RESOLUTION 90-19992 RESOLUTION NO. 90-19992
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, AUTHORIZING THE CITY
ATTORNEY TO SETTLE THE ISSUE OF PLAINTIFF'S
ATTORNEY'S FEES AND COSTS IN BRISK V. CITY OF
MIAMI BEACH ET AL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT, SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA, CASE NO.
88-2402, FOR AN AMOUNT NO tREATER THAN
$293,500.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI
BEACH:
WHEREAS, on April 18, 1990, the Miami Beach City Commission
passed its Resolution No. 90-19966 (attached hereto as Exhibit
"A") , authorizing Attorney Greg Gaebe, Esquire, representing the
City of Miami Beach, to settle Brisk v. City of Miami Beach et al,
United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, Case
No. 88-2402 for an amount no greater than the $520, 000 judgment
(representing Brisk' s compensatory claim) , and further authorizing
Gaebe to settle the issue of Plaintiff' s Attorney's fees and costs
for an amount no greater than $250, 000; and
WHEREAS, Plaintiff' s attorney, Isaac J. Mitrani, is in
agreement with settlement of the compensatory damage claim of Brisk
in the amount of $505, 000, yet will settle the issue of attorney' s
fees and costs only upon receipt of $293 , 500 (representing a
reduction of $81, 500 from Attorney Mitrani ' s original claim of
$375, 000 for attorney's fees and costs) ; and
WHEREAS, Attorney Gaebe has advised that Plaintiff' s
settlement in the subject litigation is in the best interest of the
City of Miami Beach, and has thus recommended (see Exhibit "B"
attached hereto) that the City authorize an additional $43 , 500 to
settle Plaintiff' s attorney' s fees and costs in the subject action;
and
WHEREAS, the City Attorney concurs in the recommendation of
Attorney Gaebe and thus recommends that the City Commission grant
the City Attorney an additional $43 , 500 of authority to settle the
issue of Plaintiff' s attorney's fees and costs, totalling
settlement of said fees and costs for an amount no greater than
$293 , 500 .
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT DULY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA that the recommendation of
Attorney Greg Gaebe, Esq. , outside counsel representing the City
of Miami Beach in Brisk v. City of Miami Beach et al, that the City
Commission grant an additional $43 , 500 of authority to settle the
issue of Plaintiff' s Attorney' s fees and costs totalling settlement
of said fees and costs for an amount no greater than $293 , 500 is
hereby accepted, and the City Attorney is thus hereby authorized
an additional $43 , 500 of authority in which to settle said claim
1
Miami Beach City Commission having already authorized $250, 000 for
settlement of attorney' s fees and costs therein via City of Miami
Beach Resolution No. 90-19966) .
PASSED and ADOPTED this 23rd day of May , 1990.
� YOR
ATTEST:
FORM APPROVE'
ri/Z r
LEGA 'EP� .
CITY CL RK" ` P
By
Date 7
r (lift)
2
_,s...- ..i...ra�-,-T.rr.:;;s4..:'Lv..r•r'-t.J,1•_...ti _sem...:a.s:V'. .•.'.:_.ri.%1 IL:r2 . _-, _-t-• _,••:::'.:,,, ., e:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
Ill!'
64 is ., T co0 ,7:711 ',._'
-teed "„,.-.
F L O R I D A
# �"`oR��RA.T1D *�a P.o. Box o
LAURENCE FEINGOLD
' cH26
9�
CITY ATTORNEY ,;_-� • MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA 33119-2032
TELEPHONE(305)673-7470
TELECOPY (305)673-7002
fr.
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM ��
DATE: MAY 18, 1990
TO: MAYOR ALEX DAOUD AND
MEMBERS OF THE CITY COMMISSION
CITY MANAGER ROB W. PARKINS
FROM: LAURENCE FEINGOLD i; '
/-
CITY ATTORNEY ``:_ -
RE: BRISK V. CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
SETTLEMENT OF ATTORNEY'S FEES AND COSTS
Attached herewith is a letter from Isaac J. Mitrani, Esq. ,
setting forth some additional information and considerations
regarding the settlement of the remaining outstanding issue in
Brisk v. City of Miami Beach, i.e. attorney' s fees and costs.
There are two main points contained in the attached
correspondence:
1) If the attorney' s fees and costs are not settled, the
City will be liable for the attorney' s fees and costs
pertaining to litigating the outstanding attorney' s fees
and costs. This additional cost could amount to as much
as $40, 000.
2) Under the "lodestar" principle, the attorney' s fees could
come in as high as approximately $700, 000 to $800, 000.
Based on the foregoing, on our previous presentation to the
City Commission and on the recommendation of our Special Counsel
Greg Gaebe, the City Attorney recommends settlement of this matter
in the amount of $293 , 500, as set forth in the attached resolution.
PNB: lm
Encl.
