This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR
MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA
GENERAL JURISDICTION DIVISION
CASE NO. 14-18320 CA25
CHARLES R. CORDA,
CITY OF MIAMI, a Florida
municipal corporation, and
PENELOPE TOWNSLEY, the
Miami-Dade County Supervisor of Elections
PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTION TO MOTIONS TO INTERVENE AS FILED
SEPARATELY BY BAYSIDE MARKETPLACE LLC AND “SKYRISE” LLC.
The Plaintiff, Charles R. Corda, hereby states his objection to the
intervention of Skyrise (SkyHigh) Miami LLC. and Bayside Marketplace LLC .
hereafter referred to as “SkyRise” and “Bayside” respectively in the pending
1.) On July 24, 2014. a telephone conference was held between the Plaintiff
and the legal representative of the City of Miami, Warren Bittner, Esq. who
initiated said telephone call and conference.
Joining Mr. Bittner in his ofﬁce were representatives of the law ﬁrms of
White & Case, and Greenberg Traurig, who respectively represent SkyRise Miami
LLC and Bayside MarketPlace LLC. which are not currently party to the pending
During said telephone conference the representatives of both White &
Case, and Greenberg Traurig stated their intent to intervene in this pending
matter respectively representing Skyrise and Bayside.
The Plaintiff Charles R. Corda responded by stating his objection to their
intervention. Mr. Corda immediately followed up his verbal objection with an
email to the parties once again stating his objection to their “intervention” in this
2.) In accordance with the Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.230, “Anyone
claiming an interest in pending litigation may at any time be permitted to assert a
right by intervention, but the intervention shall be in subordination to, and in
recognition of, the propriety of the main proceeding, unless otherwise ordered by
court in its discretion.”
As such it is within the Court’s discretion to allow or deny intervention and /
or stipulate the terms of the intervention if allowed.
3.) The original named defendants - The City of Miami and The Miami-Dade
Elections Department - possess the requisite skills, resources and expertise to
completely address the issues of Election Law and Ballot language pending in
4.) This case is a matter of whether or not the subject Ballot Language is in
accordance with Florida Law.
The intervention of third parties beyond the two original named
defendants- The City of Miami and The Miami Dade Elections Department- is
not required, nor are said “intervenors” - Bayside and Skyrise - indispensable or
even necessary to the complete trying of this Ballot Language case before the
5.) The suit at hand does not attempt to modify or otherwise amend the
pending lease and sub-lease agreements subject to voter approval, between the
City of Miami and Bayside or/and SkyRise ( the intervenors), or in any other
way attempt to alter the contractual relationships or terms currently established
within said “leases”
No attempt to do so is contemplated or necessary to obtain the relief
sought by the Plaintiff. Any effect the outcome of this Ballot Language suit may
have upon either Bayside or SkyRise, is purely of an “indirect” nature.
6.) This pending matter is NOT a dispute between the Plaintiff and those
parties who seek to intervene, Bayside and/or SkyRise , nor is it a dispute of the
the terms of their respective lease agreements, other relationship or contractual
issues, or conditions of fact that may exist between those named Parties, each
other and /or the City of Miami or any other entity.
The pending suit is solely a matter of Election Law and Ballot Language
rightfully involving The Plaintiff and those legally responsible for preparing the
ballot language and supervising the election, respectively the City of Miami and
Miami-Dade Supervisor of Elections.
The participation of those parties seeking intervention will only serve to
delay and obstruct the proceedings.
7.) The contractual relationships between the parties seeking intervention,
each other and / or the City of Miami, are not challenged or contested by the
Plaintiff within his complaint.
The legality of lease language and terms, of the leases between the parties
seeking intervention, each other and the City of Miami, are not at issue before the
Court. As such the additional issues said intervenors may bring to this case are
irrelevant and unnecessary to the issue being litigated and will not serve to aid
the Court in trying the a priori issue in this suit... that being determination of
whether or not a speciﬁc ballot question complies with Florida Law.
Any and /or all references in the Plaintiff’s complaint, to the those parties
seeking intervention is, by necessity, to currently extant, substantially complete
and publicly available documents such as the pending “Ground Lease” and
“Sub Ground Lease” which are subject to a public referendum approval. The
reading of, or reference to, an extant and freely available public document does
not in and of itself establish an “interest” in the suit for the “intervenors”.
