Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
PETER EHRLICH,
Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF MIAMI, a Florida municipal corporation,
Defendant.
COMPLAINT
Plaintiff Peter Ehrlich, by and through his undersigned counsel, brings this Complaint against
Defendant City of Miami and in support thereof alleges the following upon information and
belief:
debate of civic issues. Public comment provides one of the most important avenues for citizens
2. This Complaint alleges that the City of Miami unconstitutionally and illegally prevented
Plaintiff from attending and speaking at the Pallot Park Community Meeting on June 11, 2019.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
3. Plaintiff Peter Ehrlich is, and at all times material hereto has been, a natural person and
resident and citizen of the City of Miami and Miami-Dade County, Florida.
County, Florida.
5. This action seeks declaratory relief and is brought pursuant to Chapter 86 of Florida
Statutes, Declaratory Judgments. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to Fla.
6. Venue appropriately lies in this Judicial Circuit pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 47.011 because
events giving rise to this cause of action occurred in the City of Miami in Miami-Dade County.
7. The City of Miami Citizens' Bill of Rights contained in the Charter of the City of Miami
provides:
(A) This government has been created to protect the governed, not the governing.
In order to provide the public with full and accurate information, to promote
efficient administrative management, to make government more accountable, and
to insure to all persons fair and equitable treatment, the City of Miami…
guarantees the following additional rights to its Citizens:
...
3. Speech, Assembly and Press. The City shall not interfere with the rights: (i) of
freedom of speech; (ii) of freedom of the press; (iii) to petition the government, or
(iv) to peaceable assembly.
8. The City of Miami Citizens' Bill of Rights provides the following remedies for violations:
(C) Remedies for violations. Residents of the City shall have standing to bring
legal actions to enforce the City Charter, the Citizens' Bill of Rights, and the
Miami-Dade County Citizens' Bill of Rights as applied to the City. Such actions
shall be filed in Miami-Dade County Circuit Court pursuant to its general equity
jurisdiction and, if successful, the plaintiff shall be entitled to recover costs, but
not attorney's fees, as fixed by the court. Any public official, or employee who is
found by the court to have willfully violated this section shall forthwith forfeit
2
his or her office or employment.
9. There is a bona fide and actual dispute between the parties and there is a present and
10. The dispute set forth herein involves a present, ascertainable set of facts and the rights,
powers or privileges of the parties depend upon the facts stated and the law applicable to the
facts. The relief sought herein is not sought merely for the purpose of providing legal advice or
to satisfy curiosity.
11. All conditions precedent to the bringing of this action have either been performed by
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
12. Defendant City of Miami on June 11, 2019 emailed an invitation to residents to attend a
“Albert Pallot Park Community Meeting” (the “Meeting Invitation”) at the Miami Bay Club
13. E. Albert Pallot Park is a three acre City of Miami Park located on Biscayne Bay at 3805
14. The Meeting Invitation was created by the City of Miami Parks and Recreation
Department.
15. The Meeting Invitation was emailed from City of Miami employee Shellande Janvier’s
official city email account (sjanvier@miamigov.com) to City of Miami employee Cynthia Cruz
3
(ccruz@miamigov.com) and City of Miami Parks Director Lara Hamwey
(lhamwey@miamigov.com) and blind copied residents of the City of Miami, including Plaintiff.
4
16. The Meeting Invite reads:
You are invited to a community discussion concerning Albert Pallot Park, at the
Miami Bay Club, 551 NE 39th St. Miami, FL 33137, in the Bayfront Beach Club
Room, on Wednesday, June 12th at 6:30 p.m. Stop in for discussion regarding
recent improvements to Albert Pallot Park and the upcoming re-opening of the
park for your enjoyment.
Please enter property by going through the guard booth and advising them that you are
attending the meeting in the Miami Bay Club.
Unless noted as “Florida Statute: 119 Exempt”, all emails sent and received through the City of Miami’s email system are
considered public record. The Florida Public Records Act (FPRA) requires the City to make all public records available for
inspection and to provide copies upon request. Please govern yourself accordingly.
5
17. The City of Miami’s invitation to the general public to attend the Community Meeting
was also distributed on both the City of Miami and City of Miami Parks and Recreation
nextdoor.com pages:
6
7
18. The Meeting Invitation set forth City of Miami phone number 305 416 1300 to call “For
more information.” This phone number is answered by a City of Miami employee in a City of
Miami office.
19. The Meeting Invitation was also distributed on the City of Miami Parks and Recreation
facebook page:
20. Plaintiff arrived as instructed by the Meeting Invitation at the Miami Bay Club at 6:15pm
and at the entrance to the condo were three City of Miami police cars, five police officers and
21. Plaintiff presented his driver’s license when asked for identification by one of the
22. After confirming Plaintiff’s identity, the security guard informed Plaintiff that he would
8
23. Plaintiff was prevented from attending the Community Meeting by Defendant City of
Miami and its officers, agents, employees, contractors, and servants (hereinafter referred to as
“Agents”) because Plaintiff has been critical of the proposed changes to Pallot Park and had been
quoted in the Miami Herald and other media outlets regarding his criticism.
24. Al Crespo, a blogger who writes about municipal governance issues in the City of Miami
and other communities, was also denied entry to the meeting by the security guard.
25. Plaintiff and Al Crespo were instructed that they were not allowed to remain on Miami
27. City of Miami resident Elvis Cruz was in attendance at the meeting. Before the meeting
began he told City of Miami Parks & Recreation Director Lara Hamwey (who was leading the
meeting) that he had witnessed members of the public being selectively denied entrance to the
meeting, and told Ms. Hamwey that such conduct was illegal.
