A New Miami-Dade Civil Courthouse: Our County's Residents Deserve Better
The immediate need for a new Miami-Dade civil courthouse—to handle the county's overcrowded docket of civil cases—is beyond dispute.
March 23, 2018 at 10:15 AM
4 minute read
The immediate need for a new Miami-Dade civil courthouse—to handle the county's overcrowded docket of civil cases—is beyond dispute. As a bar association comprised of attorneys and judges who regularly litigate in the civil courthouse on 73 W. Flagler St., the Cuban American Bar Association submits that the building—originally constructed in 1928—is woefully inadequate to handle the county's civil litigation workload. The building is in disrepair. There are not enough courtrooms. Meanwhile, most of the existing courtrooms are completely unsuited for trials, because they are too small, because of their impractical layout and because they lack in even basic technological capabilities. This is just a short list of the problems with our courthouse.
Our county's residents and its businesses deserve—and more importantly, need—a new, more expansive courthouse. This is a thriving, growing metropolitan area with a massive economy that is a world-wide hub for international commerce. As a consequence of our county's economic growth, our county courts oversee a civil caseload that continues to expand and includes significant disputes. The current courthouse facility simply cannot meet our county's growing legal needs. Unfortunately, the nearly-century old courthouse building has exceeded its lifespan.
There is no real dispute about this. The Miami-Dade Court Capital Infrastructure Task Force prepared a nearly 800-page report, where it voted 7-1 in favor of an expansive 50-courtroom, 600,000-square-foot courthouse, and the county commission unanimously passed multiple resolutions requesting that the county administration solicit bids for the construction of a new courthouse in downtown Miami near the existing courthouse.
Recently, on Jan. 11 of this year, the New Flagler Courthouse Development Partners (Flagler Development) submitted an unsolicited bid for the construction of the new courthouse. The unsolicited bid included an offer to purchase the existing courthouse.
On Feb. 8, the Miami-Dade County mayor recommended that the county commission reject the unsolicited bid for three basic reasons. First, the unsolicited bid places the new courthouse on Flagler Street while the administration prefers a site adjacent to the Children's Courthouse. Second, the administration would prefer to try to monetize (i.e., sell) the proposed Flagler Street site. Third, the administration opines that the unsolicited bid proposal process would “inhibit market competition” for the request for proposal process for a new courthouse that the administration started after it received the unsolicited bid.
On Feb. 22, however, the county commission rejected the mayor's recommendation and passed a resolution supporting the unsolicited bid process. The county commission directed that the administration pursue a dual track of the unsolicited bid and RFQ/RFP process and consider both the Flagler Street site and the Children's Courthouse site.
We, the members of CABA, support the county commission and their decision.
First, it is our recommendation that the county return to its original plans for a more expansive new courthouse. The task force, after extensive study, made very specific recommendations as to the size of the new courthouse. The administration has suggested that it would like to pursue a smaller courthouse. But that suggestion is not based upon any known study or analysis other than the fact that it would obviously cost less. We do not want the county to build a new courthouse that will be obsolete within a short time, nor do we want to have to return to the county to request construction of (and more money for) new courtrooms in shell spaces.
Second, we advise that timing be of the essence for this courthouse project. We believe that by opening the unsolicited bid, we will accelerate the timeline on this long overdue and already seriously delayed project. Time is the greatest enemy of an undertaking of this magnitude and we are concerned that the RFQ process will delay construction and ultimately completion of the project, deep into the next decade. Our citizens deserve a civil courthouse that meets minimum safety, sanitary and health standards. We cannot suffer another half of a decade practicing in a building that would otherwise have been condemned were it not county property.
Third, the most suitable location for the new courthouse would be adjacent to 73 W. Flagler St. courthouse. This particular site will pay proper homage to the iconic Miami-Dade County courthouse, while re-invigorating the Flagler street corridor. In addition, the site near the Children's Courthouse can be preserved for auxillary facilities to serve our children and families in the future.
Jorge L. Piedra is president of the Cuban American Bar Association.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'It's a Great Day to Be a Gator Lawyer': UF Takes Top Spot on Bar Exam
The Colombian American Bar Association Has Dramatically Expanded Thanks to University Outreach
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1ICC Issues Arrest Warrants for Israel's Prime Minister Over Alleged War Crimes in Gaza
- 2Attorney Responds to Outten & Golden Managing Partner's Letter on Dropped Client
- 3Attracted to Thompson Hine's Fee Flexibility, Morgan Lewis Litigator Switches Firms in Chicago
- 4Phila. Attorney Hit With 5-Year Suspension for Mismanaging Firm and Mishandling Cases
- 5Simpson Thacher Replenishes London Ranks With Latest Linklaters Defection
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250