CITY OF MIAMI OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEYci.miami.fl.us/cityattorney/docs/executiveSummary/10-11-Executive... · City of Hialeah, City of Fort Lauderdale, Miami-Dade County and Broward

OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

CITY OF MIAMI

JULY 1, 2010 - JUNE 30, 2011Julie O. Bru, City Attorney

Reporting Period July 1, 2010 – June 30, 2011 2

Table of Contents

Message from the City Attorney ................................................................................ 1 Objective .................................................................................................................... 3 Overview .................................................................................................................... 4Budget ........................................................................................................................ 5 Attorney Organizational Chart ................................................................................... 6 Client Work Statistics ................................................................................................ 7 Civil Litigation and Appeals ......................................................................................10

Civil Rights ....................................................................................................11 Constitutional Challenges ..............................................................................13 Torts ...............................................................................................................16 Land Use and Code Enforcement ..................................................................17 Unsafe Structures ...........................................................................................19 Collections and Significant Settlements ........................................................20

Labor and Employment ..............................................................................................23 Civil Service Board ........................................................................................30 Workers’ Compensation ................................................................................31

Quality of Life and Environment ...............................................................................35 Contracts and Procurement ........................................................................................36 General Government and Public Safety .....................................................................37 Highlights of 2011 Staff Attorney’s Achievements ...................................................40 Office Events .............................................................................................................42 Internship Program.....................................................................................................43

Inside the new baseball stadium


Objective

MMiissssiioonn To provide the highest quality of legal services to the City of Miami while ethically and zealously representing our clients.

VViissiioonn To create a strong public service ethic in a generation of lawyers who are highly skilled, competent and committed to excellence, and teamwork

Calle Ocho Hispanic Festival 2011

GGooaallss 22001111 -- 22001122 * Institute a comprehensive leadership development program within the office.

* Streamline policies and procedures to increase efficiency and effectiveness in the Request for Legal Services process.

* Continue to develop in-house expertise in labor and pension matters.

* Develop in-house advocacy services for the State of Florida Legislative Process.

4 Reporting Period: July 1, 2010 – June 30, 2011

Overview The City Attorney leads the legal department of the City of Miami. The City

encompasses an area consisting of approximately 34.3 square miles and has a population of approximately 424,662 residents rich in cultural and ethnic diversity. The City Attorney is the charter officer of the City responsible for all legal matters related to the City’s municipal government and corporate affairs. During this reporting period, the Office of the City Attorney performed all legal services essential to support the operations and functions of all City departments, and handled all commercial and financial legal transactions related to the administration of approximately 4,000 employees and a budget of more than 534 million dollars. Significant legal services were provided to the City in the area of General Government which included drafting 88 ordinances and 566 resolutions, enacted by the City Commission.

Additionally, the City Attorney issued 133 formal and informal written legal opinions informing and updating the City Commission and Administration on federal, state and local laws impacting the conduct of municipal affairs. The City Attorney and staff attorneys also provided legal representation and advice at all meetings of the City Commission and to approximately 38 City Authorities, Boards and Committees. The City Attorney continues to meet regularly with members of the City Commission, the Mayor and other City officials and department directors to discuss legal issues pertaining to their official duties.

One of the legal opinions provided clarified whether the City Commission, through resolution, could prohibit pedestrian access through street closures in Belle Meade. Extensive research was conducted with respect to the relevant sections of the City and County Codes, Florida Statutes, and City resolutions which the City passed in order to take similar action on a public right of way. Ultimately, our client was advised that pedestrian access could be prohibited at the location at issue, thereby facilitating the implementation of a notable public policy directive. Another legal opinion addressed legal and procedural issues pertaining to the proposed siting of above ground power lines along city rights-of-way, an issue of great concern to public health and welfare.

All formal written Legal Opinions issued by this Office from 2003 through the current date may be found on our website at www.miamigov.com/cityattorney - click on “City Attorney Opinions”.

Approximately 3000 files were opened during the reporting period. This includes all matters received pursuant to legal services requests, and lawsuits and claims filed against or by the City. Of the 167 new civil litigation matters filed against the City, only one matter was outsourced to outside counsel due to conflict. Deputy City Attorney Warren Bittner and the litigators assigned to the Civil Litigation and Appeals section are counsel of record for all of the remaining new civil litigation matters. The volume of matters opened during this reporting period includes a large number of high profile cases, including a very significant victory for the City in the legal proceedings initiated by the labor union(s) challenging the constitutionality of


Florida’s Financial Urgency law, thereby facilitating the reductions to personnel costs that were necessary to achieve a balanced budget for FY 2011.

Budget The adopted budget for FY 2011 for the Office of the City Attorney is $5,238,951 for

operations and personnel expenses. During this fiscal year, four (4) support staff positions were abolished and salary adjustments were made to two (2) attorney positions resulting in total salary savings of $494,688. This reduction in personnel cost continued the trend from FY 2010 wherein an overall budget reduction of 22% was achieved. For FY 2012 it is projected that further operational and personnel cost savings of approximately 15% will bring the Office budget below FY 2006 funding levels.

As of the date of this report the office is staffed by 41 full time employees. This includes twenty-one (21) attorneys, four (4) administrative staff, ten (10) litigation assistants, one (1) paralegal and five (5) legal services staff.

A total of 24 budgeted positions have been abolished since FY 2006. In comparison to FY 06, the Office currently is operating with 37% less staffed positions while continuing to provide the same levels of service.

Noteworthy recognition must be given to the work of the administrative assistants, litigation assistants, paralegal and legal services staff whom under the leadership of Khadijah Williams, Law Office Manager have continued to provide efficient, effective and competent support services to the Office, in spite of the dramatic downsizing.


Attorney Organizational Chart

Miami River


Client Work Statistics

City Officials, departments and agencies (our “Clients”) obtain legal services from this office, by completing a Legal Services Request (LSR) form. The form may be hand delivered or e-mailed to the office. Once the LSR form is received, the information is entered into the matter/document/time tracking system and assigned to an attorney. In addition to the issuance of a matter id number, an area of law is assigned. Currently there are five (5) Areas of Law:

Litigation and Appellate Practice: - in this area included are all lawsuits in the practice areas of (101) Torts, (101cb) Torts – Claims Bills, (101s) Subrogation, (102) Civil Rights, (103) Commercial, (104) Land Use, (105) Special Assessment, etc.

Transactional – includes all contracts in the areas of (201) Professional Service Agreements, Expert Consultant, Use Maintenance, Affordable Housing, etc., (202) Procurement Issues, (203) Development Projects (204) Real Property, (205) Public Finance.

Land Use and Environmental Law – includes all non-litigation matters (301) Comprehensive Plan and Permits, (302) Special Assessments and Impact Fees (303) Land Use and Zoning.

Employment and Labor - includes all non-litigation matters (401) Employment, (402) Labor.

General Government – includes the remaining practice areas (501) Legislation, (502) Garnishments (503) Third Party Subpoenas, (504) Advise and Counsel.

The matter/document/time tracking system assists in the management of all matters handled by this office and provides the data necessary to facilitate analysis and reporting. The Office does not bill its clients for time expended on matters, however, attorneys and paralegal enter and track time worked on each individual matter.


Number of Matters handled by Clients


Litigation Summary Reporting Period: 7/01/10 – 6/30/11

Lawsuits* New Lawsuits 167

Total Lawsuits Tried 7 Trial Wins 5

Trial Losses 2Summary Judgments 13

Dismissals 37Settlements 47

AppealsNew Appeals 43

Total Appeals Resolved 45Appeal Wins 23

Appeal Losses 20Workers’ Compensation (WC)

New WC Claims 30WC Settled 24

WC Dismissed 15Civil Service (CS)

New CS Cases 13CS Settled 2

CS Adjudicated 20

* This report includes workers’ compensation litigation, grievances and arbitrations, civil service matters, and unemployment and discrimination claims. It excludes garnishments, quiet title actions, foreclosure in which the City defends its interest and code enforcement matters.


Civil Litigation and Appeals The attorneys assigned to this practice area defend the City and its various agencies,

departments, officers, agents, employees and elected officials in lawsuits filed in federal and state courts. The bulk of the litigation cases involve personal injury, property damage, auto negligence, premises liability, breach of contract, false arrest, battery, malicious prosecution, violations of civil rights, land use, and labor and employment disputes. In addition, staff attorneys litigate real estate (including foreclosure and quiet title actions), public purchasing protests, and public records cases.

This practice area also pursues affirmative litigation matters which seek to recover money due for breach of contract, damages to City property, injunctions to prevent nuisances and violations of City Codes, and collection of various debts or financial obligations owed to the City.

This Office is currently handling 1017 cases on behalf of the City in the area of real estate litigation, which includes foreclosure, and quiet title actions. As the health of the real estate market remains moribund, we continue to receive an unprecedented number of foreclosure and quiet title cases. The City may be either a plaintiff filing an action to collect its money or a defendant to protect the City’s interest. In spite of the economic downturn, staff attorneys successfully collected $96,021.47 in foreclosure or quiet title matters during this reporting period.

The significant and excellent work of the litigation division under Deputy City Attorney Warren Bittner’s leadership has been acknowledged by the Clients. We take great pride in the trial and advocacy skills of Assistant City Attorneys, Henry J. Hunnefeld, Kevin R. Jones, Christopher A. Green, John A. Greco, Richard S. Otruba and Tarin A. Smithline.

Litigators at their bi-weekly meeting (Left to Right – Assistant City Attorneys Richard s. Otruba, Christopher A. Green

Henry J. Hunnefeld, Kevin R. Jones and George I. Wysong)


Some of the more significant matters litigated during this reporting period are summarized in

the following pages by practice area.