8.) The Supreme Court of the State of Florida Opinion in the matter of Riviera
Club v. Belle Mead Development Corporation -( 141 Fla.538,194 So.783 ) stated
the following (1) “ in disposing of this case, it is necessary to consider only one
principle of law, which is well founded and has been previously settled in this
jurisdiction; namely, that an intervenor must accept the pleadings of a case as he
ﬁnds them- he will not be heard to raise new matter or issues not embodied in
the original suit, unless other wise ordered by the court in it’s discretion”
The Supreme Court of Florida went on to say “ The Courts have always
striven to maintain the integrity of the issues raised by the original pleadings,
and to keep newly admitted parties within the scope of the original suit. A
stranger cannot intervene for the purpose of litigating with Plaintiff his right to
title to any relief, nor for the purpose of defeating the entire suit. The injection of
an independent controversy by intervention is improper. If a person desires to set
up a new and independent claim to the subject matter of the suit it must be done
by an original bill, it cannot be done by an intervening petition”
9.) The Plaintiff’s Complaint in this pending case is concerned solely with issues
of Election Law and Ballot Language as required by Florida Statutes and
applicable case law.
10.) At the time the Motions to Intervene were ﬁled - 7/25/14 3:02PM - the
Plaintiff’s Complaint, ﬁled July 15, 2014 -was the only matter of record or
pleading in this suit. The Defendants- both the City of Miami and the Miami
Dade Elections Department , had not, nor have to the date of this “Objection”,
ﬁled their respective responses to the original complaint. As such the
“intervenors” may not inject “independent controversy” or other issues that are
not within the dictates of the Original Pleading. (Riviera Club v. Belle Mead
Development Corporation -( 141 Fla.538,194 So.783 )
11.) The Motions to Intervene as ﬁled by both Bayside Market Place LLC and
Skyrise LLC seek to inject additional issues or “independent controversy” into
this suit contrary to the stipulations of the Supreme Court of the State of Florida.
(Riviera Club v. Belle Mead Development Corporation -( 141 Fla.538,194 So.783 )
12.) The Motion to Intervene ﬁled by SkyRise Miami (7/25/14) states in
“ARGUMENT 8” page 3- “If Plaintiff succeeds on his claims and the ballot
language is removed from the August 26 referendum, the result will be
devastating to SkyRise’s plans for development of the Tower. Voter approval of
the Lease Amendment is necessary for Skyrise to proceed with Construction and
obtain ﬁnancing. Timing is critical. The outcome of this action could render
SkyRise Miami non-viable and the sub lease with Bayside moot.”
Referencing the paragraph above, Skyrise LLC has included within it’s
Motion to Intervene - (ARGUMENT 8 Page 3 and Argument 10 Page 4,
Argument 11 page 4) - unsubstantiated claims and additional arguments that
were not related to, or responsive to, the original pleadings, have no reference or
relation to the issue of the sufﬁciency or deﬁciency of Referendum Ballot
Language, are erroneous and misleading in relation to the extant lease
agreement, require fact ﬁnding and contrary to the assertions of said
Intervention Motions, will cause signiﬁcant unnecessary delay and disruption in
these proceedings which are limited by the content or “demand in law”
contained within the original complaint....that being the determination of
whether or not the content and wording a speciﬁc ballot question complies with
Florida Law .
13.) Case Law relevant to “intervention” has expanded upon the statutory
definition of same by including the wording that the “intervenors assure the Court
that their participation will not delay or disrupt the proceedings” ( Hartford Fire
Ins. Co v Sch Bd of Dade County)
14.) The claims made within the SkyRise Motion to Intervene will require fact
ﬁnding - conducting discovery -including the preparation and production of
documents and taking of depositions, at the least - to verify the validity of their
unsubstantiated claims. Hence the interjection of said claims within these
proceedings would unduly delay, nee, make impossible the litigation of this suit
within the time constraints imposed by the fast approaching date of the subject
Special Election Referendum- Aug 26, 2014 - less than 4 weeks from the ﬁling of
this “Objection” . Time is obviously of the essence.
