This document is the Plaintiff's objection to motions to intervene that were filed by Bayside Marketplace LLC and Skyrise LLC in the pending lawsuit. The Plaintiff argues that the intervention of these third parties is not required or necessary to determine the central issue in the case, which is whether the ballot language complies with Florida law. The Plaintiff asserts that allowing intervention would delay the proceedings and inject irrelevant issues beyond the scope of the original complaint. Florida case law indicates that intervenors must accept the case as originally pleaded and not raise new matters or causes of delay.
This document is the Plaintiff's objection to motions to intervene that were filed by Bayside Marketplace LLC and Skyrise LLC in the pending lawsuit. The Plaintiff argues that the intervention of these third parties is not required or necessary to determine the central issue in the case, which is whether the ballot language complies with Florida law. The Plaintiff asserts that allowing intervention would delay the proceedings and inject irrelevant issues beyond the scope of the original complaint. Florida case law indicates that intervenors must accept the case as originally pleaded and not raise new matters or causes of delay.
This document is the Plaintiff's objection to motions to intervene that were filed by Bayside Marketplace LLC and Skyrise LLC in the pending lawsuit. The Plaintiff argues that the intervention of these third parties is not required or necessary to determine the central issue in the case, which is whether the ballot language complies with Florida law. The Plaintiff asserts that allowing intervention would delay the proceedings and inject irrelevant issues beyond the scope of the original complaint. Florida case law indicates that intervenors must accept the case as originally pleaded and not raise new matters or causes of delay.
This document is the Plaintiff's objection to motions to intervene that were filed by Bayside Marketplace LLC and Skyrise LLC in the pending lawsuit. The Plaintiff argues that the intervention of these third parties is not required or necessary to determine the central issue in the case, which is whether the ballot language complies with Florida law. The Plaintiff asserts that allowing intervention would delay the proceedings and inject irrelevant issues beyond the scope of the original complaint. Florida case law indicates that intervenors must accept the case as originally pleaded and not raise new matters or causes of delay.
MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA GENERAL JURISDICTION DIVISION CASE NO. 14-18320 CA25 CHARLES R. CORDA, Plaintiff vs. CITY OF MIAMI, a Florida municipal corporation, and PENELOPE TOWNSLEY, the Miami-Dade County Supervisor of Elections Defendants __________________________/ PLAINTIFFS OBJECTION TO MOTIONS TO INTERVENE AS FILED SEPARATELY BY BAYSIDE MARKETPLACE LLC AND SKYRISE LLC. The Plaintiff, Charles R. Corda, hereby states his objection to the intervention of Skyrise (SkyHigh) Miami LLC. and Bayside Marketplace LLC . hereafter referred to as SkyRise and Bayside respectively in the pending matter . 1 1.) On July 24, 2014. a telephone conference was held between the Plaintiff and the legal representative of the City of Miami, Warren Bittner, Esq. who initiated said telephone call and conference. Joining Mr. Bittner in his ofce were representatives of the law rms of White & Case, and Greenberg Traurig, who respectively represent SkyRise Miami LLC and Bayside MarketPlace LLC. which are not currently party to the pending matter. During said telephone conference the representatives of both White & Case, and Greenberg Traurig stated their intent to intervene in this pending matter respectively representing Skyrise and Bayside. The Plaintiff Charles R. Corda responded by stating his objection to their intervention. Mr. Corda immediately followed up his verbal objection with an email to the parties once again stating his objection to their intervention in this matter. 2.) In accordance with the Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.230, Anyone claiming an interest in pending litigation may at any time be permitted to assert a right by intervention, but the intervention shall be in subordination to, and in recognition of, the propriety of the main proceeding, unless otherwise ordered by court in its discretion. As such it is within the Courts discretion to allow or deny intervention and / or stipulate the terms of the intervention if allowed. 2 3.) The original named defendants - The City of Miami and The Miami-Dade Elections Department - possess the requisite skills, resources and expertise to completely address the issues of Election Law and Ballot language pending in this matter. 4.) This case is a matter of whether or not the subject Ballot Language is in accordance with Florida Law. The intervention of third parties beyond the two original named defendants- The City of Miami and The Miami Dade Elections Department- is not required, nor are said intervenors - Bayside and Skyrise - indispensable or even necessary to the complete trying of this Ballot Language case before the Court.