Civil RightsLABOR UNION'S FEDERAL

CIVIL RIGHTS CLAIM THAT CITY AND ITS POLICE

SUPERVISORS VIOLATED ITS FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS TO PROTEST DURING FTAA

BECAUSE MPD ABREVIATED ITS PARADE ROUTE AND

POLICE PRESENCE ALLEGEDLY DISCOURAGED

THE PUBLIC FROM ATTENDING ITS FTAA EVENTS

REJECTED

American Federation of Labor - Congress of Industrial Organizations, Florida Alliance of Retired Americans, Thea Lee, Dorborah Dion, Michael Cavanaugh, and Stewart Acuff v. City of Miami, John Timoney, Frank Fernandez, Thomas Cannon 11th Circuit Court of Appeals Case No.: 09-14992BB

Plaintiffs, AFL-CIO, FLARA and several AFL-CIO employees, claimed that the City of Miami, City of Miami Beach, City of Hialeah, City of Fort Lauderdale, Miami-Dade County and Broward Sheriff's Office, as well as the high-ranking police supervisors in each of those jurisdictions, violated their civil rights under the First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, conspired to deprive them of their civil rights, and committed other wrongs actionable under state tort law, by disrupting their alleged attempts to engage in lawful

and peaceful assembly to protest the Free Trade Area of the Americas ("FTAA") on November 19th and 20th, 2003. All jurisdictions, except the City of Miami and the Miami Police Supervisors (Timoney, Fernandez and Cannon) settled with the Plaintiffs paying respectively: Miami-Dade County ($10,000); Hialeah ($10,000); Miami-Beach ($20,000); Broward Sheriff's Office ($25,000), and Ft. Lauderdale ($7,500). The District Court granted summary final judgment to the City of Miami and the Miami Police supervisors on all federal claims, but declined to exercise pendent jurisdiction over the state law claims. Plaintiffs appealed from the entry of summary judgment on the federal claims. The Court of Appeals affirmed. The state law claims remain pending.

DEFENSE VERDICT FOR THE CITY OBTAINED IN CIVIL

RIGHTS CASE

Larry JACKSON v. City of Miami U. S. District Court, Case No.: 08-22983 RWG

Trial in the above referenced case was conducted before the Honorable Richard Goldberg, visiting judge, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, from January 31 through February 2, 2011. Plaintiff, a now former City of Miami Police Sergeant, claimed that on September 2, 2006, when he was still a member of MPD, he was stopped by Miami


police officers, and although he identified himself as a police officer, was nevertheless battered, tasered and handcuffed before being released. Plaintiff asserted claims for violation of civil rights and state law claims of battery and negligence. Prior to trial, upon Motions for Summary Judgment, the Court disposed of all claims against all defendants, except the claim for negligence against the City. At trial, during closing arguments, Plaintiff’s counsel requested that the jury award $500,000 in damages. The jury returned a defense verdict for the City.

FEDERAL APPELLATE COURT AFFIRMS DISMISSAL OF CIVIL RIGHTS CASE FILED AGAINST

THE CITY AND ITS POLICE OFFICERS CONCERNING

DISPUTE AT BAYSIDE HUT ELEVENTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMS FOR

THE CITY

Prestige Restaurants and Entertainment, Inc. v. Bayside Seafood Restaurant, Inc., Blue Green Bay Corporation, Armando LaCasa, Carlos LaCasa, City of Miami, Officer Martha Carbana, and Commander Lorenzo Whitehead 11th Circuit Court of Appeals Case No.: 10-12072 JJ

The City granted a Revocable Permit to Bayside Seafood Restaurant ("BSR") to operate the Bayside Hut on Virginia Key. BSR in turn entered into a Management Agreement with Prestige to operate a Supper Club on the Bayside Hut premises. A dispute arose between BSR and Prestige resulting in BSR terminating Prestige's authority to run the Supper Club. Prestige

nevertheless attempted to come onto the premises, resulting in BSR calling the police. Sergeant Martha Carbana and two patrol officers responded. At some point while at Bayside Hut, Sergeant Carbana contacted her supervisor, Commander Whitehead. Plaintiff alleges it was forcibly evicted from the premises, which it claims it had the right to possess. Plaintiff claims that the City, Sergeant Carbana and Commander Whitehead violated its civil rights by denying it due process of law, affecting an unreasonable seizure, and in entering into a conspiracy to violate its civil rights. Following a motion to dismiss filed by the Defendants, the District Court dismissed all the federal claims with prejudice on the basis that Bayside Hut’s interest in the property was nothing more than an revocable license, and Prestige could have no greater interest. The District Court found inter alia that Plaintiff did not have a protectable property interest, prerequisite to a seizure, thus precluding Plaintiff's unreasonable seizure claim. Accordingly, the District Court, remanded the case remaining state law claims to state court. Plaintiff appealed. After briefing and oral argument, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed.


FIRST AMENDMENT CHALLENGE TO CITY's

REGULATION OF OUTDOOR ADVERTISING SIGNS, a/k/a

BILLBOARDS, DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION BECAUSE CLAIMS WERE

UNRIPE AND MOOT

South Florida Equitable Fund v. City of Miami; United States District Court,Case No.: 10-21032-Civ-Ungaro

South Florida Equitable Fund, LLC. ("SFEF") challenged the constitutionality of the City’s regulation of outdoor advertising signs (“billboards”) under Ordinance 11,000, specifically Section 10.4.5, which prohibited all new freestanding outdoor

advertising signs, except pursuant to a settlement agreement authorized by resolution of the City Commission which results in a net reduction of outdoor advertising signs in the City. The Court found that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the dispute because the matter was not only unripe, but moot as well. The Court found the matter unripe because, SFEF never obtained a “final decision” or a “conclusive response” of the City Commission on its settlement proposal, which it could have done by following the procedure outlined in s. 2-23(c)(3), or s. 2-654, Miami Code. The Court also found the matter moot because the outdoor advertising sign regulations in Ordinance 11,000 were superseded by the June 2010 enactment of the amendments to Chapter 62, Miami Code.

Constitutional ChallengesMIAMI POLICE DEPARTMENT

OFFICERS GRANTED QUALIFIED IMMUNITY FOR WARRANTLESS ENTRY INTO

RESIDENCE FOR THE PURPOSE OF ABATING A

NUISANCE

Eldrick Brown v. City of Miami Reginald Kinchen, et al. United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida Case No.: 09-20945-Civ-Seitz

The Plaintiff brought a claim pursuant to 42 USC 1983 alleging a violation of his Fourth Amendment Rights against five (5) City of Miami police officers, Reginald Kinchen, Dairon Williams, William Goins, Roberick Passmore, and William Cook. Mr. Brown

was arrested on July 28, 2006, and subsequent to his arrest, City of Miami police officers entered his residence with a Code Inspector to determine if the structure needed to be condemned and secured because it posed a imminent threat to the health and safety of nearby families. Mr. Brown alleged that entry into his residence, even to abate a nuisance, violated the Fourth Amendment because the officers did not have a warrant. The Officers obtained summary judgment on all claims. The District Court found that the law regarding warrantless entry into a residence to abate a nuisance was not “sufficiently established”, and, as such, the officers were entitled to qualified immunity.


FIREFIGHTERS' UNION CHALLENGE TO CITY’S

UNILATERAL MODIFICATION OF ITS COLLECTIVE

BARGAINING AGREEMENT AND SUNSHINE LAW

CHALLENGE REJECTED

Miami Association of Firefighters v. City of Miami (Miami Association II) Miami-Dade County Circuit Court Case No. 10-49873 CA 10

The Union filed suit in circuit court for declaratory and injunctive relief challenging the action taken by the City Commission on August 31, 2010, modifying certain terms of the collective bargaining agreement. Specifically, the Union claimed that the City’s action modifying the collective bargaining agreement was contrary to Florida law and the Florida Constitution. The Union further claimed that the City conducted an executive session on August 31, 2010, that was not exempt from the Sunshine Law. The City moved to dismiss the above action based on the preemptive jurisdiction of the Public Employees Relations Commission (PERC) over the issues raised in the suit. The Circuit Court acting on the City’s Motion, and dismissed the case in its entirety.

CONSTITUTIONALITY OF “FINANCIAL URGENCY” STATUTE AFFIRMED ON

APPEAL

Miami Association of Firefighters Local 587 of the International Association of Firefighters, of Miami, Florida v. City of Miami 3rd District Court of Appeal Case No.: 3D10-1458

The IAFF Union alleged that Section 447.4095 of the Florida Statutes entitled, “Financial Urgency” was unconstitutional because it contains no definition, or standards, and unconstitutionally grants the public employer unfettered discretion, which threatens to impair and impose duties upon a contractual agreement between the parties. The Union sought a declaratory judgment declaring the statute to be void and unenforceable, and sought an injunction prohibiting any negotiations pursuant to that section. After hearing on the Union’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction, the trial court granted Final Judgment in favor of the City. The Union appealed. The 3rd District Court of Appeal affirmed per curium.


