The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit has ruled against Miami Commissioner Joe Carollo regarding his crackdown on commercial property owners.
The Miami New Times reported that the federal appellate court decided that Carollo was not within his official capacity when he told code enforcement officers to go after properties owned by Little Havana-based businessmen William “Bill” Fuller and Martin Martin A. Pinilla.
According to the news outlet, a complaint was submitted in October of 2018 that stated Fuller backed Carollo's competition in the 2017 city commission run-off election, alleging Carollo partook in harassment practices when he informed the code enforcement department and city employees about false complaints on properties owned by Fuller.
Carollo had asked the federal district court to dismiss the case, however that was denied when the court found that there were no grounds for qualified immunity and “only one protection under legislative immunity” and Carollo’s attorneys subsequently appealed, according to The Miami New Times.
With the federal appeals backing the lower court's decision, Carollo’s remaining option is to take the case to the U.S. Supreme Court in order to avoid a trial, the news outlet stated, according to the news outlet.
Benedict P Kuehne, with the law firm Kuehne Davis Law, is representing Carollo and said that his client was simply doing his job for citizens of the city.
“Commissioner Carollo, while disappointed with the appellate court ruling, understands that it is far too easy for a person to make speculative and unprovable accusations in an effort to create a basis for a lawsuit,” he told the Florida Record. “Commissioner Carollo remains confident that his actions have always been to further the best interests of the citizens of Miami. He will continue to do the important work of representing the people for which he was elected. He fully expects the court to declare that a businessman who refuses to follow the same rules applicable to every other business in the City of Miami is not permitted to demand special privileges.”