Monty's Miami Beach Restaurant, Landlord in Legal Battle Over Lease
Landlord Miami Beach Marina Associates says Monty's owes rent and has racked up health code violations. Monty's says the allegations are false and part of a campaign to eject the South Beach restaurant from a long-term agreement.
November 25, 2019 at 03:44 PM
5 minute read
On any given night, Monty's Sunset restaurant and bar is serving hot chicken wings, shrimp and overflowing cocktails to thumping live bands, but its Miami Beach landlord is no fan.
Miami Beach Marina Associates Ltd. wants Monty's out of its South Beach marina, saying the restaurant owes back rent, has racked up hundreds of health code violations and has done nothing to improve its menu and image to keep up with competitors.
Monty's attorney Craig Shapiro maintains the marina is trying to bully Monty's into leaving, saying the landlord assumed the lease last year without knowing the eatery has over 33 years left on its agreement.
Dallas-based Suntex Marinas is a marina owner and operator that leases the South Beach marina at 300 Alton Road from the city under the name Miami Beach Marina Associates. When it assumed the city lease, it inherited onsite subleases including Monty's.
The marina offers expansive views of Biscayne Bay and the Miami skyline and is popular with joggers, dog walkers and bicyclists.
Miami Beach Marina Associates represented by Catherine Rodriguez, a founding partner at Filler Rodriguez in Miami Beach, sued Monty's on Nov. 13 in a five-count Miami-Dade Circuit Court complaint asking the court to remove the restaurant.
Sunntex responded to an inquiry emailed to Rodriguez.
"Although, we regret the situation we are in, we have found that over the years Monty's has not lived up to the high standards of our marina, the surrounding community or the state," Suntex said by email.
In its complaint, Suntex argues Monty's is trying to shortchange Suntex on rent, which is a fixed amount plus a percentage of gross sales.
Monty's owes $656,155 in rent under a Suntex rent increase allowed each time Monty's exercises an extension option, according to the complaint. A leasing agent hired by Suntex determined the new rent should be just over $1 million a year and 10% of gross sales.
In addition, Suntex objects to Monty's expert, saying a leasing agent and not an appraiser is required under the lease.
Suntex also finds fault with Monty's menu and decor. Its contention is that if Monty's isn't operating at its best and is cutting prices, it's shortchanging its landlord by generating less in gross sales.
The lawsuit lists counts of breach of contract and breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing and seeks declaratory relief. The landlord listed two removal counts, one for nonpayment of rent and one for failing to cure a lease breach other than nonpayment of rent.
Shapiro calls Suntex's claims "manufactured."
"One of the principals originally indicated to Monty's when they bought the marina from the Christophs that they were looking to take over Monty's and when the amounts they had indicated they would be willing to purchase it for were paltry, then they made some other intimations to take over the lease," said Shapiro, of counsel at Buchbinder & Elegant in Miami. "To me this is all just a ruse to bully and intimidate and unlawfully malign the quality of Monty's."
The Christophs is a reference to Robert Christoph and relatives who previously leased the marina.
David Filler is of counsel at Filler Rodriguez, which filed the lawsuit, and his LinkedIn page lists him as principal at Suntex Marina Investors LLC.
Shapiro said Monty's current lease runs through 2021, but the Christophs approved extensions that allow it to stay in place for 33 years afterward. Filler didn't know about the extension until after Suntex assumed the lease, Shapiro said.
He said he plans to file a response and counterclaim in the coming weeks.
Suntex refuted Shapiro's claims saying it tried for nearly a year to resolve the alleged issues at the restaurant.
This "belies Mr. Shapiro's comments," Suntex said in an email.
Health Code
One of the biggest points of contention is over health code violations.
Suntex alleges Monty's has had 300 health code violations since 2013, including a confirmed food poisoning complaint, and has been fined by the state.
The suit details a scene where meat, seafood and dairy products are stored in "dangerously" high temperatures. Other allegations are that the restaurant doesn't do proper parasite destruction for seafood served as sushi and ceviche, and black and green mold-like substances accumulated on soda guns and drink nozzles.
"The repeated and consistent nature of many of Monty's health violations indicates that Monty's is failing to take adequate measure to comply with health and sanitation rules," Suntex said in its statement.
The alleged code violations are untrue, Shapiro countered. "Over the years, and certainly not unlike any restaurant, there have been a few inconsequential topics raised and immediately corrected on site upon which the matter was closed without incident," Shapiro said.
The Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation's website shows a foodborne illness inspection was done in April 2018 with the phrase "allegation confirmed" appearing next to the listing. No additional information was provided except the case was marked as closed.
There also was an administrative complaint in 2015, but the state marked it as "conditions satisfied," and other listings show the restaurant met inspection standards.
Shapiro vehemently denied the allegation that Monty's has been fined, saying it always passed inspections.
"In fact, the inspector has always commented about how Monty's Sunset's kitchen is among the best on the beach," Shapiro said. "The new landlord's claims are nothing more than spurious and manufactured claims and a ruse to bully and intimidate in an effort to unlawfully take over Monty's extremely long term lease."
|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 AllHow Much Coverage Do You Really Have? Valuation and Loss Settlement Provisions in Commercial Property Policies
10 minute readThe Importance of 'Speaking Up' Regarding Lease Renewal Deadlines for Commercial Tenants and Landlords
6 minute readMeet the Attorneys—and Little Known Law—Behind $20M Miami Dispute
Trending Stories
- 1Contract Software Unicorn Ironclad Hires Former Pinterest Lawyer as GC
- 2European, US Litigation Funding Experts Look for Commonalities at NYU Event
- 3UPS Agrees to $45M Settlement With SEC Over Valuation Claim
- 4For Midsize Law Firms, Curbing Boys-Club Culture Starts with Diversity at the Top
- 5Southern California Law Firms Boast Industry-Leading Revenue, Demand Through Q3
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