STATE APPELLATE COURT AFFIRMS DECISION THAT STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS BARS CHALLENGE TO THE

CREATION OF THE DDA AND THE EXPANSION OF ITS BOUNDARIES, AFFIRMS APPLICABILITY OF NON-

CLAIM STATUTE TO REMAINDER OF CLAIMS, BUT

REVERSES DISMISSAL OF CHALLENGE TO 2008

ORDINANCE SETTING TAX ASSESSMENT

Milan Investment Group, Inc., v. City of Miami, Miami Downtown Development Authority, Miami-Dade County Property Appraiser, Miami-Dade County Tax Collector, and Florida Department of Revenue 3rd District Court of Appeal Case No.: 09-2955

The Plaintiff alleged, inter alia, that the enabling legislation for the Downtown Development Authority “DDA” was illegally enacted, that the City did not properly create the DDA or properly expand its boundaries, and that the half-mill ad valorem tax levied by the DDA was unconstitutional. The City and the DDA filed motions to dismiss, which were adopted by the other defendants, arguing inter alia that the Plaintiff’s claims were time-barred. The trial court granted the Motions to Dismiss and dismissed the entire case, finding that the Plaintiff's claims were subject to a four (4) year statute of limitations, and that the cause of action accrued no later than 2002, more than four (4) years prior to the filing of the Complaint. Plaintiff appealed to the Third District Court

of Appeal. The Court of Appeal affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. In doing so, the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s dismissal as it pertained to the establishment of the DDA and its boundaries, but reversed the dismissal as it related to the challenge to the City’s 2008 Ordinance fixing the half-mill tax for the DDA. The Third District also confirmed the applicability of the non-claim statute, § 194.171, to the remaining challenge.


Torts

CITY PREVAILS AT TRIAL IN PEDESTRIAN FALL DOWN

CASE WHEN PLAINTIFF FAILS TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE

CITY WAS NEGLIGENT OR THAT THE CITY HAD NOTICE OF A DEFECTIVE CONDITION

Silvia Escobar v. City of Miami and Adam Properties N.V., Inc. Miami-Dade County Circuit Court Case No.: 06-16367 CA 01

Plaintiff alleged that on December 12, 2010, she was crossing the street near an apartment building at 940 N.W. 44th Avenue, when she stepped off the sidewalk, and into a hole caused by a missing piece of asphalt. She alleges she sustained a bad sprained ankle. Plaintiff claimed that the City was negligent in the maintenance of the street. The case was tried to the Court on September 13, 2010. The Court found that, "the plaintiff has failed to show that the City of Miami failed to exercise due care to keep its street in a reasonably safe condition." It further found that, "[t]he portion of the street in question was not a sidewalk nor was it a crosswalk devoted to the use of pedestrians." Finally, the Court determined that, "[t]he Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate a prima facie case of negligence that the defendant had either actual or constructive notice of the alleged negligent condition." Accordingly, Final Judgment was entered in favor of the City.

DESPITE SEVERITY OF INJURY IN CASE WHERE

RESTRAINED ARRESTEE IS RUN OVER BY TRACTOR-

TRAILER, SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF CITY

BASED ON LACK OF PROXIMATE CAUSATION IS

AFFIRMED

Palm Express, Inc., and Ediberto Lorenzo v. City of Miami 3rd District Court of Appeal Case No. 09-1387

The Plaintiff was run over by a tractor-trailer owned by Palm Express, and operated by Lorenzo, while being restrained on the ground by City of Miami Police Officers. The Plaintiff sued the vehicle owner and operator, and also sued the City of Miami, alleging that City of Miami Police Officers were negligent in restraining him in close proximity to the truck which ran over his arm. The City of Miami obtained a summary judgment, finding that the actions of the police officers were not the proximate cause of the Plaintiff’s injuries. Co-defendants Palm Express and Lorenzo appealed the summary judgment in favor of the City. On appeal, the Third DCA affirmed.


Land Use and Code Enforcement

CIRCUIT COURT APPELLATE DIVISION DECIDES THAT

FINE FOR REMOVING A TREE WITHOUT A PERMIT IS

STATUTORILY CAPPED AT $5,000 PER TREE

Contrada of Miami, LLC. vs. City of MiamiMiami-Dade County Circuit Court, Appellate Division Case No.: 10-067 AP

Appellant, Contrada of Miami, LLC., the owner of property at 2341 South Bayshore Drive, was cited for nine (9) violations of the Miami Zoning Ordinance for removing or trimming a tree without a permit. The Code Enforcement Board found Contrada guilty of the violations, and the finding was approved on appeal. Fines had accrued in the total amount of $2,756,250. After a mitigation hearing, the Code Enforcement Board denied Contrada's request to mitigate the fines. Contrada appealed. On appeal, the Circuit Court Appellate Division reversed holding that the fine per tree was capped at $5,000 because of language in the Florida Statutes and the miami ordinance that limits fines for violations deemed “irreparable or irreversible” to $5,000. The Appellate Division remanded for the entry of orders limiting the fine to $5,000 per violation, for a total amount of $45,000.

MITIGATION ORDER REDUCING PER DIEM CODE

ENFORCEMENT FINES FROM $119,250.00 TO $10,000

UPHELD ON APPEAL

Nello Davis & Rogers Jones v. Code Enforcement, City of Miami Miami-Dade County Circuit Court, Appellate Division Case No. 10-033 AP

The Appellants are operators of a beauty salon located at 7304 N.W. 7th Avenue, Miami and were found in violation of the Miami Zoning Ordinance for "No Certificate of Use" and "Failure to have a valid occupational license for the type of business being conducted". Per diem fines accrued in the amount of $119,250.00. Appellants moved to have the fines mitigated. On January 4, 2010 the Code Enforcement Board mitigated the fines to $10,000. The Appellants appealed from the mitigation order. But the Circuit Court Appellate Division affirmed the Mitigation Order of the Code Enforcement Board


HEIGHT LIMITATION OF THIRTY-FIVE FEET IMPOSED

ON DEVELOPMENT ADJACENT TO SINGLE FAMILY HOMES UPHELD ON FIRST LEVEL

APPELLATE REVIEW

Lucia Dougherty v. City of Miami, et al. Miami-Dade County Circuit Court, Appellate Division Case No.: 10-344 AP

The Appellant, Lucia Dougherty, on behalf of contract vendee, J. Laurence Eisenberg, applied for a Class II Special Permit to develop a mixed use project at 5101 Biscayne Boulevard. After several appeals, the 3rd District Court of Appeal remanded to the City Commission for an "appellate" review of the decision of the Miami Zoning Board granting the permit. Upon review, the City Commission granted the permit but limited the height of the proposed project to 35 feet. The Commission's decision was based upon the conclusion that the Miami Zoning Board misapplied the law because it failed to comply with the setback requirements of the Miami Zoning Ordinance and failed to consider the adverse impacts to adjacent single family homes as required by the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant sought review of the decision by writ of certiorari to the Appellate Division of the Circuit Court, which, per curium, denied the petition.

MITIGATION ORDER REDUCING PER DIEM CODE

ENFORCEMENT FINES FROM $141,500 TO $70,750 UPHELD

ON APPEAL

Nela Nellis, Gisela Pasquis, and Juana Hernandez v. City of Miami, Florida Code Enforcement Board Miami-Dade County Circuit Court, Appellate Division Case No. 09-345 AP

The Code Enforcement Board found the property owners in violation of the Miami Zoning Ordinance for work completed without a final permit and illegally maintaining or depositing junk or trash. The Board imposed a per diem fine of $250. Fines accrued in the amount of $141,500. After a mitigation hearing, the Board entered a Mitigation Order reducing the fine to $70,750. The property owners appealed the Mitigation Order, and the Circuit Court Appellate Division affirmed the Mitigation Order of the Code Enforcement Board.

CODE ENFORCEMENT ORDER IMPOSING PER DIEM FINE

FOR OPERATING A BUSINESS BY DISPLAYING AND SELLING ARTWORK IN A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD AFFIRMED

Jobie E. Steppe and Cristina Steppe v. City of Miami Code Enforcement Miami-Dade County Circuit Court, Appellate Division Case No. 08-481 AP

The Steppes were found by the Code Enforcement Board to be in violation of the Miami Zoning Ordinance for operating a business in a residential neighborhood by operating a business without an occupational license; failing to obtain a certificate of use;


and using outside storage for miscellaneous materials. The business was the display and sale of artwork at their residence. The Code Enforcement Board imposed per diem fines in the amount of $250 for each day the violations went uncorrected. The Steppes

appealed the Code Enforcement Board's Final Enforcement Order. The Circuit Court Appellate Division affirmed the Final Enforcement Order of the Code Enforcement Board.

Unsafe Structures The Office of the City Attorney has reviewed more than a hundred files provided by the

Building Department for legal sufficiency with regard to unsafe structures. Our office has assisted in the proper service of hundreds of individuals and corporations in order to afford due process in demolition matters. In this reporting period we assisted in the successful demolition of more than fifty-three structures. Three notable cases in which were successfully litigated to obtain the relief sought were:

CITY DISMISSED FROM INJUNCTION SUIT

Countrywide v. Ricardo Albino, et al Miami-Dade County Circuit Court Case No.: 08-23282 CA 08

The City was enjoined by Plaintiff in a pending foreclosure matter to stop the demolition of an unsafe structure located at 3760 Kumquat Avenue, which was the subject of the foreclosure. After several hearings where the City showed the dangers of the property, the bank itself demolished the property, saving the City thousands of dollars in demolition costs.

CITY’S MOTION TO DISMISS GRANTED

Eastern Savings Bank, FSB, v. Joseph Barnes, et al Miami-Dade County Circuit Court Case No.: 09-048562 CA 22

The City was enjoined in a pending foreclosure action to stop the demolition of an unsafe structure at the rear of the

property located at 1132 NE 84 ST. The home was in foreclosure for nearly two years. The unsafe structure was the abandoned boat house and detached garage in between the main single family home and the boat docks and the bay. The abandoned structures were in danger of collapsing into the adjacent bay. The City argued for dismissal based on lack of jurisdiction and life safety issues. The Court granted the Dismissal allowing the City to demolish the structures.

