LTC 152-2024 Dismissal of Lawsuit Concerning Ocean Drive Pedestrian Plaza Promenade PilotMIAMI BEACH
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
LTC No.
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
152-2024
LETTER TO COMMISSION
Mayor Steven Meiner and Members of the City Commission
Ricardo Dopico , Acting City Attorney~
April 23, 2024
SUBJECT: Dismissal of Lawsuit Concerning Ocean Drive Pedestrian Plaza
("Promenade") Pilot
I am pleased to advise you that our litigation team has scored yet another victory. The
Eleventh Judicial Circuit court recently dismissed the lawsuit concerning the temporary
Ocean Drive pedestrian plaza located between 13 Street and 14 Place ("promenade").
On September 15, 2023, plaintiffs The Netherland of South Beach Condominium
Association, Inc. (a condo association) and Ocean City View, Inc. (a condo unit owner)
filed a lawsuit against the City of Miami Beach and Miami-Dade County in the Eleventh
Judicial Circuit court, case number 2023-23167-CA-01. In their Complaint, the plaintiffs
requested an injunction that would prevent the City and the County from permanently or
temporarily closing any part of Ocean Drive, including the promenade, to automobile
traffic. The plaintiffs alleged, among other things, that: (1) the implementation of the
Ocean Drive promenade denied them of their constitutional "fundamental rights" to have
vehicular access to all of Ocean Drive; (2) the promenade was "illegal and inherently
dangerous"; and (3) the promenade violated the dedication of land by the Ocean Beach
Realty Company in the year 1913, which dedication was conditioned on Ocean Drive
being for "public use."
The City and the County each moved to dismiss the Complaint on case-dispositive
grounds. For its part, the City argued, among other things, that: (1) the decision to
implement the Ocean Drive promenade was a City policy prerogative, protected by
sovereign immunity; (2) the County has authorized the temporary promenade; (3) the
1913 dedication was not breached because the public is still free to use the promenade,
even if vehicles cannot access that portion of Ocean Drive; and ( 4) the plaintiffs do not
have any constitutional right to automobile ingress and egress over the promenade.
On the day before a Court hearing on the motions to dismiss, the plaintiffs agreed that
the motions should be granted. The Court therefore granted the motions via an agreed
order but gave the plaintiffs ten (10) days to file an amended complaint. However, the
plaintiffs declined to try to file a new complaint at this time and voluntarily dismissed the
We are committed to providing excellent public service and safety to all who live. work, and ploy in our vibrant, tropical, historic
community.
L e tt e r to C o m m is s io n
Ap r i l 2 3, 2 0 2 4
P a g e 2
case. The dismissal was without prejudice, meaning that the plaintiffs are not legally
barred from filing a similar case at a later time.
The City's case was litigated entirely in-house by First Assistant City Attorney Henry J.
Hunnefeld and Senior Assistant City Attorney Freddi Mack.
As always, please feel free to contact me or Rob Rosenwald for further information about
this or any City litigation matter.
RD/RFR/ag
W e o re co m m itte d to p ro vidin g e xc el le n t p u b lic servic e and sa fety to all w ho live, w or k , and play in our vib rant, tropical, historic
c o m m u ni ty.