• AGENDA R.:T.-pp\
ITEM
DATE --' 3-9 o
',0O CONVENTION CEN.TER DRIVE - FOURTH FLOOR - MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA 33139
RESOLUTION NO. 90-19966
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, AUTHORIZING ATTORNEY
GREG GAEBE, ESQ. TO SETTLE BRISK V. CITY OF
MIAMI BEACH ET AL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT, SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA, CASE NO.
88-2402, FOR AN AMOUNT NO GREATER THAN THE
$520,000 JUDGMENT, AND AUTHORIZING GAEBE TO
SETTLE THE I5,SUE OF PLAINTIFF'S ATTORNEYS FEES
FOR AN AMOUNT NO GREATER THAN $250,000.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI
BEACH:
WHEREAS, in 1988 Brisk v. City of Miami Beach et al was filed
in Federal District Court, wherein Plaintiff alleged a violation
of his civil rights based upon alleged police brutality. In his
Complaint, Plaintiff sought damages against Defendant pursuant to
42 USC Section 1983 , Assault and Battery, Malicious Prosecution,
and False Arrest and Imprisonment; and
WHEREAS, this case proceeded to trial, resulting in a $520, 000
verdict assessed against Defendants, with attorneys fees to be
determined at a later date; and
WHEREAS, Plaintiff' s attorney, Isaac J. Mitrani, has made an
offer of settlement (Exhibit "A" hereto) whereby Plaintiff will
accept $505, 000 from the City representing its compensatory claim
due Brisk, and will further accept $375, 000 in settlement of its
claim for attorneys fees and costs; and
WHEREAS, Greg Gaebe, Esq. of Gaebe, Murphy, Mullen &
Antonelli, representing the City of Miami Beach, has advised that
consideration of Plaintiff' s settlement in the subject litigation
is in the best interest of the City of Miami Beach, and has thus
recommended that the City attempt to settle this case for a
negotiated amount; and
WHEREAS, the City Attorney concurs in the recommendation of
Attorney Gaebe and would further recommend that Attorney Gaebe be
authorized to settle this cause for an amount no greater than the
$520, 000 judgment, and further recommends that Attorney Gaebe be
1
V
---- "EXHIBIT "A"
authorized to settle the issue of attorneys fees for an amount no
greater than $250, 000.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT DULY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA that the recommendation of the
City Attorney that Attorney Greg Gaebe, Esq. , outside counsel
representing the City of Miami Beach in Brisk v. City of Miami
Beach et al , be authorized to settle this matter for an amount no
greater than the $520, 000 judgment and to settle the issue of
Plaintiff' s attorneys fees for an amount no greater than $250, 000
is hereby accepted and Attorney Gaebe is thus hereby authorized to
settle this case consistent with those figures as outlined
hereinabove.
PASSED and ADOPTED this 746-7day of / 1990.
►- OR
ATTEST:
/el&t: e 43/4////
CITY CLERK
FORM APPROVED
LE
,L DEFT
STATE OF FLORIDA
it. COUNTY OF DADE:
I, ELAINE M. BAKER, CityClerk of
�� lc? - the
Dale City Miami Beach, Florida, do hereby certify
that the above and foregoing is a true and cor-
rect copy of the original thereof on file in this
office.
WITNESS, my hand and the seal of said City
f h is Z ay of A.D. 19 9O
ELAINE M. BAKER
City Clerk of the City of Miami Beadt,Rork
� f
By: Deputy
2
LAW OFFICES
GAEBE, MURPHY, MULLEN & ANTONELLI
G REG GAEBE 4601 PONCE DE LEON BLVD.
MIKE MURPHY SUITE 100
MICHAEL A.MULLEN CORAL GABLES,FLORIDA 33146
MARK R.ANTONELLI DADE: 305/667-0223
BROWARD: 305/925-4815
ANTHONY DI MAITEO FAX: 305/284-9844
BENJAMIN M.ESCO
JAMES A.WALKER
DAVID KLEINBERG )
STACEY H.S.HIPSMAN ---! Zi5
Lit
:LA rl
April 26, 19 9 0 "y?
-4 on
Laurence F eingold, Esquire
CityAttorney
y -71 r•.)
City of Miami Beach
P. 0. Box 0
Miami Beach, Florida 33119-2032
Re: Alexander Brisk v. City of Miami Beach, et al.
Our File No: 26922-GMG
Dear Larry:
Let me bring you up to date on recent developments. As you know,
we have effectively negotiated a settlement as to the compensatory
damage claim of Alexander Brisk in the amount of $505, 000 . We have
confirmed authority for that figure and will be preparing Releases
and the normal closing papers in the immediate future. Problem,
the negotiations with respect to the claim for attorney' s fees and
costs still continue although I think we have made a recent break
through in this regard. As you are aware, we had recommended and
had been given authority to settle this claim for a total amount of
$250, 000. Mr. Mitrani ' s initial demand for this portion of the
claim was $375, 000 in fact, today I received a Sworn Motion for
Attorney' s Fees and Costs and a Memorandum of Law in Support of
Plaintiff' s Motion for Attorney' s Fees and Costs. These pleadings
are approximately 35 pages in length and I will fax you a copy if
desired. However, in order to short circuit this discussion, Mr.