CITY DISMISSED FROM INJUNCTION SUIT

Ken Pierce v. City of MiamiMiami-Dade County Circuit Court Case No.: 11-16148 CA 11

The City was sued to enjoin demolition of an unsafe structure located at 3473 Day Avenue. After three hearings litigating the matter, the Plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal, allowing the City to demolish the property.


Our Office is also working with the Building Department to obtain code compliance on several abandoned construction sites containing dangerous holes and debris. Several sites have already come into compliance due to productive communication with the owners. One suit in particular was initiated by the City to enjoin the property from continuing in its dangerous condition. The case, which has received much positive press coverage, is noted below.

Jamaican Festival

CITY FILES SUIT TO ENJOIN OWNER TO COMPLY WITH STATE AND LOCAL CODES

City of Miami v. CITY NATIONAL BANK OF FLORIDA, as Trustee under LAND TRUST; CABI SMA, LLLP; CABI SMA TOWER I, LLLP; CABI SMA TOWER 2, LLLP; CABI SMA RETAIL I, LLLP; and CABI SMA RETAIL 2, LLLP Miami-Dade Circuit Court Case No. 11-21078 CA 32

The City has sued the property owner in order to compel compliance with state and local codes, with regard to its excavated construction site. The property posed a threat to the safety of pedestrian due to the presence of a 40 foot hole on the property. We are presently aggressively seeking injunctive relief.

Collections and Significant SettlementsCITY REIMBURSED

$523,813.12 FROM SPECIAL DISABILITY TRUST FUND Fernando Acosta v. City of Miami Office of the Judge of Compensation Claims Case No.: 09-009491 AMK

The claimant is a deceased former repairman working for the General Services Administration of the City of Miami from October 1980 until shortly after his most recent accident of June 8, 1988. The claimant filed a Petition For Benefits

seeking medical benefits, and this office defended the City of Miami and Gallagher


-Bassett Services. The matter was resolved with no attorney’s fees or costs due or owing. This office also investigated possible Special Disability Trust Fund reimbursement under 440.49, Florida Statutes, for payments made by the City of Miami on behalf of the claimant since 1988. After filing supporting documentation with the Special Disability Trust Fund early in 2009, this office recently secured an interim reimbursement check of $523,813.12, with additional reimbursements to follow.

CITY RECOVERS $475,000FROM VENDOR AND MANUFACTURER OF

BURNING GARBAGE TRUCK City of Miami vs. Lodal, Inc. and Container Systems and Equipment Co., Inc. a/k/a Container System Equipment Inc. Miami-Dade Circuit Court Case No. 05-22708 CA 20

The City sued Lodal, Inc. (“Lodal”) and Container Systems and Equipment Co., Inc. (“Container”) to recover damages arising out of the purchase of defective refuse vehicles (High Compaction 28 Cubic Yard Integrated Automated Side Loading Refuse Vehicles). In particular, the vehicles spontaneously caught on fire without warning. The City purchased the refuse vehicles from Container. The vehicles were manufactured by Lodal. The City sued for damage to seven of the vehicles; including repair costs, and the cost of eliminating the defects in the remaining vehicles, and loss of use of the damaged vehicles and associated labor costs. At the time settlement was reached, all of the Lodal refuse vehicles had been retired or otherwise placed out of service. The City obtained a settlement

prior to trial for $475,000, paid to the City, $420,000 by Lodal, Inc. and $55,000 by Container Systems and Equipment Co., Inc. The City returned all of the trucks “as-is” to Lodal, Inc.

CITY COLLECTS $89,164.51UNSAFE STRUCTURES LIEN

Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc. v. Urban River Partners, LLC, City of Miami, et al. Miami-Dade County Circuit Court Case No.:08-05402 CA 10

This was a foreclosure action brought by the holder of a first mortgage on the property. The City was named as a defendant in the action due to an outstanding recorded Unsafe Structures Demolition Lien. The City defended the matter asserting that the City's position was superior to the first mortgage, and could not be extinguished by the foreclosure of the first mortgage. The Plaintiff (first mortgage holder) settled by paying the City the entire outstanding demolition lien in the amount of $89,164.51.

CITY COLLECTS $75,000 FOR PROPERTY DAMAGE TO THE

HISTORIC DR. JACKSON OFFICE

City of Miami vs. D.H. Griffin Construction, et al. Miami-Dade County Circuit Court Case No. 08 45701 CA 02

This is an action for property damage to the historic Dr. James M. Jackson Office located at 190 S.E. 12th Terrace in Miami. The Dr. Jackson Office was built in 1905 and moved to its current location in 1917. The property was conveyed to the City in 1977 and has been leased to the Dade


Heritage Trust since that time. It serves as the main office for the Dade Heritage Trust. In April of 2004, a permit was issued to D.H. Griffin Construction of Florida, LLC, to commence construction of a 22-floor condominium adjacent to the Dr. Jackson Office. In this action, the City sued D.H. Griffin Construction of Florida and H. & H Development Co., alleging that the Defendants were negligent in allowing dust, debris, concrete spillage and falling objects to damage the City’s property during the course of construction. The City settled its claim with D. H. Griffin Construction of Florida, and collected $75,000.

CITY COLLECTS $40,000 IN UNPAID SPECIAL

ASSESSMENTS

The Office was tasked with the collection of unpaid Special Assessments assessed to the business owners of Coconut Grove by the Coconut Grove Business Improvement District. As of June 30, 2010 there were approximately $127,000 of unpaid Special Assessments of which we have been able to collect approximately $40,000.

CITY COLLECTS $63,467.16IN PAST DUE FRANCHISE

FEES

In the Matter of:

World Waste Services, Inc.An audit of Independent Auditor

General revealed that World Waste Services, Inc. owed the City $63,467.16 for past due franchise fees pursuant to the Commercial Solid Waste Franchise Agreement. Collections efforts were initiated including a threat to file litigation. This matter was

settled by World Waste Services, Inc., prior to suit for $20,787.24.

CITY COLLECTS $21,563.40FROM NORMAN BRAMAN FOR

LITIGATION COSTS.

Norman Braman vs. Miami-Dade County, George M. Burgess, City of Miami, Omni Redevelopment District Community Agency, Southeast Overtown/Parkwest Community Redevelopment Agency and Florida Marlins, L.P. Miami-Dade County Circuit Court, Case No.: 08-03787 CA 18

Plaintiff presented multiple challenges to the financing and legality of the Global Interlocal Agreement, particularly concerning the Marlins Baseball Stadium. After prevailing on the merits, the City collected $21,563.40 in litigation costs from the Plaintiff.


Labor and Employment

This practice area handles all legal matters related to the City’s role as the employer of approximately 4000 union and non-union workers, including all litigation in state and federal court in connection with discipline, discharge, and promotions. Staff attorneys also advise management on labor relations issues, and compliance with state and federal labor laws. In addition to the expertise that she has in Workers’ Compensation litigation assistant City Attorney Ileana Forte routinely leads invaluable support to the administration with respect to employment law issues and litigation. In the area of collective bargaining, staff attorneys with the collaboration of special outside labor counsel have handled all legal

work related to the unionized workforce in matters involving collective bargaining, union contract administration and grievances. Staff attorneys assigned to this area represented the City and its employment actions before the Civil Service Board, the Miami-Dade County Equal Employment Opportunity Board, the Public Employees Relations Commission, Department of Veterans Affairs, Department of Administrative Hearings, and Unemployment Compensation Appeals.

The Office takes great pride in Assistant City Attorney Diana Vizcaino, who working alongside special labor counsel, has provided important legal assistance to the administration during a very difficult collective bargaining process that sought to obtain approximately 76 million in reductions to wages, health benefits and pension from labor through the imposition of union contract modifications pursuant to the State’s Financial Urgency Law.

Haitian Festival


Some of the significant matters handled by the staff attorneys during this reporting period are:

PERC DETERMINES THAT CITY DID NOT COMMIT AN

UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE BY DECLARING A“FINANCIAL

URGENCY” AND UNILATERALLY MODIFYING TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF

EMPLOYMENT OF POLICE BARGAINING UNIT MEMBERS

Fraternal Order of Police, Walter E. Headley, Jr., Miami Lodge No. 20 v. City of Miami Public Employees Relations Commission Case No.: CA-2010-119

This was a matter filed before the Public Employees Relations Commission (“PERC”) by the FOP (“Union”) claiming that the City committed an unfair labor practice as a result of its declaration of a "financial urgency" pursuant to Florida Statute 447.4095. The FOP alleged that it had a Collective Bargaining Agreement ("CBA") with the City, effective through September 30, 2010, that the parties exchanged initial proposals for a successor agreement, and that the parties have held several bargaining sessions. The Union further alleged that during the several bargaining sessions, the City never advised the Union that there was a need to reach settlement on economic items expeditiously, or that the City intended to declare a "financial urgency" and invoke the process set forth in Statute 447.4095. The Union contended that the Statute 447.4095 may only be invoked to modify the terms of an existing agreement. The Union further alleged that although the

parties continued to bargain for a successor collective bargaining agreement on August 9th and 12th, 2010, the parties never discussed wages or pensions, but on August 16, 2010, the City advised PERC that it had engaged in negotiations on the impact of the "financial urgency", and any action necessitated by the "financial urgency", and that a dispute existed. The Union further alleged that on August 31, 2010, the City unilaterally took action to alter the terms and conditions of employment before reaching impasse with the Union, in violation of Florida Statute 447.501(1)(a) and (1)(c). Additionally, the Union claimed that, although the changes were not discussed with union representative, they were discussed in a closed-door unnoticed "shade" meeting conducted in violation of Florida Statute Section 447.605 (an exemption to the Sunshine Law). The Union contended that the failure of the City to have any discussions with the Union on these matters constitutes bad faith or surface bargaining. It also asserted that by unilaterally altering terms and conditions of employment before completion of the impasse procedure set forth in s. 447.403, and by not responding to a request for records, the City violated s. 447.501(1)(a) and (1)(c), F.S. The Union sought reinstatement of all benefits (pension and wages) modified by the City Commission. Hearings before a Special Magistrate culminated with a Recommended Order on July 1, 2011, in which the City was found in compliance with s. 447.4095, F.S.


