Filing # 86779094 E-Filed 03/21/2019 03:49:32 PM

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA

CIRCUIT CIVIL DIVISION

CASE NO. 2018-035876-CA-01

SECTION: CA 11

Bruce C. Matheson
Plaintiff,
vs.

City of Miami, Florida

Defendant.
------------------------------~'

ORDER GRANTING CITY OF MIAMI'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT,

DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND ENTERING
FINAL JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANT

TIDS CAUSE has come on to be heard on Defendant City of Miami's Motion for

Summary Judgment and Plaintiff Bruce C. Matheson's Motion for Summary Judgment. The Court,

having reviewed the submissions of the parties, including the intervenor Miami Freedom Park,

LLC, as well as the Pleadings, Motions, and the record in this case, and having otherwise been

fully advised, makes the following determinations:

BACKGROUND

This is a challenge to the City's Charter Amendment referendum to develop a soccer

stadium and commercial complex which was approved by a majority of the voters on November

6, 2018. The Complaint seeks declaratory relief invalidating the referendum and thereby voiding

all votes cast in favor of the referendum. Plaintiff's complaint has two counts. In Count I, Plaintiff

claims the ballot title and summary were materially misleading and confusing for the voters in

violation of section 101.161 of the Florida Statutes. Plaintiff seeks a declaration that the ballot
question violates section 101.161 of the Florida Statutes, and a declaration that the City must

comply with the accuracy requirement of section 101.161.

In Count II, Plaintiff alleges the referendum violates section 29-B of the City Charter by

presenting a ballot title and summary, and underlying Resolution, that purport to eliminate

competitive bidding for the soccer stadium complex without disclosing the material terms of the

deal. Plaintiff seeks a declaration that the ballot question violated the requirements of Section 29-

B of the City Charter and declaring that the City must comply with the requirements of Section

29-B.

The following material facts are undisputed. On November 6, 2018, City ofMiami voters

were presented with a referendum ballot referenced in Plaintiff's complaint as the Soccer Stadium

Referendum.

The Soccer Stadium Referendum ballot title reads as follows: Proposed Charter

Amendment for the lease and development of a soccer stadium and commercial complex.

The ballot summary reads as follows: Shall Miami's Charter be amended authorizing

City to negotiate, execute 99-year lease with Miami Freedom Park, LLC, for approximately

73 acres of City land, waiving bidding, converting Melreese Country Club (1400 Northwest

37 Avenue) at no cost to City to:

• Soccer Stadium;

• Minimum 1,000,000 square feet office, retail commercial uses;

• Minimum 750 hotel rooms;

• $3,577,365 minimum annual rent;

• $20,000,000 for 58-acre park or other green space?

A majority of the voters approved the Soccer Stadium Referendum on November 6, 2018.
 The Soccer Stadium Referendum amended the Charter to add an exception to Section 29-B for

this project. 1

SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD

"[S]ummary judgment is appropriate where, as a matter of law, it is apparent from the

pleadings, depositions, affidavits, or other evidence that there is no genuine issue of material fact

and the moving party is entitled to relief as a matter oflaw." Greene, 926 So. 2d at 1200. See also

Fla. R. Civ. P. L510(c). A "material fact," for purposes of a summary judgment motion, is a "fact

that is essential to the resolution of the legal questions raised in the case." State of Fla. Dep 't of

Envtl. Regulation v. CP. Developers, Inc., 512 So. 2d 258,261 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987).

LEGAL ANALYSIS

Section 101.161 ( 1), Florida Statutes, states, in pertinent part:

Whenever a constitutional amendment or other public measure

is submitted to the vote of the people, a ballot summary of
such amendment or other public measure shall be printed in
clear and unambiguous language on the ballot after the list of
candidates, followed by the word "yes" and also by the word
"no," and shall be styled in such a manner that a "yes" vote will
indicate approval of the proposal and a "no" vote will indicate
rejection. . .. The ballot summary of the amendment or other
public measure shall be an explanatory statement, not
exceeding 75 words in length, of the chief purpose of the
measure. . . . The ballot title shall consist of a caption, not
exceeding 15 words in length, by which the measure is commonly
referred to or spoken of ...

Fla. Stat. §101.161(1) (emphasis supplied).

The Plaintiff faces a heavy burden in this case. "There is a strong public policy against

courts interfering in the democratic processes of elections." Let Miami Beach Decide v. City of

1 The affidavits submitted by the Plaintiff are neither relevant nor material to the issues raised by
the Motions for Summary Judgment, and do not otherwise create a genuine issue of material fact.
 Miami Beach, 120 So.3d 1282, 1291 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) (internal citation omitted). "[A] free

election in a democracy is a political matter to be determined by the electorate and not the

courts." Metropolitan Dade County v. Shiver, 365 So.2d 210,212 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978).

