IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE

11TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF FLORIDA

IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY,
FLORIDA
CASE NO: _______
MIGUEL ANGEL GABELA,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CITY OF MIAMI,
Defendant.
_______________________/

VERIFIED COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, MIGUEL ANGEL GABELA (hereinafter “GABELA”), sues the Defendant, CITY

OF MIAMI, (hereinafter the “City”), for declaratory relief and injunction pursuant to Ch. 86,

Fla. Stat., and alleges:

INTRODUCTION

Our democratic system of government is dependent upon voters choosing their

representatives. Gerrymandering deeply compromises our government by suppressing

citizens’ rights to fairly elect representatives, and instead allowing elected officials to

choose their voters and who can run against them. This results in politicians that are not

responsive to electors because they are guaranteed reelection in rigged districts.

This lawsuit is being brought by Miguel Gabela, a candidate for City of Miami ommissioner

for District 1. Gabela has lived in District 1 for over 20 years, but the City of Miami

Commission has illegally gerrymandered District 1 by passing Res. 23-271 (attached as

1
Exhibit A) to carve his house from District 1 so that he cannot run against Commissioner

Alex Diaz de la Portilla.

JURISDICTION

1. This court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 86.011 and the

Miami-Dade Citizens Bill of Rights (the “Miami-Dade Bill of Rights”).

2. All conditions precedent to the bringing of this action have either been performed

by GABELA or have otherwise occurred.

3. GABELA is, and at all times material hereto has been, sui juris and a natural person

and resident and citizen of the City of Miami and Miami-Dade County, Florida.

4. The City of Miami is a Florida municipal corporation.

5. The City is required to abide by all of the express provisions of its City Code and

the Miami-Dade Bill of Rights.

BACKGROUND

6. Miami is governed by a five-member City Commission and a Mayor. Miami City Charter

(Charter) § 4(a).

7. Since 1997, commissioners have been elected from single-member districts. Id. § 4(b).

8. Commissioners un on a nonpartisan basis and serve four-year staggered terms, with

Districts 1, 2, and 4 last elected in 2019 and next up in 2023, and Districts 3 and 5 last

elected in 2021 and next up in 2025. Id.

9. General municipal elections are held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in

November of odd-numbered years. Id. § 7.

10. The current commissioners are Alex Díaz de la Portilla (District 1), Sabina Covo

2
 (District 2) Joe Carollo (District 3), Manolo Reyes (District 4), and Christine King

(District 5).

11. Díaz de la Portilla was first elected in 2019 by beating Gabela, who was the runner-up,

and Diaz de la Portilla is eligible and running for reelection in 2023.

12. Gabela has lived at the same home in District 1 for over 20 years and been a declared

candidate for the 2023 District 1 race since February 9, 2023. See Exhibit B.

GABELA IS DRAWN OUT OF HIS DISTRICT

13. After 5 P.M. on Friday, June 9, the Commission noticed a special redistricting

meeting for 10 A.M. June 14.

14. The agenda (See Exhibit C) listed a single “Discussion Item” and stated that

No business shall be conducted, or a vote taken at a special City

Commission meeting on business other than the subject(s) for which
the special meeting is called unless the City Commission by a
majority vote deems such resolution or ordinance to be of an
emergency nature and such resolution or ordinance has been
reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget for any fiscal
impact.

15. The public notice for the meeting stated that no public comment would be allowed at

the meeting (See Exhibit D):

It is anticipated that no input from anyone other than the City

personnel is needed or expected while the City Commission is
considering any matter in this portion of the Agenda; accordingly, no
member of the public may address the City Commission during this
time.

16. However, in a classic case of “bait and switch” designed to minimize public comment,

the City then decided at the beginning of the meeting to allow public comment for the

3
 limited number of residents who showed up at the hearing despite the warning that

no public comment would be allowed.