The Hearing Officer found the City did not commit an unfair labor practice. A Final Order from PERC is pending.

PERC HEARING OFFICER DECIDES THAT THE CITY DID

NOT WAIVE SEC. 447.4095, F.S., IN THE IAFF COLLECTIVE

BARGAINING AGREEMENT AND THAT THE CITY DID NOT COMMIT AN UNFAIR LABOR

PRACTICE BY INVOKING “FINANCIAL URGENCY” AND

BY UNILATERALLY CHANGING THE TERMS AND

CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT

International Association of Firefighters, Local 587 v. City of Miami Public Employees Relations Commission, Case No.: CA-2010-124

This is a matter filed before the Public Employees Relations Commission (“PERC”) by the IAFF Local 587 (hereinafter "Union") claiming the City committed an unfair labor practice. Specifically, the Union asserted that it had a Collective Bargaining Agreement ("CBA") with the City, effective through October 1, 2010, that, in 2010, in exchange for concessions by the Union, the CBA was extended through September 30, 2011, and that the City expressly waived its right not to fund any year of the CBA except in the case of "true fiscal emergency", defined in the CBA (Article 18.18) as, "the City must demonstrate that there is no other reasonable alternative means of appropriating monies to fund the agreement for that year or years". The Union further alleged that less than six (6) months after agreeing to the extension,

on April 30, 2010, the City invoked the process under Florida Statute claiming "financial urgency," and on August 31, 2010, unilaterally took action to modify wages, insurance and pension benefits. The Union asserted that the invocation of s. 447.4095, F.S., was improper and was waived by the City in the CBA. Further, the Union alleged that, prior to their enactment, the modifications to the CBA were discussed in a closed-door, unnoticed meeting in violation of s. 447.605, F.S. (an exemption to the Sunshine Law). Finally, the Union asserted that the City failed to bargain collectively and in good faith by enacting the changes of August 31, 2010, by not providing the Union with notice in advance, and by failing to discuss, bargain over, impact bargain, or complete the process set forth in s. 447.403 and/or s. 447.4095, F.S. The Union seeks reinstatement of all benefits (pension and wages) modified by the City Commission. A hearing before a Special Magistrate precipitated a Recommended Order on July 7, 2011, where City was found in compliance with s. 447.4095, F.S. The Hearing Officer found the City did not commit an unfair labor practice. A Final Order from PERC is pending.

Miami celebrates its 115th Birthday in July 2010


ARBITRATOR DENIES GRIEVANCE FILED BY IAFF

AND DECIDES THAT THE IAFF FAILED TO SUSTAIN ITS

BURDEN OF PROVING THAT ARTICLE 18.18 OF THE

COLLECTIVE BARBAINING AGREEMENT CONSTITUTED

THE CITY'S CONDITIONAL WAIVER OF ITS RIGHT TO INVOKE S. 407.4095, AND

THUS DID NOT SUSTAIN ITS BURDEN OF PROVING A BREACH OF CONTRACT.

In the Matter of:

Arbitration between InternationalAssociation of Firefighters Local 587and the City of Miami, Florida American Arbitration Association, Case No.: 32 390 00428 10

On April 30, 2010, the City notified the IAFF that it was invoking the financial urgency authority granted under F.S. s. 447.4095. On May 6, 2010, the Union filed a grievance asserting: (1) that the Collective Bargaining Agreement ("CBA") Article 18.18 required the City to fund the original terms of the CBA unless it could demonstrate a true fiscal emergency; (2) that a true fiscal emergency would have required the City to "explore all other reasonable alternative means to fund the Agreement"; (3) that financial urgency was not the equivalent of a true fiscal emergency; and (4) that by claiming financial urgency and invoking Florida Statute 447.4095, the City had eschewed the Article 18.18 true fiscal emergency standard and had thus breached the CBA. As a remedy, the Union sought the withdrawal of the Florida Statute

447.4095 demands for bargaining and a make-whole remedy based upon restoration of the original terms of the CBA. On August 31, 2010, the City Commission, acting as the legislative body, unilaterally made changes to the CBA that reduced the wages and benefits of the bargaining unit members. The arbitrator decided the following issue: "Did the City violate CBA Article 18.18 by invoking Florida Statute 447.4095 without first demonstrating a true fiscal emergency?" In doing so, the arbitrator rejected the City's arbitrability arguments that: (a) the Union grievance is barred by the election of remedies in Article 15.3; (b) PERC has exclusive jurisdiction over the issue in arbitration; and (c) the grievance is inarbitrable because it was initiated untimely. The arbitrator decided that the Union failed to sustain its burden of proving that Article 18.18 constituted the City's conditional waiver of its right to invoke s. 407.4095, and thus did not sustain its burden of proving a breach of contract. The Union's grievance was accordingly, denied.

CIVILIAN INVESTIGATIVE PANEL NOT PRECLUDED BY

POLICEMAN'S BILL OF RIGHTS FROM

INVESTIGATING POLICE OFFICER

Freddy D'Agastino vs. The City of Miami Civilian Investigative Panel Miami-Dade County Circuit Court Case No.: 09-40869 CA 04

Petitioner, a Lieutenant in the Miami Police Department, sought an order quashing a subpoena issued to him by the


City of Miami Civilian Investigative Panel, concerning an investigation concerning the Petitioner's alleged misconduct. Petitioner alleged that he was previously investigated and interrogated by the Miami Police Department's Internal Affairs Unit, which resulted in a finding of "inconclusive". Petitioner asserted that the CIP is investigating him concerning the same matter, and that the CIP subpoena is inconsistent with Florida law and the Collective Bargaining Agreement between the FOP and the City of Miami. The City intervened in the lawsuit. First, the Petitioner contended that Florida Statute 112.532, commonly referred to as the Policeman's Bill of Rights provided for the "exclusive" procedure for investigating a law enforcement officer by any local government agency. Second, the Petitioner contended that Article 8, Section 8.1(H), of the Collective Bargaining Agreement prohibits the City of Miami from forcing him to give a second statement concerning the same facts elicited in the original interrogation. The Circuit Court denied the Petitioner's Motion for Summary Judgment and granted the Motions for Summary Judgment filed by the Civilian Investigative Panel and the City of Miami. The matter is currently on appeal.

GRANT OF NEW TRIAL TO CITY FOLLOWING ADVERSE JURY VERDICT OF $500,000 ON DISCRIMINATION AND

RETALIATION CLAIMS AFFIRMED ON APPEAL

Kathy Daegling vs. City of Miami 3rd District Court of Appeal Case No.: 3D09-3526

Plaintiff is a fire inspector who alleged employment claims of discrimination, retaliation and whistleblower related to the denial of a promotion to NET Administrator. Plaintiff also alleged various tort claims against the City and other City employees. The employment claims were severed from the tort claims (which will be tried separately), and were tried by a jury in September, 2009. On the whistleblower claim, the jury awarded no damages; on the discrimination claim, the jury awarded $320,000; and, on the retaliation claim, the jury awarded $180,000. The City filed a motion for new trial on various grounds, which was granted. The Plaintiff appealed the order granting a new trial, which was affirmed per curium without opinion.


CITY PREVAILS IN BREACH OF CONTRACT CASE FILED BY FORMER CITY ATTORNEY

CLAIMING SEVERANCE BENEFITS

Jorge L. Fernandez v. City of Miami Miami-Dade County Circuit Court Case No.: 08-17486 CA 13

Plaintiff, the former City Attorney, filed suit alleging a breach of contract concerning severance and accumulated leave (sick and vacation). The parties both conceded that a contract existed based on the terms of a “term sheet”. In defense, the City filed affirmative defenses, such as prior material breach, breach of fiduciary duty, and other contractual-related defenses. The City also filed five counterclaims, namely: (1) breach of fiduciary duty; (2) fraud; (3) breach of oath of office; (4) civil theft; and (5) conversion. The City sought to recover approximately $17,000 related to misuse of an expense account and approximately $30,000 related to excessive travel. The case was tried without a jury. The Court ruled against the Plaintiff on all claims, and in favor of the City on its counterclaims, awarding the City approximately $3,000 in damages based on non-business related meals. The Court declined to award the City damages relating to excessive travel. Because of the civil theft claim, the damage award will be trebled, making the resulting damage award approximately $9,000. In addition, the City was awarded its costs and attorney’s fees. The case was handled by Gerald Greenberg, Esq., of The Sterns Weaver law firm. Mr. Fernandez has appealed the Court’s judgment.