5.) The suit at hand does not attempt to modify or otherwise amend the pending lease and sub-lease agreements subject to voter approval, between the City of Miami and Bayside or/and SkyRise ( the intervenors), or in any other way attempt to alter the contractual relationships or terms currently established within said leases No attempt to do so is contemplated or necessary to obtain the relief sought by the Plaintiff. Any effect the outcome of this Ballot Language suit may have upon either Bayside or SkyRise, is purely of an indirect nature. 6.) This pending matter is NOT a dispute between the Plaintiff and those parties who seek to intervene, Bayside and/or SkyRise , nor is it a dispute of the the terms of their respective lease agreements, other relationship or contractual 3 issues, or conditions of fact that may exist between those named Parties, each other and /or the City of Miami or any other entity. The pending suit is solely a matter of Election Law and Ballot Language rightfully involving The Plaintiff and those legally responsible for preparing the ballot language and supervising the election, respectively the City of Miami and Miami-Dade Supervisor of Elections. The participation of those parties seeking intervention will only serve to delay and obstruct the proceedings. 7.) The contractual relationships between the parties seeking intervention, each other and / or the City of Miami, are not challenged or contested by the Plaintiff within his complaint. The legality of lease language and terms, of the leases between the parties seeking intervention, each other and the City of Miami, are not at issue before the Court. As such the additional issues said intervenors may bring to this case are irrelevant and unnecessary to the issue being litigated and will not serve to aid the Court in trying the a priori issue in this suit... that being determination of whether or not a specic ballot question complies with Florida Law. Any and /or all references in the Plaintiffs complaint, to the those parties seeking intervention is, by necessity, to currently extant, substantially complete and publicly available documents such as the pending Ground Lease and Sub Ground Lease which are subject to a public referendum approval. The reading of, or reference to, an extant and freely available public document does not in and of itself establish an interest in the suit for the intervenors.
4 8.) The Supreme Court of the State of Florida Opinion in the matter of Riviera Club v. Belle Mead Development Corporation -( 141 Fla.538,194 So.783 ) stated the following (1) in disposing of this case, it is necessary to consider only one principle of law, which is well founded and has been previously settled in this jurisdiction; namely, that an intervenor must accept the pleadings of a case as he nds them- he will not be heard to raise new matter or issues not embodied in the original suit, unless other wise ordered by the court in its discretion The Supreme Court of Florida went on to say The Courts have always striven to maintain the integrity of the issues raised by the original pleadings, and to keep newly admitted parties within the scope of the original suit. A stranger cannot intervene for the purpose of litigating with Plaintiff his right to title to any relief, nor for the purpose of defeating the entire suit. The injection of an independent controversy by intervention is improper. If a person desires to set up a new and independent claim to the subject matter of the suit it must be done by an original bill, it cannot be done by an intervening petition 9.) The Plaintiffs Complaint in this pending case is concerned solely with issues of Election Law and Ballot Language as required by Florida Statutes and applicable case law. 10.) At the time the Motions to Intervene were led - 7/25/14 3:02PM - the Plaintiffs Complaint, led July 15, 2014 -was the only matter of record or pleading in this suit. The Defendants- both the City of Miami and the Miami Dade Elections Department , had not, nor have to the date of this Objection, led their respective responses to the original complaint. As such the 5 intervenors may not inject independent controversy or other issues that are not within the dictates of the Original Pleading. (Riviera Club v. Belle Mead Development Corporation -( 141 Fla.538,194 So.783 ) 11.) The Motions to Intervene as led by both Bayside Market Place LLC and Skyrise LLC seek to inject additional issues or independent controversy into this suit contrary to the stipulations of the Supreme Court of the State of Florida. (Riviera Club v. Belle Mead Development Corporation -( 141 Fla.538,194 So.783 ) 12.) The Motion to Intervene led by SkyRise Miami (7/25/14) states in ARGUMENT 8 page 3- If Plaintiff succeeds on his claims and the ballot language is removed from the August 26 referendum, the result will be devastating to SkyRises plans for development of the Tower. Voter approval of the Lease Amendment is necessary for Skyrise to proceed with Construction and obtain nancing. Timing is critical. The outcome of this action could render SkyRise Miami non-viable and the sub lease with Bayside moot. Referencing the paragraph above, Skyrise LLC has included within its Motion to Intervene - (ARGUMENT 8 Page 3 and Argument 10 Page 4, Argument 11 page 4) - unsubstantiated claims and additional arguments that were not related to, or responsive to, the original pleadings, have no reference or relation to the issue of the sufciency or deciency of Referendum Ballot Language, are erroneous and misleading in relation to the extant lease agreement, require fact nding and contrary to the assertions of said Intervention Motions, will cause signicant unnecessary delay and disruption in these proceedings which are limited by the content or demand in law 6 contained within the original complaint....that being the determination of whether or not the content and wording a specic ballot question complies with Florida Law . 