Airbnb, Miami Beach Disagree Over Whether $380K Settlement is for Attorney Fees
Although the two parties settled a federal lawsuit, the short-term rental company and city have issued conflicting statements on a $380,000 payment Airbnb is proffering to Miami Beach. The city has repeatedly stated the money is to cover its attorney fees in light of Airbnb's "frivolous" lawsuit, while the language of the settlement and Airbnb's remarks say the money's purpose is open-ended.
August 06, 2019 at 03:23 PM
3 minute read
Airbnb and the City of Miami Beach can’t seem to find a consensus on the particulars of an agreement hashed out in federal court.
A statement provided by Miami Beach on its settlement with Airbnb in a suit over the city’s short-term rental regulations said a $380,000 payment detailed in the agreement is being made explicitly to cover the cost of attorney fees accrued during the litigation.
“Airbnb, recognizing that they were going to unequivocally lose the federal lawsuit against the City of Miami Beach, agreed to pay the municipality $380,000 for its attorney fees expended in defense of their frivolous federal lawsuit,” the statement said, adding the company would be complying with Miami Beach rules that require the site to display the resort tax account and business tax receipt numbers of hosts looking to rent out properties.
“Airbnb will be prohibited from displaying any listing that does not have these numbers, and will be subject to fines and penalties for failure to comply with the disclosure requirement of the ordinance,” the city said.
The statement’s characterization of Airbnb’s lawsuit as frivolous was shared in accompanying remarks by Miami Beach Mayor Dan Gelber.
“Obviously this was a frivolous lawsuit and it was wise of Airbnb to pay our legal fees as part of its resolution,” Gelber said. “They will now have to comply with the city ordinance.”
Read the stipulations of the settlement:
The city’s description of the $380,000 payment’s purpose is seemingly at odds with the stipulations of the case’s dismissal and settlement. Although the settlement requires Airbnb to provide the money to Miami Beach, its purpose is said to be up to Miami Beach’s discretion. The filing said the money may be used ” to educate residents about home-sharing rules and/or for the enforcement of” the city’s rules surrounding short-term rentals.
Elsewhere in the document Airbnb’s lawsuit is said to be dismissed without prejudice and “ with each party to bear its own attorney’s fees and costs,” contrasting with Miami Beach’s depiction of the payment almost as a sanction against Airbnb for filing a frivolous lawsuit.
Miami Beach’s lead attorney, Carlton Fields shareholder Richard Ovelman, did not immediately return requests for comment.
Melissa Berthier, Miami Beach’s assistant director of communications, reaffirmed the city’s previous statement on the settlement when pressed for clarification on the disparity.
“The money paid by Airbnb was to reimburse the city’s attorney’s fees in defense of this frivolous lawsuit,” Berthier said in an email.
Airbnb rebutted Miami Beach’s assertion that the settlement specifically provides for the money to be used as compensation for the city’s legal costs.
“The characterization Airbnb will directly be paying attorney’s fees is incorrect,” the company said in a statement, citing paragraph 10 of the settlement’s stipulations. “The settlement states the city is able to use its money to its discretion.”
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 All'Close Our Borders?' Senate Judiciary Committee Examines Economics, Legal Predicate for Mass Deportation Proposal
3 minute readBig Law Assembles as Cruise Lines Clinch Partial Victory in $439M Havana Docks Suit
Marriott's $52M Data Breach Settlement Points to Emerging Trend
Trending Stories
- 1'Largest Retail Data Breach in History'? Hot Topic and Affiliated Brands Sued for Alleged Failure to Prevent Data Breach Linked to Snowflake Software
- 2Former President of New York State Bar, and the New York Bar Foundation, Dies As He Entered 70th Year as Attorney
- 3Legal Advocates in Uproar Upon Release of Footage Showing CO's Beat Black Inmate Before His Death
- 4Longtime Baker & Hostetler Partner, Former White House Counsel David Rivkin Dies at 68
- 5Court System Seeks Public Comment on E-Filing for Annual Report
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