FORMER COMMISSIONER'S ESTATE DENIED ATTORNEY'S

FEES INCURRED IN DEFENDING CRIMINAL

CHARGES

Stephanie Kerr-Teele and Arthur Patton-Teele vs. City of Miami Miami-Dade Circuit Court Case No.: 09-38060 CA 03

On September 14, 2004, former Commissioner Teele was arrested for "threatening a public servant", "aggravated assault" and later, ten counts of "public corruption". The "threatening a public servant" and "aggravated assault" charges were tried first, and severed from the "public corruption" charges. Former Commissioner Teele was found not guilty of "aggravated assault", but guilty of "threatening a public servant". Former Commissioner Teele appealed his conviction for "threatening a public servant". During the pendency of the appeal, former Commissioner Teele took his own life. The Teele Estate brought this action to seek reimbursement for former Commissioner Teele’s attorney’s fees. To prevail, the Estate needed to prove that: (a) former Commissioner Teele was engaged in an act he was authorized to do as a Commissioner for the City; and (2) the act was for a public purpose. The City argued, and the Court agreed, that former Commissioner Teele was not entitled to recover his attorney’s fees for defending himself from the charges of "threatening a public servant" and "aggravated assault". However, the Court decided that former Commissioner Teele was entitled to be reimbursed for any


attorney’s fees he paid to defend himself from the allegations of "public corruption". However, since former Commissioner Teele took his own life before a final determination on the later issue could be made, he divested himself of any right he may have had and, as such, the City’s motion for summary judgment was granted.

APPELLATE COURT CONFIRMS THAT SCOPE OF ARBITRATION CANNOT BE

EXPANDED WITHOUT BOTH PARTIES’ WRITTEN CONSENT

Andrew Markowitz v. City of Miami 3rd District Court of Appeal Case No. 3D10-683

The Fraternal Order of Police filed a grievance solely on behalf of Officer Andrew Markowitz, claiming that the City was required to provide light duty work for an off-duty injury. During the arbitration, the FOP asserted that the grievance was being brought as a class action. Over the City’s objection, the arbitrator awarded relief not only to Officer Markowitz, but also to all other similarly affected FOP members. The City filed petition in Circuit Court to vacate or modify in part the arbitration award, claiming that the arbitrator exceeded his authority by converting the Markowitz grievance into a class action. After hearing argument and reviewing the record, the Court vacated those aspects of the award that gave damages to any party other than Markowitz. The Union appealed and the Third District Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that the FOP failed to bring the grievance as a class action by failing to reduce the demand to

writing, and that the arbitrator exceeded his jurisdiction as he had no authority to modify or rewrite the Collective Bargaining Agreement.

FINAL SUMMARY JUDGEMENT ENTERED IN

FAVOR OF FOR THE CITY IN WHISTLE BLOWER CASE

Dennis Williams v. City of Miami Miami Dade County Circuit Court Case No. 09-06400 CA 04

Former Police Officer, Dennis Williams, brought a whistle blower claim against the City alleging that he was retaliated against and ultimately forced to resign. Mr. Williams was on routine patrol when he responded to scene where a suspect was already in custody. While he and the arresting officer were on scene, Mr. Williams saw the arresting officer strike the suspect. Mr. Williams failed to inform his supervisor of what he witnessed. From the events of that night, the arresting officer and Mr. Williams were investigated by Internal Affairs (“I.A.”). Mr. Williams was asked to participate in I.A.’s investigation and during the remaining months of his employ, he alleges that he was “labeled a rat” by his superiors. Both officers were ultimately reprimanded for misconduct. Mr. Williams’ reprimand, however, was placed in his file (10) days after he resigned from the City. As a result, Mr. Williams claimed that he cannot find suitable employment in law enforcement. His complaint sought $800,000 dollars in compensatory damages. On February 22, 2011, the City obtained final summary judgment in its favor.


Civil Service BoardIn the area of employment law recognition is

warranted for the excellent work of Assistant City Attorney Janeen Richard in her representation of management before the Civil Service Board. She has successfully assisted management in upholding disciplinary action taken in the workplace by presenting the supporting evidence and argument in a convincing and compelling manner.

NO ROLLBACK RIGHTS TO A CLASSIFIED POSITION THAT

HAS BEEN ABOLISHED

In re: Richard BriosoCivil Service Board Case No. 10-19G

Brioso was terminated from his unclassified position as Assistant to the Director of General Services Administration. Before the Civil Service Board, Brioso argued that he should have been returned to his former classification or an equivalent position pursuant to Civil Service Rule 8.13. The Board agreed with the City’s interpretation of the Rule finding that because his previous classified position had been abolished, his rollback rights to that position no longer existed and the City was not obligated to place Brioso in any available position.

LITIGATION ASSISTANT GUILTY OF BREACH OF

CONFIDENTIALITY

In re: DiazCivil Service Board Case No. 10-20D

Diaz, a Litigation Assistant in the Office of City Attorney was terminated after she printed a confidential Memorandum of

Understanding between the City and the union, took the document home, and shared its contents with a third party. The Board found Diaz guilty of violating Civil Service Rules 14.2(h) (disgraceful conduct), 14.2(k) (incompetency); and 14.2(l) (negligence).

GSA EMPLOYEE TERMINATED FOR DAMAGING CITY

PROPERTY

In re: Osmel MartinezCivil Service Board Case No. 10-05D

Martinez, a Maintenance Mechanic Supervisor in the Department of General Services Administration, was terminated after he drove his City vehicle in a reckless and erratic matter causing the vehicle’s contents to fall out of the back of the vehicle. Martinez knowingly left the damaged items in the driving lanes of the City’s property maintenance yard. The Board found Martinez guilty of violating Civil Service Rule 14.2(l)(careless or negligent of City property). The City

Manager agreed with the finding of guilt and terminated Martinez.


GSA EMPLOYEE ABANDONS WHISTLEBLOWER

COMPLAINT

In re: Osmel MartinezCivil Service Board, Case No. 10-18I

Martinez, a Maintenance Mechanic Supervisor in the Department of General Services Administration, argued before the Board that he was terminated after he reported acts of harassment and malfeasance committed by the former Assistant to the Director and former Deputy Director of GSA. After three days of testimony, Martinez abandoned his whistleblower claims thereby extinguishing the City’s exposure to thousands of dollars in back pay, attorney’s fees, and costs.

GSA EMPLOYEE GUILTY OF ANTAGONISTIC BEHAVIOR

DIRECTED TO CO-WORKERS

In re: Manuel LucenaCivil Service Board, Case No. 09-35D

Lucena, a Heavy Equipment Mechanic in the Department of General Services Administration, was suspended for inappropriate and offensive language directed to his co-workers. The Board found Lucena guilty of violating Civil Service Rules 14.2(e) (breach of proper discipline), 14.2(h) (insubordination); 14.2(i) (offensive language), and 14.2(r) (antagonistic toward fellow employees). As a result, the Board unanimously upheld the Department Director’s five-day suspension without pay.

Workers’ Compensation

During this Reporting Period the Workers’ Compensation Section continued to build on this Office’s past successes in workers’ compensation. By continuing the team approach between Gallagher-Bassett Services, the City’s claims adjuster, and the Department of Risk Management, results reported the below were achieved. Additionally, through deft implementation of various strategies known to work in private industry, the workers’ compensation legal team strives to achieve exposure and benefit management of risks. The strategies that have been implemented are as follows:

Savings from workers’ compensation reserves have been realized through judicious settlement of workers’ compensation claims. The savings were achieved through a combination of victories in litigated cases, continued claim dismissals demonstrating extreme intolerance for frivolous or shotgun claims, very significant reduction in liability for claimants’ attorneys’ fees and costs, and astute negotiations on

settlements and washouts of past and future benefits, where possible. This Office introduced the City of Miami to settlement strategies such as annuity purchases and rated ages which help to negotiate tough and expensive cases while allowing claimants to find such settlements palatable. This office has also strived to identify claims that must settle before they mature and become far too expensive to resolve.


By further streamlining team communication, this Office has greatly improved access to all pertinent medical records and file materials for timely advice on litigation issues and issues which may be litigated in the future. This was achieved by implementing regular meetings with Gallagher-Bassett Services within days of the receipt of a new petition for benefits, to better develop action plans and impact statements to identify and coordinate services. Unlike private defense firms which may have little incentive to quickly and efficiently address issues with a minimum of litigation cost and expense (i.e., a minimum of billable time), this Office’s practice emphasizes fast response time to litigation with the intent of proving the City’s position is in keeping with Florida Statutes, or correcting the City’s position where necessary to keep ancillary costs and exposure to a minimum.

Continued strategic training through periodic and timely reporting by email and mini-seminars on case law developments as new decisions are released, to assure timely and appropriate responses to claims and requests for benefits. The importance of this cannot be over emphasized as a small percentage of claims are actually litigated and having knowledgeable case workers is critical to keeping litigation minimized.

Subrogation recoveries under Florida Statute 440.39 have been maximized from third party defendants responsible for injuries to City employees.

The City’s handling of occupational diseases affecting first responders has been modified to keep pace with the many new appellate decisions that have significantly affected the manner in which these cases are analyzed and considered for acceptance, thereby reducing the City’s potential exposure to costly claims that would otherwise not be compensable. For instance, in a recent claim filed by a first responder, this Office investigated the claim and learned that a significant non-occupational explanation existed for the claimant’s health condition which would otherwise be covered under the statute. After engaging in preliminary discovery, and prior to spending significant sums in litigation costs, this office persuaded the first responder to voluntarily dismiss the claim for indemnity and medical benefits, and thus the claim remains totally denied.

The City Attorney’s Office achieved a drastic reduction in claims for attorney’s fees and costs, due to the continued team approach that has been developed between Risk Management and the Servicing Agent in order to immediately provide advice on litigated matters and avoid costly mistakes.

The City Attorney’s Office recently prevailed on a total denial of compensability based on the claimant’s failure to timely report an on-the-job accident and effective impeachment of the claimant. This was achieved by intense scrutiny of the facts, timely discovery and effective research.


However, it is important to note that often times matters are not going to trial because this office has been successful in convincing opposing counsel that their petitions for benefits are groundless or that the City’s position is correct and benefits have been timely provided. The resulting notices of voluntary dismissal of petitions for benefits save the City of Miami thousands of dollars each year in litigation costs.