13.) Case Law relevant to intervention has expanded upon the statutory definition of same by including the wording that the intervenors assure the Court that their participation will not delay or disrupt the proceedings ( Hartford Fire Ins. Co v Sch Bd of Dade County) 14.) The claims made within the SkyRise Motion to Intervene will require fact nding - conducting discovery -including the preparation and production of documents and taking of depositions, at the least - to verify the validity of their unsubstantiated claims. Hence the interjection of said claims within these proceedings would unduly delay, nee, make impossible the litigation of this suit within the time constraints imposed by the fast approaching date of the subject Special Election Referendum- Aug 26, 2014 - less than 4 weeks from the ling of this Objection . Time is obviously of the essence. 15.) The Supreme Court of the State of Florida Opinion in the matter of Riviera Club v. Belle Mead Development Corporation -( 141 Fla.538,194 So.783 ) stated as follows A stranger cannot intervene for the purpose of litigating with Plaintiff his right to title to any relief, nor for the purpose of defeating the entire suit. In the pending Motion to Intervene, SkyRises Argument ( #8 Page 3) clearly indicates that Skyrises primary, nee, only objective of their intervention is to defeat the entire suit. Their claim The outcome of this action could render SkyRise Miami non-viable and the sub lease with Bayside 7 moot. clearly indicates that (1) they intend to inject additional issues or independent controversy into this suit and (2) seek to inuence and defeat the entire suit, both actions specically prohibited by the Supreme Court of Florida. Similarly The Bayside Motion to Intervene states Bayside would be directly impacted by this Courts determination of whether the Ballot Question should remain on the Ballot... as such it is clearly evident that the intervenor Bayside MarketPlace, is also seeking to to defeat the entire suit ,contrary to the Florida Supreme Courts Opinion in Riviera v Bell Mead cited above.
16.) Other items contained within The Motion for Intervention led by Bayside MarketPlace indicates it is as awed as the SkyRise Motion to Intervene is. The Bayside MarketPlace Motion to Intervene states ..if the Ballot Question is stricken from the Special Election, Bayside will be deprived of the opportunity to have its ground lease extended ( Paragraph 4 Page 2). In point of fact, No such prohibition exists within the subject Lease(s), resolutions by the City of Miami Commission, or within the Ballot Language. Any such deprivation of opportunity that may exist is solely within the connes of Baysides own actions or desires and as such are irrelevant to issue in this suit. Additionally, and contrary, to the assertions of Bayside Marketplace in its Motion to Intervene, the lease between Bayside Market Place and the City of Miami specically states:.. Developer and City acknowledge that this amendment is conditioned upon approval from the Citys Electorate either at an August 26, 2014 or November 4, 2014 referendum. (Paragraph 8 Payment to City- top of Page 12- FOURTH AMENDMENT TO AMENDED AND RESTATED LEASE AGREEMENT) 8 In point of fact the referenced lease also states in relation to SkyRise: City and Developer acknowledge that SkyRises ability to construct the Tower is conditioned upon approval from the Citys Electorate either at a August 26, 2014 or November 4, 2014 referendum..(Paragraph 10 Page 13, FOURTH AMENDMENT TO AMENDED AND RESTATED LEASE AGREEMENT) As such, both Bayside, and Skyrise, have provided ambiguous and misleading information within their respective Motions to Intervene. 17.) The Bayside MarketPlace LLC Motion to Intervene references Coral Bay Property Owners Assn v City of Coral Gables 305 So. 2d 853, 855 ( Fla.3DCA19740) and states ..where the resolution of a litigation could have a direct effect upon the rights of the proposed intervenor, it is error to deny a request to intervene Although a a determination of the sufciency or deciency of a Referendum Ballot Question may effect the subjects of the referendum item, such effect is not direct , and is clearly inferior to the a priori purpose of the suit. Once again I reiterate that the complaint as led by the Plaintiff, is solely concerned with a specic ballot questions form, content and language. Any effect the results of the pending suit will have upon both attempting Intervenors would be an indirect result of the legal requirement for Ballot Question form, content and language to conform to Florida Law and Statutes. 