17. At the meeting, Gabela approached the lectern to express his concern regarding a

rumor that a map had been developed that was going to carve out his home from

District 1:

Miguel Gabela: Hello, good afternoon. My name is Miguel Angel

Gabela, 1701 NW South River Drive, Miami, Florida, 33125. I am a
candidate and I’d like to ask, it’s not clear to me, I can’t see the map
here. My house is right on the very border on 17th Avenue. Could
somebody tell me please if my house is inside the district or not.
Because here’s –

Christine King: I’m sorry sir.

Miguel Gabela: – the problem that we’re going to have.

Christine King: I’m sorry sir.

Miguel Gabela: Well, okay.

Christine King: What district?

Miguel Gabela: My – I’m in District 1, I am a candidate against this

gentleman here in city of Miami since February. And it appears that
in this map that you’ve drawn up, my house is right outside the
district, what a coincidence. Can I see the map, maybe I’m talking
out of line? That’s why I’d like to see the map and, uh, so I can
determine whether my house has been intentionally left outside the
district, or whether it’s in the district. If it’s in the district, there’s no
problem, I walk away, I’m not going to give any speech. Can I – can
somebody tell me, 1111 NW 17th Court, Miami, Florida 33125, 1701
NW South River Drive. I’ve been there for 23 years, I need to know

if my house is there. I am a contender, candidate, uh, since February

of this year, walking, knocking on doors against this gentleman here,
with all due respect. And I just need to know if my house has been
left intentionally outside the district or not. If it’s in the district I have
no problem ma’am, I will turn away and walk away.

Christine King: Hold on one second let me get you –

4
 Miguel Gabela: Can somebody find out for me please?

Christine King: Um, where is attorney?

Miguel Gabela: Because I don’t want to give you a speech for no

reason if my house is in the district and waste your time.

Nicholas Warren: It’s moved.

Christine King: Did Mr. De Grandy leave the building?

Miguel Gabela: It’s moved to District 3, what a coincidence it’s moved

to District 3, wow. Okay, now I do have a speech to say.

Christine King: Wait, wait, let me get from the consultants.

Miguel Gabela: Okay, okay.

Christine King: Victoria.

Victoria Méndez: I – we will, we will go find Mr. De Grandy, Mr.

Gabela, we’ll go find him and if you could just go wait a moment and
–

Miguel Gabela: No, no I’d like to say my speech because I know

you’re going to –

Victoria Méndez: Okay.

Miguel Gabela: – find him and he’s going to give me excuses why he
left me out and I think this is done intentionally by this gentleman here
because –

6/14 Tr.

18. Having confirmed the rumor that Gabela had heard was true Gabela put his

objections on the record:

Miguel Gabela: Thank you ma’am. My name is Miguel Angel Gabela,

1701 NW South River 7 Drive, Miami, Florida, 33125, for the record.
It has now, uh, become evident, uh, that my house, 1111 NW 17th
Court, Miami, Florida, 33125 and 1701 NW South River Drive, which
is a vacant land adjacent to my house, which I have lived there for

5
 23 years, as my residence along with my wife and my daughters,
homesteaded for 23 years. I run in 2019 against this gentleman here,
and I was the runner up. I am – been running since February, okay?
It is quite obvious that this is a political move on somebody’s behalf.
This will not stand, there is case law about this. I was warned about
this on Saturday morning. I was warned about this on Saturday
morning, I couldn’t believe that somebody would be capable of doing
this obvious. Because if you look at that map, you will see that I am
the only one on that corner of the northeast, uh, the intersection, I
am on the northeast of the intersection right next to the 17th Avenue
bridge. There’s no other house there, that’s my house right there. So
what a coincidence that you guys, or somebody decided that they
were going to cut it right there when it’s been there like that in the
district for years since I first run in 2015, okay? What I have to say, I
know this is politically motivated, okay, and here’s – here’s what I’m
going to, I’m going to say. You, Mrs. King, Commissioner Covo,
Commissioner King, Commissioner Reyes, have the authority to stop
this when it comes to the vote, okay? You don’t need any more
lawsuits in the city of Miami, you have enough right now, okay?
Please, don’t do this to me and don’t make me go out and get myself
an attorney, okay, and have to sue the city because I don’t want to
do this. Okay? Put me back, the remedy is, put me back as I was
before so I can continue running against this gentleman.