Some of the significant matters handled by the Workers’ Compensation Division during this reporting period are:

PETITION FOR BENEFITS VOLUNTARILY DISMISSED

Isaac Abella v. City of MiamiOffice of the Judge of Compensation Claims, Case No. 10-019890HHH

The claimant is a police officer for the City of Miami who alleged a condition possibly covered under s. 112.18, F.S. on or about July 7, 2010. The compensability of the claim has been denied and the claimant filed a Petition for Benefits seeking a determination of the compensability of the claim. This office defended the City, took depositions of the claimant and his health care provider and ultimately secured a voluntary dismissal of the petition for benefits. The claim remains denied.

PETITION FOR BENEFITS VOLUNTARILY DISMISSED

Louisane Alouidor v. City of Miami Office of the Judge of Compensation Claims, Case No.: 10-006932AMK

The claimant is a temporary employee that worked at Eaton Day Care. She filed two Petitions for Benefits seeking payment of indemnity benefits and medical treatment for injuries involving the right hand and right thumb resulting from an alleged allergic reaction to cleaning agents and the use of latex gloves. The City denied the compensability of the claim. This office defended and the claimant’s attorney voluntarily dismissed the Petitions.


DENIAL OF PETITION FOR WORKERS COMPENSATION

BENEFITS AFFIRMED ON APPEAL

Stephen Kiraly v. City of Miami 1st District Court of Appeal Case No.: 1D10-2735

Appellant sustained a compensable knee injury on July 15, 1976. He settled the indemnity portion of his claim in 1987, but medical benefits remained open. The Appellant filed a Petition for Benefits requesting mileage reimbursement from August 1, 1983 through December 31, 2007, totaling 73,450 miles, payment or reimbursement of a massage chair due to low back complaints resulting from his compensable knee injury, and attorney's fees and costs. The City defended the claim for mileage reimbursement on lack of competent substantial evidence, and laches; and defended the claim for the message chair as not being medically necessary or related to the compensable left knee injury. After two days of evidentiary hearing on April 27, 2010, Judge of Compensation Claims accepted the City's position and denied all the mileage reimbursement requested, the massage chair, and attorney's fees and costs. This result represented a total savings to the City of over $40,000. The

Appellant filed an appeal with the 1st DCA. On appeal, the 1st

DCA per curiam affirmed the decision of the Judge of Compensation Claims.

PETITION FOR BENEFITS UNDER HEART/LUNG BILL VOLUNTARILY DISMISSED

Christopher Musser v. City of Miami Office of the Judge of Compensation Claims, Case No.: 09-022170CMH

The claimant is a retired fire lieutenant who was temporarily taken off work during his yearly physical on the suspicion that he may be suffering from heart disease. The City paid for the time he was off receiving medical testing and clearance and paid for all the testing. The claimant was returned to work full duty but he retired shortly after his clearance for duty. Thereafter, the claimant filed a Petition seeking compensability and continued treatment for heart disease under the heart/lung bill. The City denied continued treatment on the defense that the claimant did not suffer from heart disease; that the presumption under the heart/lung bill could be rebutted due to his long term history of smoking; and he did not have a disability under the bill. After aggressively defending the City’s position the claimant’s attorney voluntarily dismissed his Petitions. No new Petitions have been filed to date.

ALL CLAIMS DENIED AT FINAL HEARING DUE TO

IMPEACHMENT AND PRIOR NON-WORK RELATED INJURY

Marcos Novoa v. City of Miami Office of the Judge of Compensation Claims; Case No. 09-009491AMK

The claimant is a former sports coach with the City who alleged he was injured on-the-job on September 16, 2006, in the course and scope of his employment. The claimant


filed Petitions for Benefits against the City for workers’ compensation benefits. The entire claim was denied and a final hearing was scheduled for October 20, 2010. Judge Kuker ruled on October 21, 2010, that the claimant had been successfully impeached; that the claimant had not provided the City of Miami with notice of injury as required by Statute; that the major contributing cause of the claimant’s injury was his personal workout regimen combined with the natural progression of arthritic changes occasioned by a prior non-work related surgery, which took place in Colombia in 1998, and consequently, Judge Kuker denied all claims, including attorney’s fees and costs, with prejudice. The City prevailed.

DENIAL OF PETITION FOR WORKERS COMPENSATION

BENEFITS AFFIRMED ON APPEAL

City of Miami and Gallagher Bassett Services, Inc. v. Euraclio Pons1st District Court of Appeal Case No.: 1D10-282

The claimant filed multiple Petitions for Benefits for three separate dates of accident. The issues before the Judge of Compensation claims involved, inter alia,payment of temporary partial disability benefits, mileage reimbursement, and attorney’s fees and costs. The City filed an appeal, and the claimant filed a cross-appeal. On November 3, 2010, the 1st DCA percuriam affirmed.

Quality of Life and Environment This practice area is dedicated to assisting City leaders and administrators in providing a

safe, sustainable and clean community for the citizens of the City of Miami. It encompasses Land Use, Zoning, Planning, Building, Code Enforcement, Demolitions, Environmental Law, Nuisance Abatement, Historic Preservation, and Sustainable Initiatives.

For example, Code Enforcement cases are brought before the Code Enforcement Board or special master and are aggressively prosecuted by Assistant City Attorney Jose Arango. The cases are of great importance to the citizens of our City as they arise from violations of the Code, which directly affect the quality of life in our community. Within the reporting period, an excess of 500 cases involving Code violations such as illegal construction, tree removal, illegally maintaining or depositing junk or trash, graffiti, failure of a business to have the appropriate certificate of use or business tax receipt, and violations pertaining to vacant, blighted, unsecured, or abandoned structures have been heard.


On the legislative front, this division generates and reviews over a hundred pieces of legislation a year to promote proper development within the City of Miami. For example, staff attorneys under the leadership of Deputy City Attorney Maria J. Chiaro was heavily involved in drafting numerous code amendments to facilitate the implementation of the City’s new zoning code known as “Miami 21”. This new code was adopted to establish and create better standards and procedures for new development or redevelopment in the City. Staff attorneys were present at all public hearings and meetings pertaining to the adoption and implementation of Miami 21 Code.

Also, Code amendments pertaining to the tree protection ordinance, mural ordinance, temporary banners and temporary uses for vacant properties and temporary advertising in storefronts were drafted by this office. Another issue of great significance to quality of life and the environment tackled by this division is the proposed sitting of 80-foot-tall power lines along U.S. 1 along certain areas of the City of Miami that would cost hundreds of millions of dollars in lost property values, according to a study commissioned by one of the other affected cities that opposes the new lines. Assistant City Attorney Victoria Mendez, prepared legislation in furtherance of the City Commission’s policy directives, specifically the Florida Power and Light Turkey Point Units 6 and 7 Transmission Line expansion project. The City was successful in extending the completeness stage of the certification process and providing the City ample opportunity to comment. The litigation concerning this project is ongoing.

Finally, on the development front, staff attorneys handled all the building and zoning issues associated with the Florida (soon to be Miami!) Marlins ballpark site. Additionally, the substantial modifications to the Marlin’s Parking Garage Major Use Special Permit, Signage issues, and all legislation associated with this project were reviewed by this Office.

Contracts and Procurement The work of staff attorneys in this practice area touches upon all aspects of commercial

and financial transactions undertaken by the City in the administration of a budget of approximately $534 million dollars. In the reporting period, approximately 1018 contracts were reviewed approximately totaling $164,651,480.76 in valuation.

In the area of public procurement and purchasing we are pleased to report that there has been a dramatic decline in actual bid protest filed before the City Commission due in great part to the effective counsel offered by Assistant City Attorney Rafael Suarez-Rivas, our in-house procurement expert. The Purchasing Director, with substantial guidance from Assistant City Attorney Suarez-Rivas, has managed to stem the tide of bid protests with the issuance of protest denials supported by cogent and compelling analysis thereby foreclosing the need for a hearing before the City Commission.


Additionally, significant legal services were provided in the procurement of innovative programs notably, the award of agreements for the installation of mural displays at the City’s administration building and the successful installation of cameras at intersections to reduce crashes by ticketing drivers who run red lights.

General Government & Public Safety This practice area provides advice and counsel to elected and appointed officials and City

agencies, oversees regulatory compliance in the area of public finance, and handles all matters related to governance, public policy and development involving public private partnershipsincluding affordable housing and community development. In excess of 1,000 hours of legal services were rendered by staff attorneys providing representation to the three Miami Community Redevelopment Agencies, the Miami Downtown Development Authority, the Coconut Grove BID and the Miami Sports and Entertainment Agency, which services included attending public meetings, providing legal advice, and drafting contracts for the provision of goods and services.

Also, the attorneys assigned to this practice collaborate as a team by providing support and assistance to the litigators handling lawsuits that arise from the operations of all City departments. They serve as an invaluable resource for obtaining documents, materials and information from the various departments and officers of the City.

The effectiveness of the work of attorneys in the General Government & Public Safety area is gauged not only by lawsuits that have been won or lost but rather by lawsuits and other controversies that have been avoided. The attorneys in this area strive to defuse incidents and controversies before they become lawsuits. Consequently, the attorneys in this area work tirelessly behind the scenes to ensure that legal disputes and issues get quickly resolved.

Substantial legal work was done in connection with grants and agreements that provide funding for various City programs. These include multiple grants from The Children’s Trust to the City’s Department of Parks and Recreation and the Mayor’s Education Initiatives totaling in excess of $1.8 million to fund out of school, after school, truancy reduction, parent education, and family educational programs at parks, community schools, and local day care facilities.

