. 2021-1211 CA 01 (JPO). The plaintiffs claim that on March 27, 2020, they were injured in a motor vehicle accident caused by Antonio Gonzalez, an employee of the City who was acting within the course and scope of his employment at the time of the accident. Maria Morales Alvarado was the owner and passenger in the vehicle. The accident occurred near the intersection of NW 12th Avenue, and NW 16th Street.
NEGLIGENCE ACTION (MOTOR VEHICLE ACCCIDENT): Minerva Rondon vs. City of Miami d/b/a City of Miami Parks and Rec and Qonsheka Nekiya Smith, Miami Dade County Court, Case No. 2020-2771-CC-25 (04) (JPO). Plaintiff alleges that on Feb 12, 2019, she was rear- ended by a Parks employee, Qonsheka Nekiya Smith, as she was making a right-hand turn onto NW 7th Avenue from the intersection of NW 8th Street.
WORKERS COMPENSATION MATTER: Carlos Mesa v. City of Miami, OJCC No. N/A (WAJ). The clamant is a police officer hired by the City of Miami on February 11, 2015, who alleges he was injured on August 26, 2020, while assisting in the arrest of a Baker Act subject as the subject kicked him in both legs and struck his sternum on the right side. The accident was accepted as compensable by the City of Miami and workers' compensation benefits have been provided. The claimant hired an attorney who has written a "good faith" letter alleging entitlement to additional medical and indemnity benefits.
WORKERS COMPENSATION PETITION: Dorcely Saens v. City of Miami, OJCC No. 21- 004338MIJ & 21-004398MIJ (WAJ). The claimant is a police officer with the City of Miami since on or about July 17, 1997, who alleged two workers’ compensation claims involving two separate dates of injurious exposure – August 13, 2010, and September 3, 2015. Both matters were accepted as compensable per the presumption found in the “Heart and Lung” bill [F.S. 112.18(1)]. The City of Miami provided benefits for both dates of injurious exposure. On February 22, 2021, the claimant, by and through his counsel, filed one petition for benefits for each date of injurious exposure alleging entitlement to additional medical benefits, attorney’s fees and costs.
NEGLIGENCE ACTION (MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT): Alice Samuel v. City of Miami, Miami-Dade County Circuit Court, Case No. 20-026339 CA 01 (NMR). Plaintiff Samuel Alice alleges that on July 7, 2017, he was injured while a passenger (prisoner) in a City of Miami Officer's vehicle which was involved in a motor vehicle accident. City of Miami employee Lorena Concepcion was driving the vehicle and acting within the course and scope of her employment. Plaintiff also alleges the officer was negligently operating a City of Miami owned vehicle at the time of the incident. Plaintiff lastly alleges that, as a direct and proximate cause of said accident, he has sustained permanent damage and/or injury.
NEGLIGENCE ACTION (TRIP AND FALL): Padron, Jose v. City of Miami, FDOT, and Miami-Dade County, Miami Dade County Circuit Court, Case No. 20-022206 CA 01 (NMR). The Plaintiff filed suit against the City, FDOT, and the County, alleging that on December 14, 2018, he tripped, fell, and was injured due to a broken and uneven sidewalk adjacent to 1465 SW 8th Street. The Plaintiff further alleged that the City of Miami knew or should have known of dangerous condition.
NEGLIGENCE ACTION (TRIP AND FALL): Figueras, Javier v. City of Miami and Miami- Dade County, Miami Dade County Circuit Court, Case No. 21-2369 CA 01 (NMR). The Plaintiff filed suit against the City and the County alleging that on May 31, 2018, near the sidewalk on the southwest side of South Miami Avenue Bridge, he tripped, fell, and was injured due to broken pavement on the sidewalk. Plaintiff alleged that the condition existed for a sufficient length of time so that the City knew or should have known of it.
CIVIL RIGHTS CASE: Alex Knight v. City Manager Arthur R. Noriega, Police Chief Jorge Colina, Detective Darlene Jenkins, Detective Christian Nickerson, Detective Fall, Sergeant Kung-Sang Lee, Miami-Dade County Circuit Court, Case No. 21-03168 CA 01 (09) (DAH). Pro Se Plaintiff alleges his Florida and United States Constitutional rights were violated when he was unlawfully arrested by Detectives Jenkins, Nickerson, and Fall for Grand Theft and Burglary based on an Arrest Form (Probable Cause Affidavit) and attested to by Detective Darlene Jenkins and witnessed by Sergeant Kung-Sang Lee. Plaintiff also claims that City Manager Arthur R. Noriega and Police Chief allowed Jenkins, Lee, Nickerson, and Fall to falsify their reports to justify his arrest and subsequent search of his property. Plaintiff also claims that Detective Jenkins fabricated security video footage depicted him conducting a burglary and theft of a wallet from an office building during office hours. Plaintiff is seeking both compensatory and punitive damages.
