Suit to Continue Between School Board and Miami Beach Over Stormwater Fees
Florida's Third District Court of Appeal granted the city's motion to dismiss the school board's appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Miami Beach had filed suit over the school district's refusal to pay fees toward the city's stormwater management system.
May 15, 2019 at 06:04 PM
3 minute read
The City of Miami Beach can move ahead with its pursuit of approximately $1 million in unpaid utility fees from the School Board of Miami-Dade County following an appellate court's ruling in its favor.
A panel of appellate judges has granted the city of Miami Beach's motion to dismiss an appeal filed by the School Board of Miami-Dade County in a legal battle over purportedly outstanding utility bills.
The Third District Court of Appeal ruled in favor of the city's motion to dismiss the school district's appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Its opinion upheld an order by Miami-Dade Circuit Judge David Miller denying the school board's request to toss the suit.
Miami Beach contended that the language of Miller's order did not allow the school district to appeal the ruling based on claims of sovereign immunity.
A motion to dismiss the appeal filed by Miami Beach's legal counsel, Johnson, Anselmo, Murdoch, Burke, Piper & Hochman partner Michael Burke, argued that “a trial court's order denying a motion based in whole or in part on a claim of sovereign immunity is not appealable,” unless the order had explicitly found that the party was not entitled to sovereign immunity.
The city filed suit against the Miami-Dade School Board in January 2017 for refusing to pay approximately $1 million in utility fees for Miami Beach's stormwater management program. An amended complaint in Miami-Dade Circuit Court in April 2018 asserted Florida's “legislature expressly provided municipalities with the power and authority to create and regulate drains and sewers and to collect fees from persons who use those drains and sewers for their proportional share.”
“The school board receives a benefit therefrom by draining its land into the city's main stormwater drain and system,” the complaint said, noting the school district notified Miami Beach it would not be paying all of the charges pertaining to the stormwater system in May 2012. “In using the city's stormwater utility system, the school board burdens the system and causes the city to incur damages or additional expense in the design, construction, operation and maintenance of its stormwater utility system. As such, the school board's actions … constitutes a continuing trespass.”
Co-counsel for Miami Beach, Deputy City Attorney Steven Rothstein, did not respond to requests for comment by press time.
Read Miami Beach's lawsuit against the Miami-Dade School Board:
The school board's motion to dismiss claimed sovereign immunity.
“The school board's position has been that since the city does not charge based on actual use, it is a service availability fee, and therefore a fee that is exempt from paying,” the motion said. “Absent any stature or agreement waiving sovereign immunity, the school board is exempt from paying the waste impact fees.”
Walter Harvey, the school board's attorney, declined to comment on the Third DCA's ruling.
Related stories:
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 AllDivided State Court Reinstates Dispute Over Replacement Vehicles Fees
5 minute readSecond Circuit Ruling Expands VPPA Scope: What Organizations Need to Know
6 minute read'They Got All Bent Out of Shape:' Parkland Lawyers Clash With Each Other
Courts of Appeal Conflicted Over Rule 1.442(c)(3) When Claims for Damages Involve a Husband and Wife
Trending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
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