15.) The Supreme Court of the State of Florida Opinion in the matter of Riviera
Club v. Belle Mead Development Corporation -( 141 Fla.538,194 So.783 ) stated as
follows “A stranger cannot intervene for the purpose of litigating with Plaintiff
his right to title to any relief, nor for the purpose of defeating the entire suit.”
In the pending Motion to Intervene, SkyRise’s Argument ( #8 Page 3)
clearly indicates that Skyrise’s primary, nee, only objective of their
“intervention” is to defeat the entire suit. Their claim “The outcome of this
action could render SkyRise Miami non-viable and the sub lease with Bayside
moot.” clearly indicates that (1) they intend to inject additional issues or
“independent controversy” into this suit and (2) seek to inﬂuence and defeat the
entire suit, both actions speciﬁcally prohibited by the Supreme Court of Florida.
Similarly The Bayside Motion to Intervene states “ Bayside would be
directly impacted by this Court’s determination of whether the Ballot Question
should remain on the Ballot...” as such it is clearly evident that the “intervenor”
Bayside MarketPlace, is also seeking to to defeat the entire suit ,contrary to the
Florida Supreme Court’s Opinion in Riviera v Bell Mead cited above.
16.) Other items contained within The Motion for Intervention ﬁled by Bayside
MarketPlace indicates it is as ﬂawed as the SkyRise Motion to Intervene is.
The Bayside MarketPlace Motion to Intervene states “..if the Ballot
Question is stricken from the Special Election, Bayside will be deprived of the
opportunity to have it’s ground lease extended” ( Paragraph 4 Page 2).
In point of fact, No such prohibition exists within the subject Lease(s), resolutions
by the City of Miami Commission, or within the Ballot Language. Any such
deprivation of “opportunity” that may exist is solely within the conﬁnes of
Bayside’s own actions or desires and as such are irrelevant to issue in this suit.
Additionally, and contrary, to the assertions of Bayside Marketplace in its
Motion to Intervene, the lease between Bayside Market Place and the City of
Miami speciﬁcally states:.. “Developer and City acknowledge that this
amendment is conditioned upon approval from the City’s Electorate either at
an August 26, 2014 or November 4, 2014 referendum”. (Paragraph 8 Payment to
City- top of Page 12- FOURTH AMENDMENT TO AMENDED AND RESTATED
In point of fact the referenced lease also states in relation to SkyRise:
“City and Developer acknowledge that SkyRise’s ability to construct the
Tower is conditioned upon approval from the City’s Electorate either at a
August 26, 2014 or November 4, 2014 referendum”..(Paragraph 10 Page 13,
FOURTH AMENDMENT TO AMENDED AND RESTATED LEASE
As such, both Bayside, and Skyrise, have provided ambiguous and misleading
information within their respective Motions to Intervene.
17.) The Bayside MarketPlace LLC Motion to Intervene references Coral Bay
Property Owners Ass’n v City of Coral Gables 305 So. 2d 853, 855 ( Fla.3DCA19740)
and states “..where the resolution of a litigation could have a direct effect upon
the rights of the proposed intervenor, it is error to deny a request to intervene”
Although a a determination of the sufﬁciency or deﬁciency of a
Referendum Ballot Question may effect the subjects of the referendum item, such
effect is not “direct” , and is clearly inferior to the a priori purpose of the suit.
Once again I reiterate that the complaint as ﬁled by the Plaintiff, is solely
concerned with a speciﬁc ballot question’s form, content and language. Any
effect the results of the pending suit will have upon both attempting
“Intervenors” would be an “indirect” result of the legal requirement for Ballot
Question form, content and language to conform to Florida Law and Statutes.
18.) The Florida Supreme Court stated the test to determine an “interest”
which entitles a party to intervene in Morgareidge v Howey, 75 Fla. 234 ,238-39,
78 So 14 15 (1918)) is as follows : “The interest which will entitle a person to
intervene..must be in a matter of litigation, and of such a direct and immediate character
that the intervenor will either gain or lose by the direct legal operation and effect of the
judgement. In other words the interest must be that created by a claim to the
demand in suit or some part thereof, or a claim to or lien upon the property or
some part thereof, which is subject of litigation”
This is not a “complaint” or suit against either Skyrise or Bayside, their
respective property, or even the property upon which they are or will be located.