The law only requires that the ballot language give voters "fair notice" of the decision

they must make. Department of State v. Florida Greyhound Ass 'n, Inc., 253 So. 3d 513 (Fla.

2018); see also Miami Dolphins, Ltd v. Metropolitan Dade County, 394 So. 2d 981,987 (Fla.

1981). "There is no requirement that all the details of a proposal must be explained to voters."

Matheson v. Miami-Dade County, 187 So.3d 221, 225 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015).

In determining whether there is fair notice, the court considers two questions: (1)

whether the ballot title and summary fairly inform the voter of the chief purpose in clear and

unambiguous terms, and (2) whether the language of the ballot title and summary misleads the

public. Greyhound, at 7; Askew v. Firestone, 421 So. 2d 151, 156 (Fla. 1982). Because the only

remedy available to the Court is to strike the measure from the ballot, no ballot question may

be stricken unless the challenger proves both prongs "clearly and conclusively":

Therefore, we "must exercise extreme caution and restraint

before removing a constitutional amendment from Florida
voters." Fla. Dep't of State v. Slough, 992 So.2d 142, 147 (Fla.
2008). "In order for a court to interfere with the right of the
people to vote on a proposed constitutional amendment[,] the
record must show that the proposal is clearly and conclusively
defective."

Askew v. Firestone, 421 So.2d 151, 154 (Fla. 1982); Greyhound, at 6, 7.

Applying the above standards, the Charter Amendment title and summary fully complied

with the statute by informing the voters electorate of the chief purpose of the measure and

providing a title in compliance with the statute. The voters were told they were authorizing the

City to negotiate a lease of City property to develop a soccer stadium and the material terms of
the lease were listed below, including the minimum rent to be paid, the parties to the lease, the

property location and ancillary facilities. In addition, the ballot told the voters that bidding would

be waived for this project. It would be unreasonable and untenable to include all possible lease

terms in a 75-word ballot description. The summary explains the essential details of the proposed

changes to the City's Charter within the 75-word limit. It is not clearly and conclusively defective

as is required to strike it under the law.

Regarding Count II, the Plaintiff argues that the City the Soccer Stadium Referendum

violates the City Charter because the City was required to institute competitive bidding under

Section 29-B of the City Charter and the City did not disclose the material terms of the project

pursuant to Let Miami Beach Decide v. City of Miami Beach, 120 So. 3d 1282 (Fla. 3d DCA

2013 ). However, the Soccer Stadium Referendum was an amendment to the City Charter which

created an exception to Section 29-B. Hence, the City was only required to comply with the

terms of the Charter amendment unlike the situation in Let Miami Beach Decide. Thus, Let

Miami Beach Decide does not govern this case. In any event, it is clear that the material terms

of the contract have been presented to the voters as the Charter amendment details the property,

rent, uses, and development on the land.

Finally, the Court acknowledges and commends Plaintiff's effort to safeguard what he

believes is in the best interest of the City of Miami.

The City of Miami is entitled to summary judgment on Counts I and II of the Complaint.

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

1. The City of Miami's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.

2. Bruce C. Matheson's Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.

 3. Final Judgment is entered in favor of Defendant City of Miami and

Intervenor Miami Freedom Park, LLC.

4. The Plaintiff shall take nothing by this action, and the Defendant and

Intervenor shall go hence without day.

DONE AND ORDERED in chambers, at Miami-Dade County, Florida, this 21st

day of March, 2019.

on U::S/LliLUl ~ 1o:4~:L~ aLae-1::3VV

Mavel Ruiz
CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE

No Further Judicial Action Required on THIS MOTION. CLERK TO RECLOSE CASE

IF POST JUDGMENT.

Electronic Service List:

Christopher A Green <cagreen@miamigov.com>, <dbailey@miamigov.com>,
<GCarby@miamigov.com>
Enrique D. Arana <earana@carltonfields.com>, <cpratt@carltonfields.com>,
<dkatz@carltonfields.com>
John A Greco <jagreco@miamigov.com>, <kjones@miamigov.com>,
<MRedruello@miamigov.com>
John K Shubin <jshubin@shubinbass.com>, <eservice@shubinbass.com>
Ian DeMello <idemello@shubinbass.com>, <eservice@shubinbass.com>
Mark Grafton <mgrafton@shubinbass.com>, <eservice@shubinbass.com>
Victoria Mendez <vmendez@miamigov.com>
John A Greco <jagreco@miamigov.com>
Christopher Greene <cagreene@miamigov.com>
Richard J. Ovelmen <rovelmen@carltonfields.com>, <makkoyunlu@carltonfields.com>,
<m iaecf@cfdom _net>
Frank G. Burt <fburt@carltonfields.com>
Scott E. Byers <sbyers@carltonfields.com>, <cpratt@carltonfields.com>,
<dkatz@carltonfields.com>
Richard J Ovelmen <rovelmen@cfjblaw.com>

Mailing Service List: