Item J1
Hugh 1. MOf!jatl
James T Hendrick
Robert Cintron, Jr.
Derek V, Howard
LAW OFFICES
l\tIORGAN & HENDRICK
317 WHrTBHEAD STREET
KEy WEST, FLORiDA 33040
TELEPHONE 305.296.5676
fACSIMILE 305.296.4331
W, Curry Harris
09'07 -19&8)
Hilary Ij, Albury
(1920~1999)
FAX TRANSlVIISSION
TO; Mayor Dixie Spehar
Mayor Pro Tem Charles McCoy
Commissioner George Neugent
COffi.."'Ulssioner David Rice
Commissioner Murray Nelson
Richard Colhns, Esq,
Thomas J. Willi
Tim McGarry
(292-3466)
(292~ 3577)
(872-9195)
(289-6306)
(852-71 62)
(292-3516)
(292~4544)
(2&9-2854)
FROl\I:
Teresa Ross for Derek V, Howard, Esq,
DA TEl
August 5,2005
SUBJECT:
Grov.1.h Management Litigation Report
Total number of pages including this cover sheet:
ORIGL'NAL DOCUlVIENT(S):
_X_ WILL NOT BE SENT WILL BE SENT
REGULAR OVERJ,,'GHT
COM1'ViENTS: Our File # 160-01
T\'0 L'1l"'''''''''h:m c<mu"r,,;:, UI mtR *ttOffiey privil.god Jmd ,o"ficlouiaL ",tcnded onjy fo? lb~ 'Ee of!lJe ;flrlividu.u 0' en!!!y "iL"ml
;,bye, If the ",,~der '>f this me%~;;C b hO. L"E ink"cid incipiEnt, YOu lIfe hereby nQlltleJ thaI ~llY (bsemillatiQIl, distribution <n copy of :hi,
CQlnmunkation Wi 'mictly prohilmc,L Jfyo\l have "'cclV~d GltS CO!l".mw::,caucn m err"" Mhfy us lly !"lep!1o'1~ o1tldl'tlU1ll m" DngiJW
mes~~gt it> tiS in th~ d,owc add",;; VIA fu" u S Posta.i Scrvlc~ UY0tH.io Mt "'c~i,"e s!l pages, plea;rc ,QOilllJ !loH!hie 305.296,5676 The
ibHowing is Oll! &x munbcf 31l5-296-4331,
p,o. SOX 1117, K~ WEST FL 33041 .$ TELePHONE 305296-5678 '? FACSfMH..E 305200-..4331
GROV\<'TH MANAGEMENT LITIGATION REPORT
TO:
Board of County COn'J.ffiissioners
Richard Camns
Timothy
Director, Growth Management Division
Thomas 1. Willi
FROM:
Derek Howard, Esq.
Morgan & Hendrick
DATE:
August 5, 2005
Vacation Rentals
Ncumont (Federal Class Action) - Plaintiffs filed a class action suit inS. District Court alleging
vacation rental ordinance (Ordinance 004~1997) was prematurely enforced, is atl u,1.constitutiorilll taking
of their properties, and was adopted in violation of due process. On June 20, 2004, the U.S. District
Court entered final judgment in favor of the Cou,'lty. On July 15,2004, Plaintiffs/Appellants filed a
notice of appeal to the ES. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit from final judgment of the District
Court, and all interlocutory orders giving rise to t.~e judgment On September 15,2004, Appellants filed
a motion to ~ertify state~law questions to the Florida Supreme Court and to postpone briefing pendL'1g
certification; the County t1ied its response on October 7; AppeHants filed a reply on October] 5,2004.
On October 18, 2004, a mediation conference was held. On October 19, 2004, the Court denied
AppeI1ants' motion to stay briefing and ruled motion to certif<; state-law questions to fl,e Florida
Supreme Cou..-t is carried 'With the case. Appe11a.....,ts filed their initial brief on December 15, 2004.