This suit does not seek to litigate or even question, the “intervenors” interests in
the property or “to place a claim or lien upon the property, or some part thereof,
which is subject to litigation” ( Morgareidge v Howey, 75 Fla. 234 ,238-39, 78 So
14 15 (1918))
In fact this pending suit makes no claims or demands what so ever upon the
“property” of the intervenors or their respective or collective “interests” in the
property. The “property” of the intervenors is not in any way questioned or
challenged, or “subject to litigation” in this suit. Nor would a “claim upon the
property” or “claim to demand” against the “intervenors” be germane to this
suit. The “property” is not subject to litigation and simply is not an issue in the
pending Complaint which is, once again, is solely concerned with a speciﬁc
ballot question’s form, content and language. The “demand in suit” within the
original Complaint is that this Court determine by trial or hearing , whether or
not a speciﬁc Special Election Referendum Ballot Question complies with Florida
Law and Statutes.
Clearly the “intervenors” have no “direct” interest in the ‘demand in suit”
either. The “interest” of the intervenors is as needs be, no different than the
“interest” shared by whole of the electorate of the City of Miami...the absolute
unfetted right of all the electorate to vote upon ballot questions that conform to
Florida Law and Statutes.
The Plaintiff does not seek to prevent either party and /or project, from
being on any future ballot as long as the ballot item(s) are presented to the City of
Miami electorate in manner consistent with Florida Law and Statutes.
This is a suit challenging the legality of a speciﬁc August 26, 2014 , Miami
Dade County, City of Miami ,Special Election Referendum Ballot Question as
presently proposed. If the complaint is successful and the ballot language is
stricken from the August 26 Referendum there is no statutory, contractual or
other legal restriction that would preclude or prevent those parties seeking to
intervene - Bayside and Skyrise- from having their respective leases being
included for voter approval on the November 2014 General Election ballot, a
mere 70 days after the August 26, 2014 Special Election in question.
Once again it is noted that the relevant lease and sub-lease agreement state ;
“Developer and City acknowledge that this amendment is conditioned upon
approval from the City’s Electorate either at an August 26, 2014 or November 4,
2014 referendum” Both Bayside and Skyrise have previously and ofﬁcially
agreed to this wording within their lease agreements and with the City of Miami.
19.) The a priori need to determine the sufﬁciency or deﬁciency of the subject
ballot language, by its inherent nature, resolves any and all issues of concern to
the “intervenors” .
If the Court ﬁnds the Ballot Language legally faulty or insufﬁcient, The
Court must strike the referendum item from the ballot thus rendering the effects
(either contended direct or indirect) upon Bayside and/ or Skyrise a moot point.
Likewise a determination that the ballot language passes the appropriate
tests also renders any effect upon either Bayside or Skyrise a moot point thus
obviating the need for intervention by either party.
The Plaintiff, Charles R. Corda hereby respectfully requests that this Court deny
the pending Motions to Intervene submitted to the Court by Bayside
MarketPlace LLC and SkyRise ( SkyHigh) LLC.
Charles R. Corda
Plaintiff/ Pro Se
3540 Palmetto Avenue
Tel: 305 588 4832
Charles R. Corda
July 28, 2014
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that one the 28th day of July, 2014, a true and correct copy of the
forgoing was served by direct email to the parties as listed below:
CITY OF MIAMI
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
Warren Bittner, Esq. firstname.lastname@example.org
John A. Greco, Esq. email@example.com
Forrest L.Andrews, Jr. Esq. ﬂandrewsjr@miamigov.com
MIAMI - DADE COUNTY
OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ATTORNEY
Michael Valdez, Esq firstname.lastname@example.org
Oren Rosenthal, Esq. email@example.com
Timothy A. Kolaya, Esq. firstname.lastname@example.org
Alan T. Dimond, Esq email@example.com
WHITE & CASE, LLP
Raoul G. Cantero, Esq. firstname.lastname@example.org
Evan M. Goldenberg, Esq. email@example.com
FEIGELES AVALLONE & HAIMO LLP
Julie Feigeles, Esq. JF@womenatlawﬂ.com
Charles R. Corda
Plaintiff/ Pro Se
3540 Palmetto Avenue
Miami, Florida 33133
Tel: 305 588 4832