R10A-City Attorneys Status ReportMIAMI BEACH
City of Miomi Beqch, ,l700 Convention Center Drive, Miomi Beoch, Florido 33139, www.miomibeochfl.gov
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Philip Levine and Members of the City Commission
;,- H',;i::
c tv Attorne'Nvl
SUBJECT: City Attorney's Status Report
LAWSUITS FILED BY OR AGAINST THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH SINCE THE LAST
REPORT
1) Lee (Lee) Amato. Donald Lewis Bouchard. Daniel Lubinskv v. Gitv of
Miami Beach Miami Dade Gountv Florida: Citv Manaqer Jorqe Gonzalez.
individuallv and in his official capacitv: Ramiro Inquanzo. individuallv
and in his official capacitv as Director of Human Resources and Citv of
Miami Beach lnternational Association of Fire Fiqhters. Local 1510 : and
the IAFF, Local 1510 Members of the Collective Barqaininq Neqotiation
Team for the 2008-2012 CBA individuallv and in their official capacities
2008-2012: and the IAFF Local 1510 President. Vice President. Treasurer
and Secretarv individuallv and in their official capacities 2006-2012: and
David Santiesteban. Ph.D. individuallv and as a consultant to the Gitv of
Miami Beach. Florida Case No. 2015-004806-CA-01(Circuit Court - 11
Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida)
Three former firefighters are suing the City in State court for alleged violations
dealing with collective bargaining agreements in the past.
The City will be vigorously defending against what we believe is a frivolous
lawsuit. The Plaintiff has already filed an amended complaint and for which
we will be filing a Motion to Dismiss.
Case No.2)
15-7049 CA 06 (Circuit Court -
County, Florida)
1 1"' Judicial and for Miami-Dade
Agenda ltem R IOA
Date S-6-t (
This is an action to foreclose a mortgage on real property located 4564 SW
127 Place, Miami, Florida. The Summons and Complaint were served on the
City on April 7, 2015.
The City's Answer and Affirmative Defense, asserting priority for any special
assessments, including, but not limited to, utility water and sewer services,
demolition or board-up liens, and resort taxes was filed on April 13,2015.
778
City Attorney's Report
May 6,2015
Page 2
RA\DP\SR\EB\
F'\ATTO\AAOFF\AAOF F\F I L E.#S\20 1 s\Status Report CAO 0506 1 S.docx
3)Bermello Aiamil and Partners. lnc. vs The Gitv of Miami Beach. et al..
Miami-
Dade County, Florida)
This is an action for damages in connection with a claim for breach of contract,
unjust enrichment, open account and account stated for failure to pay for
additional work performed in relation to the milling and resurfacing of lndian
Creek Drive between 26th and 41th Street in Miami Beach, Florida. The
Plaintiffs allege damages in excess of $100,000. The Summons and
Complaint were served on the City on April 1 4,2015.
The City's Answer and Affirmative Defense will be timely filed.
Tamara Jackson, individuallv and as parent and natural guardian Of
Daniel Jackson, a minor child and Dante Jackson a minor child v.
Vincent J. Tuzeo and Citv of Miami Beach Case No. 15-006105 CA08
r Broward County, State of
Florida)
The City was served with this complaint on April 16, 2015, alleging that on
March 10, 2014, the Plaintiffs', Tamara Jackson (Mom and driver), Daniel
Jackson (born 2004 passenger) and Dante Jackson (born 2002
passenger) were at the intersection of Miramar Parkway and SW 136th Street
when a vehicle being operated by Vincent J. Tuzeo, a City of Miami Beach
Police Officer driving a City of Miami Beach Police Crown Victoria side swiped
the rear side of a Town and Country driven by Tamara Jackson resulting in
injury to the three plaintiffs. The accident occurred at approximately 6:45 a.m.
while Vincent J. Tuzeo was driving on his way in to work. Considering that
Officer Tuzeo was not driving under the course and scope of his employment
at the time of the crash, we shall file our answer to the complaint and
eventually file a motion for summary judgment pursuant to Garcia v. City of
Hollywood, which stands for the proposition that the City is not liable for the
crash when an officer is not driving under the course and scope of his
employment and further that the dangerous instrumentality doctrine does not
apply to municipal vehicles.
4)
779