P. 1
Sarnoff Lawsuit

Sarnoff Lawsuit

|Views: 1,188|Likes:
Published by al_crespo_2

More info:

Published by: al_crespo_2 on Apr 05, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

07/26/2013

pdf

text

original

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 11th JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY

AL CRESPO, Pro Se
Plaintiff

CASE NO: MARC SARNOFF City Commissioner City of Miami (In his official capacity) Defendant
__________________________________________________

COMPLAINT
1. This is an action for injunctive relief to enforce Florida Public Records Law.

2. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to Chapter 119, Florida Statutes.

3. Plaintiff Al Crespo is a private citizen who uses public records as part of his writing about the City of Miami.

4. Defendant Marc Sarnoff is the Miami City Commissioner for Distirct 2. Sarnoff is a public agency as definied by 119.011(2), Florida Statutes and is, personally the custodian of the records at issue. Pursuant to 119.07, Floida Statutes, and has a duty to permit the inspection, examination, and copying of his public records at a reasonable time and under reasonable conditions, as well as responding to all public record requests for documents generated as a result of his position as a City Commissioner.

1

COUNT I
5. The Plaintiff adopts and alleges the allegations set forth in paragraph 2 through 4. 6. On December 20, 2011, Plaintiff sent a request for the Defendant’s emails from the period of october 1, 2011 to November 1, 2011.(Exhibit A.)

7. On January 9, 2012, the Plaintiff resent the email to the defendant along with a short note asking, “What’s up with my public records request below (Ibid.)

8. On March 27, 2012, the Plaintiff sent the Defendant, a third and final request for the emails. (Ibid)

9. On April 3, 2012, the Plaintiff wrote to Miami City Attorney, which a copy to Mr. Joe Centorino, the Executive Director of the Miami-Dade Ethics Commission, detailing the refusal of the defendant to respond to the Plaintiff’s legitimate request for the emails requested. (Exhibit II)

10. The documents requested by the Plaintiff are public records within the meaning of Section 119.011(1), Florida Statutes, as they were made or receoved in connection with agency business and, are the final written momorialization of the transaction of agency business.

11. Sarnoff has refused to produce the public records requested by the Plaintiff, not has he in the last 3 plus months provided any reason why he has not, or will not comply with the request.

2

MANDAMUS
12. The Plaintiff adopts and alleges the allegations set forth in paragraph 2 through 11. 13. According to Section 119.11(1), Florida Statutes, “whenever an action is filed to enforce the provisions of this chapter, the court shall set an immediate hearing, giving the case priority over other pending cases.

14. Failing to produce public records for inspection and impermissbly conditioning the delivery and inspection of public records upon the payment of charges that are beyond what is permitted by law constitute irreparable injury that is not ordinarily and, in this case, not compensable in damages. Unless the injunctive relief sought is ordered, Robertson will continue to violate Chapter 119.

15. The Plaintiff requests that the Court set an immediate hearing on its claim for injunctive relief pursuant to Section 119.11(1) Florida Statutes.

16. The Plaintiff has undertaken this action Pro Se, and asks the Court to award him costs associated with this action.

17. Award Plaintiff such other and further relief as may be appropriate.

18. The Plaintiff has a clear legal right to have Defendant Sarnoff provide the public records requested by the Plaintiff.

19. The Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law.

3

20. The Plaitiff requests that this Court set an immediate hearing on its claim for a Writ Of Mandamus pursuant to Section 119.11(1), Florida Statutes.

21. The Plaintiff requests that the Court award costs persuant to Section 119.12 Florida Sttautes.

Wherefore, Plaintiff requests that the Court:

(a) Issue an alternative writ of mandamus, requiring Sarnoff to show cause immediately why a peremptory writ of mandamus should not be entered, directing him to comply with the public records request;

(b) Set and hold the immediate hearing and thereafter enter the writ of mandamus ordering Sarnoff to comply with the public records request without imposing impermissible charges;

(c) Award the Plaintiff costs incurred in obtaining such relief; and

(d) Award the Plaintiff such other and further relief as may be appropriate, including the Plaintiff’s request that the Court forward this case to the Miami-Dade State Attorney’s office for review regarding the Defendant’s “knowingly” violating the provisions Chapter 119 in denying the Plaintiff the documents he requested.

__________________________
AL CRESPO, Pro Se, Plaintiff 689 N.E. 92nd Street Miami, FL 33138 305.759.4788

4

VERIFICATION
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 11th JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY AL CRESPO, Pro Se Plaintiff

5

V. MARC SARNOFF MIAMI CITY COMMISSIONER Defendant VERIFICATION STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF MIAMI-DADE

CASE NO:

I, Al Crespo, have written the foregoing amended complaint and assert it to be true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. ____________________________________ AL CRESPO Sworn and subscribed before me this _______day of ___________, 2012 by Al Crespo who produced ________________as identification.

___________________________________ NOTARY PUBLIC

6

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->