IN THE CIRCULT COURT OF THE ELEVENTH. JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF FLORIDA IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY GENERAL JURISDICTION DIVISION ‘CASE NO. 2016-31254 CA 32 DDR MIAMI AVENUE, LLC, Pra GRANT STERN, as member-leet forthe Midtown Miami Community Development District Board of Supervisors, et a, Defendants ‘ORDER DENVING TEMPORARY STAY, Late Friday, December 9, 2016 afer Spm, Plsinlif, DDR Mian Avenue LC, landowner ‘within the Midtown Mian Community Development Dist the Dist" delivered by facsimile to Chambers an Emergency Motion for Preliminary Injunction an Inorpoated Memorandum of Law. Plinff urged this Court to enjoin Defendants, including two elected members ofthe Discs Board of Supervisors, rom taking office as “Qualified Electors” of he Disc. ‘The exux of the P i's motion and its claims for injunctive and declaratory relief, also filed on December 9, 2016, are that Defendants Grant Stem and Peter Ehrlich do not Hive in the District and thus are not qualified to take office. This Court reviewed the emergency motion and ‘communicated through the judicial assistant to the Plaintif that Defendants shouldbe contacted and ‘the matter set for an emergency telephonic conference. No such conference was-scheduled. AL 5:061pm yesterday, after the clerk's office was closed, Plaintiff faxed this Court an emergency motion to stay the December 13, 2016 swearing-in of Defendants Stern and Ehrlich, [None of the Defendants have been served. ‘The factual hasis forthe assertions made by’ Plaintiff are thatthe qualifying papers filed over six months ago by both cadidates indicate that at that ime, the eandidates did not reside inthe District, It is baflling why. if the Plaintiffs relying "upon ths six-month-old information, it waited until after the election and literally until the night before the candidates were to take office, to seek extraordinary relief from this Court. The question this morning in entertaining stay therefore is: Whether the Paintft has a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, whether there isa substantial threat of reparable injury ifthe injunction isnot ranted, whether the threat of injury outweighs harm (othe Defendants and whether granting astay would not outweigh the publ interest. Section 190,003(17) defines “Qualified elector” as: (17) “Qualified elector means any person at least 18 years of age who is a ofthe United States, legal resident of Florida and ofthe district, and ‘who registers to vote withthe supervisor of elections inthe county in which the district land is locate. alleges with respect to Defendant Stem in its complain, “Upon information and belief, Stern has continued to reside a this address [outside the district) at all imes during which his ied elector” could have been established.” (Complaint at 17). Plaimift lity to bea “gu alleges with respect to Ehrlich, “upon information and belief, Ehslich has continue to reside at this address [outside the distit] sat all times during which his eligibility to bea “qualified elector” oul hhave been established.” (Complaint at 18). There sno sworn affidavit, nor any verified statement ‘or fact, which supports this allegation that during the months between qualifying and election, the Defendants filed to secure residency within the district.Initially this Court questions whether «landowner inthe District, DDR Miami Avene LLC DDR’), has standing to challenge the qualifications ofa Qualified Flector. Assuming standing, this Court questions whether PainifT has likelihood of success onthe metits where there is no evidenoe that in the six months since filing qualifying papers, the Defendants Grant end Ehrlich have not established residency inthe disttct. See Peres v. Mari, 770 So. 24 284 (Fla. 34 DCA 2000).. Residency isa question ofboth fact and intention, and this Court hhas evidence of neither. Absent evidence that Defendants Cirant and Ehrlich continued to reside outside the district during the time when their resideney within the distriet was required his Court cannot conclude that Plaintiff has a likelihood of success on the merits. The Complaint isunverifed. ‘The Emergency Motion is unverified and not supported by any affidavits. The attached Oaths of ‘Candidates and Statements of Financial Interests of both Candidates date from June, 2016. In fie, {he attached agenda ofthe Meeting to be held today, December 13, 2016, at 1:00 pm indicates that the candidates fled amended statements of financial interests and a final statement of Financial interests, listed as item 3.C. on the agenda, attached wo the Emergeney Motion for Prelininary Injunctions Exhibit C. The fat that these tesa lsedon the agenda suggests to this Cour that th candidates intend oadhess ther residency satus atthe meeting today at 1:00 pm, ‘Threat ofimeparabe injury is nt great. Plainiffmayproced witht Emergeney Motion for Injunction and its Complaint fr Declaratory udgment. Moreover, its unclear how this Plintiffis injured otal, Threat of harm wo defendants des not kel outweigh threat of inury othe Plant Finally, this Court is concemed about the public poliy of entertaining unnecessarily late-filed emergency petitions which disrupt publi legislative process, a inthis ease, ‘The Plaintiff has sought extraordinary injunctive relief again! the Defendant onthe eveor the meeting on ich they will take office. The Plaintiff has had pubic access to the defendants”Oaths of Office and qualifying papers for over six months, and well in advance of the eletion. ‘Nothing prevented Pl fiom seeking injumetive or other elie wll in advance ofthe election or the December 13, 2016 meeting. Had Phintif sought timely rele, it could have provided al defendants service, notice and the opportunity to be heard, Te Plinth thus engineered an avoidable emergency. Plain shal serve all defendants and set tis matter with this Court onan ‘expedited basis for an evidentiary hearing. Motion for stay is denied DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers st Miami-Dade County, Plotide on eis 2016. HONOWABLE LISA S. WALSH Cireuit Court Judge Cour Judge onigiNaL. HUDGELISAS. Wasi SIGNED AND DATED. DEC 13 2016 atta ‘cut Gant ge