MIAMI – The organizer and owners of a Miami Beach entertainment club were partially successful in their appeal of a Miami-Dade County Circuit Court decision to dismiss their lawsuit alleging the city of Miami Beach engaged in a campaign of harassment through the city's code enforcement department.
In its Aug. 22 ruling on the case, Florida's Third District Court of Appeal reversed the dismissal with respect to some of the claims asserting a violation of procedural due process.
At the same time, the appeals court denied the city's motion to dismiss the appeal.
According to court filings, Haim Turgman along with Chakra 5 Inc. and 1501 Ocean Drive LLC, which he organized in 2016 to own and operate the club, filed suit in circuit court claiming the city harassed them and attempted to extort bribes after they took ownership of the club. “City code enforcement inspectors unfairly enforced the city’s existing building, zoning, fire and tax regulations against the club,” according to court records.
The suit noted a handful of incidents that occurred before May 20, 2009, including an alleged delay in providing a conditional use permit that was required for the club to open and city officials visiting the club several times a week to issue citations for various violations, including a noise ordinance, before the club actually opened for business.
The suit also cited incidents that occurred after May 20, 2009, including allegations that the city told organizers who were planning an event at the club that it would be shut down the night of the event because of taxes owed. The suit also said the city fined Turgman $1,800 for violating event flier littering regulations more than a month after the event was held. The suit also said the city’s lead code compliance officer, Jose Alberto, tried to bribe Turgman. The suit also alleged the city tried to do whatever it could to put the club out of business because Turgman refused to give grant certain favors, such as helping a number of city officials during their campaigns.
The plaintiffs claimed because of the city’s actions, they suffered major financial injuries, including a default on a loan, which caused a lender to take over the club and sell it to another party.
After the circuit court dismissed their claims against the city, the plaintiffs filed their appeal and the city responded with a motion to dismiss the appeal where it concerned Chakra 5 and 1501.
The appeals court denied the city’s request to dismiss the appeal. It also affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of the case against the city regarding allegations from claimed incidents that occurred before May 20, 2009, because those claims are outside of the statute of limitations.
The appeals court subsequently affirmed the dismissal with prejudice regarding claims of a violation of substantive due process, no matter when these alleged events occurred. It then reversed the dismissal with prejudice concerning claims of a violation of due process from alleged incidents that happened after May 20, 2009.
The appeals court first addressed the city’s request to dismiss the case regarding Chakra 5 and 1501 because the Florida secretary of state had dissolved those businesses. Still, Chakra 5 and 1501 were able to prove that they had been reinstated and were back in business. The appeals court also pointed out that the city first brought the issue of the dissolution in its motion to dismiss. While Chakra 5 and 1501 weren’t reinstated until after the appeal was filed, the appeals court said the trial court should have provided time for Chakra 5 and 1501 to correct the matter instead of simply dismissing their case.
The appeals court then looked at the statute of limitation factors. Turgman, Chakra 5, and 1501 argued the allegations for the injuries after May 20, 2009, should not have been dismissed because they do fall within the four-year statute of limitation. The appeals court already determined the ones before May 20, 2009, were not within the statute and said the trial court correctly dismissed these claims.
The appeals court then had to determine if the due process claim “is not itself a source of substantive rights, but merely provides ‘a method for vindicating federal rights elsewhere conferred,’” according to the opinion.
When it comes to the substantive due process, the appeals court pointed out Turgman, 1501 and Chakra 5 failed to claim they suffered a violation of a right within the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment. Rather, they said it’s their right to “have a constitutionally protected interest to pursue an occupation,” according to the opinion.
The appeals court disagreed and said the plaintiffs had an inaccurate approach to the issue and said it was better for it to be seen as a case that calls out the alleged incorrect enforcement of a city’s regulations concerning zoning or land use. The appeals court dismissed the substantive claim because the plaintiffs didn’t properly categorize their substantive due process arguments.
Still, the appeals court had a different stance concerning procedural due process. While the city argued that the plaintiffs didn’t provide enough detail in their amended complaint, the appeals court said the city depended too much on the plaintiffs’ absence of certain information. It ultimately decided the lower court made a mistake in dismissing the case regarding procedural due process for the claims that weren’t blocked by the statute of limitation.