CIVIL RIGHTS CASE: Alex Knight v. City Manager Arthur R. Noriega, Police Chief Jorge Colina, Detective Darlene Jenkins, Detective Christian Nickerson, Detective Fall, Sergeant Kung-Sang Lee, United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, Case No. 20-25053- JEM (DAH). Pro Se Plaintiff alleges that on July 20, 2017, his Florida and United States Constitutional rights were violated when he was unlawfully arrested by Detectives Jenkins, Nickerson, and Fall for Grand Theft and Burglary based on an Arrest Form (Probable Cause Affidavit) and attested to by Detective Darlene Jenkins and witnessed by Sergeant Kung-Sang Lee. Plaintiff also claims that City Manager Arthur R. Noriega and Police Chief allowed Jenkins, Lee, Nickerson, and Fall to falsify their reports to justify his arrest and subsequent search of his property. Plaintiff also claims that Detective Jenkins fabricated security video footage depicted him conducting a burglary and theft of a wallet from an office building during office hours. Plaintiff is seeking both compensatory and punitive damages.
CIVIL RIGHTS CASE: Ravon Boyd v. City of Miami, Sergeant Claude Adam, Officer Alan Perez, Officer Juan Casiano, and Officer Brian Castro, United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, Case No. 20-cv-25319-JEM (DAH). Represented Plaintiff alleges that on May 12, 2017, when apprehended and arrested after a foot chase from City of Miami Police he was kicked and beaten by Sergeant Claude Adam and Officers Alan Perez, Juan Casiano, and Brian Castro. Plaintiff claims Excessive Force, Failure to Intervene under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983, and Battery under State Law against the Sergeant and Officers, and Monell Claims under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 against the City of Miami. Plaintiff is claiming damages for injury and medical treatment and violations of his Civil Rights.
CIVIL RIGHTS CASE: Alvin Candidate v. City of Miami, Officer Shane Tardiue, and Officer Ryan Michel, United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, Case No. 20-cv-25334- BB (DAH). Represented Plaintiff alleges that on April 18, 2017, Officer Shane Tardiue and Officer Ryan Michelin utilized excessive force under state and federal law in the course of arresting him and that the City of Miami permitted, tolerated, and caused a pattern or practice of unreasonable force by police officers. Plaintiff claims that he was a passenger in a vehicle that fled from the police on July 2, 2015. Plaintiff is claiming damages for injury, medical treatment, loss of earnings and the ability to earn money.
LABOR GRIEVANCE: Fraternal Order of Police Union v. City of Miami, Grievance No. 20- 08 (ANF). The Fraternal Order Police filed a grievance on behalf of Sgt. Ivan Moreno alleging he was improperly transferred in violation of Articles 14.1 and 14.2 of the CBA. A step 3 is pending.
LABOR GRIEVANCE: AFSCME Union 1907 v. City of Miami, Grievance No. 21-1(ANF). This is a class action grievance filed by AFSCME 1907. The Union alleges that the members of the class have been working out of class for more than three years as Emergency Dispatch Assistants without proper compensation.
LABOR GRIEVANCE: Fraternal Order of Police Lodge v. City of Miami, Grievance No. 20- 05 (ANF). This is a class action grievance filed by the Fraternal Order of Police. The class members were all relieved of duty at the time the grievance was filed. The FOP alleges that the City failed to pay the class members their bi-weekly Crime Prevention supplement while on ROD status in violation of the collective bargaining agreement.
WORKERS COMPENSATION PETITIONS: Calvin Smith v. City of Miami, OJCC 20- 028908ERA (RSO). The Claimant alleges that, on November 20, 2020, he was taking photographs while inspecting a property, when he was involved in a physical altercation with the property owner and was pushed, causing him to fall, sustaining injury to his low back. The Claimant is a Building Inspector hired by the City on August 12, 2019. The Claimant filed multiple Petitions for Benefits requesting medical and indemnity benefits.
MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS: From December 2020 through February 2021, 6 foreclosure matters; 3 quiet title matters; 3 workers compensation lien subrogation matters; 48 pre-suit tort claim matters; 6 garnishment matters; and 4 civil service board matters were opened by this Office. The details of those matters are not included in this report. If you wish to be briefed on any or all of these additional matters, a meeting will be coordinated at your convenience.