Significant assistance was provided to the administration in furtherance of public policy objectives regarding the promotion of an aesthetically pleasing urban environment and availability of decent and affordable housing. Highlights of some of this work include amendments to various settlement agreements with billboard companies that generate revenue for the City and mitigate the visual blight caused by outdoor advertising and the drafting of a no-panhandling ordinance that was adopted by the City Commission which included areas within the urban core, including areas around the American Airlines Arena.


Also, Assistant City Attorney Ninoshka “Sacha” Reyes, assigned to work closely with the City’s Community Development Department, structured and prepared loan documentation for eight new affordable housing projects, for a combined total of approximately $7.5 million in new affordable housing construction loans, thereby increasing the supply of affordable housing units by 593. These projects include Madison Housing Development, D & K Phase I and Phase II, Labre Development, Little Haiti Gateway, Town Park, Parkview and Atrium at Spring Garden.

The office takes great pride in the newest member of this section, Assistant City Attorney Kira Grossman, who, in addition to the experience she is developing in the area of public finance, has become immersed in the state legislative process. She rendered invaluable assistance during this past year’s state legislative session, showing in depth understanding of the process. For the upcoming legislative session, Assistant City Attorney Grossman will be interacting with Commissioners, the Mayor and the Administration to advocate on behalf of the City in Tallahassee during session thereby helping to reduce the cost to the City for lobbying services previously undertaken by outside consultants.

Assistant City Attorney Grossman provided assistance to our in-house public finance expert, Assistant City Attorney Robin Jones Jackson, in the following public finance matters:

Closing on July 29, 2010 of $84,540,000 City of Miami, Florida Tax-Exempt Special Obligation Parking Revenue Bonds, Series 2010A (Marlins Stadium Project) and $16,830,000 City of Miami, Florida Taxable Special Obligation Parking Revenue Bonds, Series 2010B (Marlins Stadium Project).

Closing on January 5, 2011 of $50,000,000 Loan from Wells Fargo Bank, National Association to the City of Miami for Revenue Note, Series 2010 (Port of Miami Tunnel and Access Improvement Project).

Restructuring of approximately $68,000,000 in loans from the Sunshine State Governmental Loan Pool Program by July 2011.

Anticipated issuance of more than $50,000,000 of either CRA or City bonds to refinance the Wells Fargo Loan for the Port of Miami Tunnel and Access Improvement Project.

Staff attorneys in the General Government area also have provided significant legal services in the areas of development through private-public partnerships. The excellent work of Assistant City Attorneys Veronica Xiques and Robin Jones Jackson is recognized in connection with some of these projects including:

The Baseball Stadium Parking Facilities Project. The City is in the process of drafting an Interlocal Agreement to be considered by the City Commission and the Department of


Off-Street Parking for the lease and management of the parking and retail components of the parking facilities at the new baseball stadium scheduled to open in April 2012.

The Museum Park Project. The City is in the process of finalizing negotiations with FDOT for use of discrete areas for the Museum Park development. Similarly, the City is negotiating with art museum and science museum the terms of a Management Agreement for the museum’s management and operation of the museum properties.

The Heliport Project. MSEA and the City are negotiating with a proposed Heliport operator to construct and operate a public heliport on Watson Island.

The Virginia Key Landfill Project. The City and the County are negotiating an agreement setting forth each party’s rights and obligations with respect to the landfill on Virginia Key.

The Marine Stadium Project. Miami Sports and Exhibition Authority and the City are negotiating an Interlocal Agreement that would allow MSEA to oversee the renovation, operation and management of Marine Stadium.

The Watson Island Project. Approval by the State of Florida Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Fund of the Amended Partial Modification of Deed Restrictions for Watson Island in order to proceed with the Flagstone Mega Yacht project (the “Flagstone Project Amended Modification”). The required ratification of the Flagstone Project Amended Modification is being scheduled for City Commission in September.

One of the more critical functions of the General Government & Public Safety area is the role of Police Legal Advisor which is assigned to Assistant City Attorney George K. Wysong. He serves as in-house counsel to the Chief of Police and the Executive Staff of the Miami Police Department. Among other things, the Police Legal Advisor performs professional legal and administrative work, which includes: advice on civil and criminal matters, acting as liaison on employment and labor matters; drafting ordinances, resolutions, contracts, pleadings, search warrants and other legal documents; training of law enforcement personnel; and reviewing departmental policies. Assistant City Attorney Wysong works closely with the litigators in protecting the interests of the City as they relate to civil liability arising from police operations.

In addition to rendering legal services, Assistant City Attorney Wysong serves as an instructor at the City of Miami Police Academy. Last year he taught the following courses to various academy classes:


Florida CMS Law Enforcement Basic Recruit Training Program, # 1177, Introduction to Law Enforcement and Legal. (80 hour block);

Line Supervision Course for Police Managers (8 hour course);

Basic Recruit Training for Public Service Aides. (40 Hour course).

Some of the significant on-going issues of the Police Legal Advisor are:

The re-implementation of the Vehicle Impoundment Program;

The implementation of the Mark Wandall Traffic Safety Act;

Renewal of mutual aid agreements with the majority of the municipalities in Miami-Dade County;

Serves as a member of the Departmental Orders Review Committee which has undertaken the task of reviewing and updating all of the policies and procedures of the Miami Police Department (“MPD”).

Serves as a member of the Policy Review Committee which reviews and approves the final changes to the MPD Departmental Orders.

Serves as a member of the Firearms Review Board. The Board reviews every incident involving the discharge of a firearm by Miami Police officers.

Participates in the post-incident review of every incident involving discharges of firearms by Miami Police officers and other significant events.

Represents the City Attorney’s Office in the Emergency Operations Center during times when the EOC is activated due to natural and/or man-made emergencies.

Serves as liaison between MPD and the State Attorney’s Office, as well as other local and federal law enforcement agencies, regarding criminal cases and other issues of mutual interest.

Defends the City and MPD in criminal cases involving requests by defendants for the return of property seized as evidence, demands to view or obtain

evidence, rules to show cause against officers, and other matters requiring representation in the criminal courts.

Prepares legal bulletins on changes in law affecting law enforcement.

Performs legal research on the case trends, legal precedents, rulings and laws affecting police operations.

Monitors and advises the Chief of Police of current court decisions and legislation affecting the operations, practices, and policies of the MPD.

Attends meetings of the Chief Executive’s staff to advise on legal issues and relevant legislation and court decisions.

Initiates and prosecutes lawsuits seeking the civil forfeiture of contraband property, including real property, motor vehicles, and cash.

Serves as prosecutor for the Nuisance Abatement Board and in vehicle impoundment hearings.

Attends and provides legal counsel for criminal investigations, such as high profile homicides, officer involved shootings, and in-custody deaths.

Reviews all court orders served on MPD.

Ensures compliance with all third party subpoenas for information served upon MPD.

Reviews and facilitates responses topublic record requests propounded on MPD.

Serves as liaison between the MPD and the Civilian Investigative Panel.


Highlights of 2011 Staff Attorney’s Achievements

Victoria Mendez was installed as President of the Cuban American Bar Association (CABA), the largest voluntary minority bar association in Florida with close to 2000 members. She was also recognized by the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation as one of Miami-Dade County’s “40 under 40” in 2010.

John A. Greco, Assistant City Attorney, authored an article in the January/February 2011 issue of the Municipal Lawyer Magazine titled “Zoning and Internet Adult Businesses: The Cases of Voyeur Dorm and Flava Works.” In addition, Mr. Greco was a speaker in September 2010 at a teleconference on the subject of “The Top Ten Pitfalls for City Attorneys to Avoid in Dealing with Mass Demonstrations.”

Christopher A. Green, Assistant City Attorney was board certified in Civil Trial.

Henry J. Hunnefeld, Assistant City Attorney obtained board certification in City, County and Local Government Law.

These certifications bring to the total number of attorneys in our office who are certified as experts in their fields by the Florida Bar to six.


Office Events This year the Office participated in “Bring your Child to Work Day” by conducting the mock trial of “B.B. Wolf (a/k/a BIG BAD WOLF) v. CURLY PIG”. The children got to play the roles of Judge, Counsel, Jurors, Bailiff and, of course, Plaintiff and Defendant. Assistant City Attorneys Richard S. Otruba, Kevin R. Jones, Christopher Green, and Robin Jones Jackson explained the duty and responsibility of each role and the manner in which a trial is conducted. Other members of the staff also participated and described their specific roles in the Office of the City Attorney.

The children enjoyed the mock trial so much that the Office has been invited to participate again next year.


Internship Program For the 7th consecutive year, the Office of the City

Attorney offered the opportunity for second and third year law students to participate as interns during their Fall, Spring, and Summer Semesters. Our Office offers a highly competitive and coveted internship, with hundreds of applications each year. This program is viewed as an unparalleled opportunity to explore a career in the challenging practice of municipal law. Students gain practical legal experience by working closely with experienced attorney supervisors on a variety of substantive legal matters including, civil litigation, land use, labor and employment, commercial and general government law. Students from local area law schools, other Florida law schools, and higher tier law schools outside of Florida, such as Emory, Columbia, and the like, have worked in the Office over the years. Students comply with their school’s clinical program guidelines, while participating in the internship program. During the reporting period more than 40 interns participated in this program.

CITY OF MIAMI Office of the City Attorney

Miami Riverside Center444 S.W. 2nd Avenue, Suite 945

Miami, FL 33130

Documents

CITY OF MIAMI OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEYci.miami.fl.us/cityattorney/docs/executiveSummary/10-11-Executive... · City of Hialeah, City of Fort Lauderdale, Miami-Dade County and Broward