Mitrani and myself discussed this case at length yesterday, and
basically, I believe I received the bottom line demand from
Plaintiff ' s counsel which in short, is $293 , 500. In this regard,
for an additional $43 , 500 of authority, the case can be resolved in
its entirety. In addition, Plaintiff' s counsel and myself agreed
that the Offer of Settlement would remain open until Thursday, May
3rd and that there would be no further pleadings or proceedings
during this time. Since time is of essence, I would appreciate
your response as soon as practicable.
It is my recommendation that the City extend the additional
authority, to settle the remaining portion of the claim for
attorney' s fees and costs, and put this case behind them. The
rationale for this recommendation is as follows:
EXHIBIT "B"
Laurence Feingold, Esquire
April 26, 1990
Page No. 2
1. That in Plaintiff' s Sworn Motion for Attorney' s Fees and
Costs and Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiff' s
Motion for Attorney' s Fees and Costs, the Plaintiff is
requesting attorney' s fees in the amount of $694 , 525. 00
and costs in the amount of $32 , 345. 58 . Obviously, the
$293 , 500 figure represents a substantial discount off of
the claimed attorney' s fees and costs. More importantly,
considering all factors, I believe the settlement offer
is reasonable in light of all circumstances and with that
figure on the table, the upside risk of continued
litigation and an ultimate award by Judge Nesbitt, far
exceeds the downside risk.
2 . Secondly, it is certainly well known at this point in
time that Isaac Mitrani, who was a major trial litigator
for the U.S. Attorney' s Office, enjoys an excellent
reputation with Judge Nesbitt and presumably would
receive favorable consideration on the issue of
attorney' s fees by the Court. In the same regard, Isaac
Mitrani and Loren Cohen, who handled the facts and law
respectively throughout the course of this trial, in all
candidness did an excellent job in the presentation of
this case to the jury.
3 . Thirdly, continued litigation on the issue of attorney' s
fees certainly represents further and ongoing exposure to
the City of Miami Beach. In the present posture of the
case, the City of Miami Beach would not only be
responsible b1 . our law f i �,.i ' s r7e�fense
r.`�1tJ1JJ1�► for �.a•1► l i la Va....��ttv...
would be essentially paying for the plaintiff' s
attorney' s fees and costs in the continued litigation on
this issue. Mr. Mitrani and Mr. Cohen essentially have
a carte blanc invitation to expend, time, effort, and
monies in the continued prosecution of the attorney' s
fees claim and I can further assure you that both of
these attorneys are very creative and long winded in the
processing of paperwork. Inasmuch as the City has
essentially a double meter running, it is certainly
conceivable that the continued prosecution of the claim
could represent in excess of the additional $43 , 500
authority requested.
4 . Lastly, the Brisk litigation would appear to be an
excellent candidate for the Lodestar enhancement
GAEBE,MURPHY,MULLEN& ArTTONELLI 4601 PONCE DE LEON BLVD. * SUITE 100 * CORAL GABLES, FLORIDA 33146
Laurence Feingold, Esquire
April 26, 1990
Page No. 3
principals adopted both by the State and Federal courts.
As you know, the Lodestar enhancement principal can
double or triple the actual fees involved. Lodestar
principal in short, depends upon such criteria as whether
the outcome of the case was in doubt (the complexity of
the litigation, the delay in payment from the time of the
actual damages incurred, the possible vindication of
statutory rights or federal civil rights, etc. ) All of
these factors in my opinion, militate in favor of the
application of the Lodestar principal which very easily
could double the claimed attorney' s fees in this matter.
Needless to say, if you have any questions with regard to this
recommendation, please give me a call and in addition, please keep
in mind that we are dealing with a deadline of next Thursday.
Very truly yours,
GAEBE, MURPHY, MULLEN & ANTONELLI
Greg Gagoe
GG/j c r
CC: Mr. Ted Baldassarre
VIA FAX AND MAIL
GAEBE,MURPI-IY,MULLEN& ANTONELLI 4601 PONCE DE LEON BLVD. * SUITE 100 * CORAL GABLES,FLORIDA 33146
ORIGINAL
RESOLUTION NO. 90-19992
Authorizing the City Attorney to settle
the issue of Plaintiff's Attorney's fees
and costs in Brisk V. City of Miami Beach
ET AL, United States District Court,
Southern District of Florida, Case No.
88-2402, for an amount no greater than
$293,500.