18.) The Florida Supreme Court stated the test to determine an interest which entitles a party to intervene in Morgareidge v Howey, 75 Fla. 234 ,238-39, 78 So 14 15 (1918)) is as follows : The interest which will entitle a person to 9 intervene..must be in a matter of litigation, and of such a direct and immediate character that the intervenor will either gain or lose by the direct legal operation and effect of the judgement. In other words the interest must be that created by a claim to the demand in suit or some part thereof, or a claim to or lien upon the property or some part thereof, which is subject of litigation This is not a complaint or suit against either Skyrise or Bayside, their respective property, or even the property upon which they are or will be located. This suit does not seek to litigate or even question, the intervenors interests in the property or to place a claim or lien upon the property, or some part thereof, which is subject to litigation ( Morgareidge v Howey, 75 Fla. 234 ,238-39, 78 So 14 15 (1918)) In fact this pending suit makes no claims or demands what so ever upon the property of the intervenors or their respective or collective interests in the property. The property of the intervenors is not in any way questioned or challenged, or subject to litigation in this suit. Nor would a claim upon the property or claim to demand against the intervenors be germane to this suit. The property is not subject to litigation and simply is not an issue in the pending Complaint which is, once again, is solely concerned with a specic ballot questions form, content and language. The demand in suit within the original Complaint is that this Court determine by trial or hearing , whether or not a specic Special Election Referendum Ballot Question complies with Florida Law and Statutes. Clearly the intervenors have no direct interest in the demand in suit either. The interest of the intervenors is as needs be, no different than the interest shared by whole of the electorate of the City of Miami...the absolute 10 unfetted right of all the electorate to vote upon ballot questions that conform to Florida Law and Statutes. The Plaintiff does not seek to prevent either party and /or project, from being on any future ballot as long as the ballot item(s) are presented to the City of Miami electorate in manner consistent with Florida Law and Statutes. This is a suit challenging the legality of a specic August 26, 2014 , Miami Dade County, City of Miami ,Special Election Referendum Ballot Question as presently proposed. If the complaint is successful and the ballot language is stricken from the August 26 Referendum there is no statutory, contractual or other legal restriction that would preclude or prevent those parties seeking to intervene - Bayside and Skyrise- from having their respective leases being included for voter approval on the November 2014 General Election ballot, a mere 70 days after the August 26, 2014 Special Election in question. Once again it is noted that the relevant lease and sub-lease agreement state ; Developer and City acknowledge that this amendment is conditioned upon approval from the Citys Electorate either at an August 26, 2014 or November 4, 2014 referendum Both Bayside and Skyrise have previously and ofcially agreed to this wording within their lease agreements and with the City of Miami. 19.) The a priori need to determine the sufciency or deciency of the subject ballot language, by its inherent nature, resolves any and all issues of concern to the intervenors . 11 If the Court nds the Ballot Language legally faulty or insufcient, The Court must strike the referendum item from the ballot thus rendering the effects (either contended direct or indirect) upon Bayside and/ or Skyrise a moot point. Likewise a determination that the ballot language passes the appropriate tests also renders any effect upon either Bayside or Skyrise a moot point thus obviating the need for intervention by either party.
WHEREFORE, The Plaintiff, Charles R. Corda hereby respectfully requests that this Court deny the pending Motions to Intervene submitted to the Court by Bayside MarketPlace LLC and SkyRise ( SkyHigh) LLC. Respectfully submitted Charles R. Corda Plaintiff/ Pro Se 3540 Palmetto Avenue Miami, Florida 33133 Tel: 305 588 4832 Email: CRCorda@bellsouth.net by___________________________ Charles R. Corda July 28, 2014 12 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that one the 28th day of July, 2014, a true and correct copy of the forgoing was served by direct email to the parties as listed below: CITY OF MIAMI OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY Warren Bittner, Esq. wrbittner@miamigov.com John A. Greco, Esq. jgreco@miamigov.com Forrest L.Andrews, Jr. Esq. andrewsjr@miamigov.com MIAMI - DADE COUNTY OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ATTORNEY Michael Valdez, Esq mbv@miamidade.gov Oren Rosenthal, Esq. orosent@miamidade.gov GREENBERG TRAURIG Timothy A. Kolaya, Esq. kolayat@gtlaw.com belloy@gtlaw.com FLService@gtlaw.com Alan T. Dimond, Esq dimonda@gtlaw.com fernandezfe@gtlaw.com WHITE & CASE, LLP Raoul G. Cantero, Esq. raoul.cantero@miami.whitecase.com Evan M. Goldenberg, Esq. egoldenberg@whitecase.com FEIGELES AVALLONE & HAIMO LLP Julie Feigeles, Esq. JF@womenatlaw.com Charles R. Corda Plaintiff/ Pro Se 3540 Palmetto Avenue Miami, Florida 33133 Tel: 305 588 4832 Email: CRCorda@bellsouth.net 13
Kenisha Brantley Greg Brantley, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated v. Republic Mortgage Insurance Company, 424 F.3d 392, 4th Cir. (2005)