6/14 Tr..

19. The Commission debated proposed changes and then took a recess after 103

minutes in session. 6/14 Tr. 31:22–56:5.

20. During the recess, De Grandy met privately with commissioners and drew

alternative maps at each’s request. 6/14 Tr. 64:5–14. There are no records of

these private meetings, either. Commissioners returned from recess for a final 44-

minute session and approved a plan on a 4-1 vote, which was later memorialized

in writing as Res. 23-271. Id. at 91:9–19.

21. It is critical to note that the City represents “it has enacted a new redistricting plan,

City of Miami Resolution 23-271,” but the resolution filed on the docket was drafted

6
 after June 14 and never voted on by the Commission. See Exhibit E at 1.

22. Further, there is an unexplained discrepancy between the map the Commission

passed and the plan attached to Res. 23-271.

23. Seven days after Mayor Suarez let Res. 23-271 become law without his signature.

CITY’S REDISTRICTING MAP WAS PASSED IN VIOLATION OF THE CITY CODE

24. City Code § 2-33 sets for the rules for a special meeting and provides:

Nothing in this section shall prohibit either the mayor, the

commissioner designated as the presiding officer of the city
commission, or three city commissioners from
calling special meetings at any time provided that written notice of
the request for a special meeting is delivered to the city clerk at least
72 hours in advance. The city clerk shall then notify the mayor, each
member of the commission, the city manager, the city attorney, and
the public of the special meeting including the business to be
considered at the special meeting. No business shall be
conducted or a vote taken at a special city
commission meeting on business other than the subject(s) for
which the special meeting is called unless the city commission
by a majority vote deems such resolution or ordinance to be of
an emergency nature and such resolution or ordinance has
been reviewed by the office of management and budget for any
fiscal impact.

25. Under City Code § 2.:33(1) and the Miami-Dade Bill of Rights, the Commission has a

responsibility to notify the public of a special meeting. City Code § 2:33(1).

26. This notice must include the business to be coxisidered at the special meeting. Id.

27. The Commission is only able to conduct business and take votes on items that were

included in the notice. ("No business shall be conducted or a vote taken at a special city

commission meeting on business other than the subject(s) for which the special meeting

is called unless the city commission by a majority vote deems such resolution or

ordinance to be of an emergency nature and such resolution or ordinance has been

7
 reviewed by the office of management and budget for any fiscal impact") Id.

28. The meeting agenda (dated June 12, two days prior to the meeting) only included a

discussion item concerning redistricting and the city commission district boundaries.

There were no other items - resolutions, ordinances or otherwise - on the agenda.

29. The marked agenda (printed June 23, nine days after the meeting) included a resolution,

R-23-271, which purported to provide for new district boundaries, including an attached

map. (See Exhibit __).

30. R-23-271 was not included in the meeting agenda notice and was therefore passed in

violation ofthe City Code and is ultra vires.

31. A discussion item on a topic cannot immediately result in a resolution to be voted on at a

special meeting, as attempted here, because there was no finalized resolution noticed in

the agenda in advance of the meeting.

32. A discussion item must come back as an actual resolution at a different meeting, noticed

in advance of that meeting.

33. In this case, the Commission violated the City Code by attempting to pass new district

boundaries as a resolution that was not noticed as part of the special meeting.

34. The only way the Commission could have passed this resolution without notice would be

by having a majo1ity of the Commission take a separate, first vote to deem the resolution

to be an emergency nature. City Code § 22-3(f).

35. The Commission did not take a vote to deem R-23-271 to be of an emergency nature,

nor did any City Commissioners or staff describe the Resolution as being of such nature.

36. ln addition to invalidly passing a new redistricting resolution during a special meeting

which did not include the voted-on resolution as part of its noticed agenda, the Miami City

8
 Commission's procedure for R-23-271 violated the City Code in multiple other ways,

including failing to have the Office of Management and Budget review R-23-271’s fiscal

impact; failing to publicly post the proposed map online in advance of the special meeting;

and falsely stating in the notice of the special meeting that the public would not be able

to address the City Commission.