28. City of Miami Parks Director Lara Hamwey ignored these comments made by Elvis Cruz
and began the Community Meeting by making a presentation on the proposed changes to Pallot
Park, and then opened the meeting up to public comment so residents could address the proposed
29. All of the acts of Defendant City of Miami and its Agents described herein were executed
and are continuing to be executed by Defendant and its Agents under the color and pretense of
the policy, statutes, ordinances, regulations, customs, and usages of the City of Miami.
9
30. An actual and substantial controversy exists between Plaintiff and Defendant as to their
31. Plaintiff has no adequate or speedy remedy at law to correct or redress the deprivation of
33. Unless the conduct of Defendant City of Miami is enjoined, Plaintiff will continue to
suffer irreparable Injury, as City of Miami officials, including City of Miami Commissioner Ken
Russell, have repeatedly stated that “this was a private meeting” and have publicly indicated that
COUNT I
35. The First Amendment of the United States Constitution provides that “Congress shall
make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people
36. The First Amendment is applicable to the City of Miami through the Fourteenth
37. Article I, Section 4 of the Florida Constitution states, “Every person may speak, write and
publish sentiments on all subjects… No law shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of
38. Article I, Section 5 of the Florida Constitution states, “The people shall have the right
peaceably to assemble, to instruct their representatives, and to petition for redress of grievances.”
10
39. Section A.3 of the City of Miami Citizens’ Bill of Rights provides that “The City shall
not interfere with the rights: (i) of freedom of speech; (ii) of freedom of the press; (iii) to petition
40. The rights set forth in the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, Article I,
Sections 4 and 5 of the Florida Constitution, and Section A.3 of the City of Miami Citizens’ Bill
41. By reason of preventing Plaintiff from attending and speaking at the Community Meeting
under color of law, Defendant City of Miami and its Agents have deprived Plaintiff of his right
43. Defendant’s true purpose for preventing Plaintiff from attending and speaking at the
Community Meeting was to silence the content and viewpoint expressed by Plaintiff’s speech.
44. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s violation of Plaintiff’s Free Speech
Rights, Plaintiff has suffered irreparable harm, including the loss of his constitutional rights,
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully prays that the Court grant the relief set forth hereinafter in
COUNT II
VIOLATION OF PLAINTIFF’S RIGHT TO EQUAL PROTECTION
11
46. The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires that the Defendant
47. The Defendant City of Miami and its Agents denied Plaintiff entry to, and an opportunity
to speak at, the Community Meeting, while allowing other similarly situated residents to attend
48. The Defendant City of Miami and its Agents treated Plaintiff disparately when compared
49. By discriminating against the content and viewpoint of Plaintiff’s speech, the City of
Miami and its Agents are treating Plaintiff’s speech differently than other similar situated
residents of the City of Miami that were allowed to attend and speak at the Community Meeting.
50. The Defendant City of Miami lacks a rational or compelling interest for such disparate
treatment of Plaintiff.
51. By reason of preventing Plaintiff from attending and speaking at the Community Meeting
under color of law, Defendant City of Miami and its Agents have unconstitutionally deprived
Plaintiff of the equal protection of the law guaranteed under the Fourteenth Amendment to the
U.S. Constitution.
52. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s violation of the Equal Protection Clause
of the Fourteenth Amendment, Plaintiff has suffered irreparable harm, including the loss of his
constitutional rights, entitling him to declaratory and injunctive relief and nominal damages.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully prays that the Court grant the relief set forth hereinafter in
12
COUNT III
54. The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that the
government shall not “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of
law.”
55. Article I, Section 9 of the Florida Constitution similarly states, “No person shall be
56. The rights set forth in the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and
Article I, Section 9 of the Florida Constitution are hereinafter referred to as the “Due Process
Rights.”
57. The Due Process Rights prohibit Defendant City of Miami from censoring speech
pursuant to arbitrary standards whereby Defendant City of Miami and its Agents make decisions
58. The arbitrary determination by Defendant City of Miami and its Agents of who should be
allowed to attend the Community Meeting leaves censorship of resident speech to the whim of
59. The actions of Defendant City of Miami and its Agents toward Plaintiff violate Plaintiff’s
60. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s violation of Plaintiff’s Due Process
Rights, Plaintiff has suffered irreparable harm, including the loss of his constitutional rights,
13
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully prays that the Court grant the relief set forth hereinafter in
RELIEF REQUESTED
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Court enter judgment against Defendant City
(A) Declare that the Defendant City of Miami and its Agents have violated the Free Speech
Rights of Plaintiff under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution,
Article I, Sections 4 and 5 of the Florida Constitution, and Section A.3 of the City of Miami
(B) Declare that the Defendant City of Miami and its Agents have violated the equal
protection rights of Plaintiff under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to
(C) Declare that the Defendant City of Miami and its Agents have violated the Due Process
rights of Plaintiff under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article
(D) Enter its temporary and permanent injunction enjoining the Defendant City of Miami
(E) Award damages for the violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights against Defendant
(G) Award Plaintiff costs pursuant to Section C of the City of Miami Citizens’ Bill of Rights
14
(H) Retain jurisdiction over this matter to ensure compliance at future meetings by the
(I) Grant such other and further relief as the Court deems equitable and just in the
circumstances.
Respectfully submitted,
________/djw/___________
David J. Winker, Esq., B.C.S
Fla. Bar. No. 73148
David J. Winker, PA
2222 SW 17th St
Miami, Fl 33145
305-801-8700
dwinker@dwrlc.com
15