37. R-23-271 was required to be assessed for fiscal impact prior to passage. All resolutions

and ordinances except land use changes, zoning changes, board and committee

appointments, and election results shall be reviewed by the office of management and

budget for any fiscal impact prior to placement on any agenda." City Code § 2-33(e).

38. The City provided no evidence of a fiscal impact assessment of their proposed

redistricting resolution and map. Redistricting is not included in the listed four exceptions

to the fiscal impact requirement; which otherwise applies to all resolutions and

ordinances. Id.

39. Therefore, the City Commission also violated the City Code in failing to have the Office

of Management and Budget review their redistricting resolution for fiscal impact prior to

passing R-23-271.

40. The.City is also required to post "the supplemental agenda and any information related

to the upcoming agenda simultaneous with its distribution. City Code § 2-33(g)(2). "Any

information related to the upcoming agenda" includes the proposed map passed as part

of R-23-271.

41. The City did not post any proposed map online in advance of the special meeting.

42. In fact, the City did not post the map they voted on until June 23, 2023 at the earliest-

nine days after the vote.

9
43. Failing to post online the map the City voted on in advance joins failing to include the

actual redistricting resolution in the agenda for the special meeting as violations of public

notice as required by the City Code,

44. Further, in the public notice the City did provide, they failed to notify the public that the

special meeting would include public comment and the opportunity to address the

Commission.

45. In fact, the special meeting agenda printed two days prior to the meeting stated that "It is

anticipated that no input from anyone other than the City personnel is needed or expected

while the City Commission is considering any matter in this portion of the Agenda;

accordingly, no member of the public may address the City Commission during this time.”)

46. Ultimately, the failures to notice the redistricting resolution voted on in advance of the

June 14 special meeting, to assess the fiscal impact of that redistricting resolution, to post

online the map passed as part of that redistricting resolution, and to correctly notify the

public of the opportunity for public comment on redistricting violated the Florida Sunshine

Law requirement of "reasonable notice.'' See Fla. Stat § 286.0J I (1); Hough v.

Stembridge, 278 So. 2d 288, 291 {Fla. 3d DCA i973); Yarbrough v. Young, 462 So. 2d

515, 517 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985).

47. "Reasonable notice" is a fact-specific inquiry, but in each case, an agency must give the

general public enough notice to attend the meeting. Fla. Att'y Gen,.Ops. QQ.c.08, 04-44,

80-'78, artd 73-170. This includes enough information for the public to be informed of how

matters may affect their rights and "afford them the opportunity to appear and present

their views.'' Rhea v. City of Gainesville, 574 So. 2d 22 l., 222 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991).

48. The City’s consultant, Miguel De Grandy developed the redistricting maps after individual

10
 private meetings with commissioners to “amalgamate” their input, in violation of Florida’s

Sunshine Law, Fla. Stat. § 286.011 and FLA. CONST. art. 1, § 24(b). ECF 77 at 6;

Blackford v. Sch. Bd. of Orange Cnty., 375 So. 2d 578, 580-81 (Fla. 5th DCA 1979); Fla.

Off. of Att’y Gen., Gov’t-in-the-Sunshine Manual (2023 ed.), at 10.

49. The failure to notice the redistricting resolution and post online the redistricting map in

advance of the special meeting deprived the public of the opportunity to understand how

the redistricting resolution and map would impact them.

50. The false statement in the special meeting agenda that public comment would not be

heard further deprived the public of the opportunity to voice their views at the special

meeting, as it presumably led to some members of the public relying on the false

information and, as a result, not attending the meeting or not preparing to speak.

51. In fact, Plaintiff called the City prior to the meeting and was told that public comment

would not be allowed.

52. As a result, R-23-271 was in violation of the City Code as well as Florida statutes, and

was ultra vires.

Redistricting Map passed in violation of the Miami-Dade Residents Bill of Rights

53. The Miami-Dade Residents Bill of Rights provides:

Right to Notice. Persons entitled to notice of a County or municipal

hearing shall be timely informed as to the time, place and nature of
the hearing and the legal authority pursuant to which the hearing is
to be held. Failure by an individual to receive such notice shall not
constitute mandatory grounds for cancelling the hearing or rendering
invalid any determination made at such hearing. Copies of
proposed ordinances or resolutions shall be made available at
a reasonable time prior to the hearing, unless the matter
involves an emergency ordinance or resolution.
11
54. The Resolution and proposed map were purposely not made available in advance of

the meeting in contravention of the Miami-Dade Citizens Bill of Rights.

CARVING GABELA OUT OF DISTRICT 1 VIOLATES FLA. STAT. §166.0321

55. Fla. Stat. §166.0321 provides:

Fla. Stat. §166.0321- Division of municipalities into districts

Each municipality shall, from time to time, fix the boundaries of its
districts so as to keep them as nearly equal in proportion to their
respective populations as practicable, provided that such changes
may not be made in the 270 days before a regular general election
for the governing body of the municipality. Districts may not be
drawn with the intent to favor or disfavor a candidate for
member of the governing body or an incumbent member of the
governing body based on the candidate's or incumbent's
residential address. Any ordinance enacted or adopted by a
municipality on or after July 1, 2023, which is in conflict with this
section is void.

56. Res. 23-271 violates Fla. Stat. §166.0321 because it drawn to disfavor Plaintiff.

COUNT 1- DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

57. Paragraphs 1 to 56 are incorporated herein.

58. This claim is brought under Chapter 86, Florida Statutes (Declaratory Judgments).

59. There is a bona fide dispute between Plaintiff and Defendant concerning whether

Res. 23-271 is void ab initio, ultra vires, and unenforceable because it and the

accompanying map are illegal under the City Code, the Miami-Dade Citizens Bill of

Rights, Fla. Stat. Fla. Stat. §166.0321 and the Florida Sunshine Act.

12
60. Plaintiff is in significant doubt as to the legality of Res. 23-272 and the status of

Plaintiff’s candidacy.

61. Res. 23-272 directly, immediately, and adversely affects Plaintiff and his interests,

affecting his ability to run for office and the loss of the opportunity for notice and an

opportunity to provide public comment.

62. Such adverse affects continue on a day-to-day basis as of the filing of this Complaint,

as the City implements the illegal redistricting map.

63. Plaintiff is entitled to a declaration that Res. 23-272 was issued in violation of the

City Code, the Miami-Dade Citizens Bill of Rights, Fla. Stat. Fla. Stat. §166.0321 and

the Florida Sunshine Act, and is therefore is void ab initio, ultra vires, and unenforceable.

64. Plaintiffs are not seeking mere legal advice.

65. The dispute presents an important, time-sensitive, and justiciable controversy in

need of prompt resolution.

66. The requested relief is consistent with the public interest and does not unfairly

prejudice any parties or the public.

67. On information and belief, all persons with an adverse and antagonistic interest are

before the Court.

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Plaintiffs ask for injunctive relief in the form of an order staying Res. 23-272, and granting

all such other relief allowable because: Plaintiffs have a strong likelihood of success on

the merits; Plaintiffs lack an adequate remedy at law; the balance of equities favors

Plaintiff; the public interest favors granting of an injunction voiding the Settlement

13
Agreement, which violates Florida law; and absent prompt injunctive relief; and there is a

very real likelihood of irreparable harm to Plaintiffs.

Respectfully submitted,

__s/davidwinker/_____
David J. Winker, Esq.
Fla. Bar. No. 73148
David J. Winker, PA
4720 S. Le Jeune Rd
Coral Gables, Fl 33146
305-801-8700
dwinker@dwrlc.com

14
 VERIFICATION

Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have read the foregoing Complaint and that

the facts stated in it are true to the best of my knowledge.

_____________________
Miguel Angel Gabela

15
EXHIBITS FILED SEPARATELY

16