Monroe County filed its response brief on February 22, 2005. Appellants filed their reply brief on
March 11, 2005. On April 7, 2005, Moruoe County filed a motion for leave to file a sUITeply brief in
response to Appellants' new argument relating to the Class Action Fairness Act of2005. On April 21,
2005, Appellants filed their response to Monroe County's motion, which induded a declaration of a
local property manager offered as support for Appellants' assertion that a majority of the subject class
members are out~of.state residenK On April 27, 2005, Monroe County filed a motion to strike the
declaration, which was denied on May 25,2005. On May 2, 2005, the Court entered an order granting
Monroe County's m.otion for leave to file a su.ryeply brief; brief was filed on May 24, 2005. Oral
argument is schedukd for October 26, 2005. ($123,563.24 as of 1Ufle 30, 2005)
Takines Claims
Ambrose - Declaratory action claiming vested rights under S380.05(18) based on filL.'1.g of subdivision
plats. Pursuant to summary judgment proceedings and his previous orders, Judge Payne ordered that
Plaintiffs prove ownership of a single Plaintiffs' lot so that Icgal issues may be appealed rather than
spend extensive time trial COtLrt litigating ownership issues as to each loi at issue, V:arious
environmental groups were granted leave to L"1tervene. Court entered final sUITlmary judgment for
approximately Plaintiffs. Defendants appealed tillal Order. Third District reversed, hOlding that
vesting is. not established by mere recording of plats; statute requires showing of reliance and change of
position to establish vesting. Plaintiffs' motion for rehearing was derded On Febmary 18,2004. On
March 18, 2004, Plaintiffs/Petitioners filed a notice to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction of the
Florida Supreme CourL On July 9, 2004, the Florida Supreme Court denied Plaintiffs/Petitioners'
petition for review. On July 14, 2005, DCA filed a motion to dismiss the circuit eOlIrt action for faihrre
to prosecute; Monroe County joined in ule motion. ($30,735.98 as of June 30, 2005)_
Emmert ~ Complaint seeking inverse condemnation based on application of Momoe County's wetland
regulations, Plaintiffs allege that Momoe County has deprived them of all economic use of their
property, despite the fact that they were gra.'1ted partial beneficial use from the subject regulations,
which expanded the buildable area of their vacant Ocean ReefJot from approximately 1,800 to 2,500
square feet Plaintiffs argue that their ability to build within this area is encumbered by Ocean Reef
Club Association deed restrictions requiring setbacks in excess of those required by Monroe County,
Monroe County's motion to dismiss was denied on December 12,2002, Mediation was held on OC1ober
21,20Q4. Case was set for bench trial on November 29,2004. On November 22,2004, Plaimiffs filed
an emergency motion. for continuance; motion was heard and granted on November 24, 2004. On
November 22,2004, Plaintiffs also filed a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint in order
to add a claim of vested rights. The motion was heard on January 5, 2005. On March 10, 2005, the
court entered an order granting Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a second amended complaint; the
complaint was filed on March 31,2005_ On March 31, 2005, Plaintiffs also moved for the entry of
defauh judgment against the County for failure to file an answer to the second amended complaint
(despite the fact thaI the second amended complaint was not previously filed); the County moved to
strike Plaintiffs' motion on April 4, 2005, The Count; timely flied its answer to the second amended
complaint on April 8,2005. On May 3,2005, Plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary judgment
directed to their vested rights claim (Count I), On August 3, 2005, t,1-:te parties: appeared before the Court
on PlaLlltiffs' motion. The Cou.."t continued the hearing on the grounds that discovery is still ongoing;
the hearing was rescheduled for September 15, 2005. The trial has been set for the two (2) week trial
period beginning December 19, 2005. ($74,937.05 as of June 30, 2005).
GaUeon Bay - Trlfee cases: (1) appeal of vested rights decision; (2) takings claim; and (3) Llllrd party
complaint against the State of Florida seeking contribution, indemnity and SUbrogation.
0) On June 17,2004, the 3rd D.CA. denied the COUTIty'S petition for writ of certiorari.
(2) As to the takings daim, Judge Payne entered slmrmary judgment in favor of PI aim iff on November
10, 2003. The order of the court fOU11d that a temporary taking began on Apti121, 1994, and would
cease on the date of the jury verdkt, at which time a pennanent taking would arise. The case was
scheduled to proceed \>vith aju..ry trial as to damages on August 9,2004. At the pretrial conference on
July 26,2004, however, Judge Payne agreed tv modify his order on liability to find only a permanent
ta.lting on April 21, 1994, and granted Plaintiffs request to continue the trial until October 12, 2004.
Plaintiffs counsel was delegated the task of reducing the Court's <l.'ll.'1ounced ruling to a proposed
modified order. On August 18,2004, Judge Payne entered final judgment in favor ofilie Courny as to
PlaintiffHannelore SchIeu. On September 24, 2004, the County submitted a proposed modified order
consIstent vlith the Court's July 26,2004, ruling. On October 3, 2004, Plaintiff submitted a proposed
modified order that substantively contradicted anclstrayed from the Court's ruling; namely, the proposed
order found that a temporary taking occurred on April 13, 1997, On October 4,2004, the Court entered
2
verbatim
2005.
proposed modified order The triaI was subsequently contl.rmed until Febnwr}i 1,
On November 29, 2004, the County filed an a.11ended motion for rehearing and/or motion for
reconsideration arguing, inter alia, tl1e verbatim entry of Plaintiff's proposed modified order violated its
procedural due process rights. On December 13, 2004, the Court granted L>te County's motion and
vacated the modified order ofOc:tober 4,2004. On December 27,2004, the Court entered its Order for
Nonbinding iubitration.
On May 5~6, 2005, the parties (including Third-Party Defendant State of Florida) participated in
nonbinding arbitration before Gerald Kogan, Esq., a former member of the Florida Supreme Court The
issues arbitrated included (1) whether Lhe ta.'IOng found to have occurred by the trial court was
permanent or te..>nporary (or both); (2) the applicable measure of darnages for the taking; and (3) whether
Mamae County is entitled to a contribution from the Slate as to all or a portion ofL~e just compensation
that Plaintiff is owed for the taking, The issue ofliabBity was not arbitrated, pursuant to the trial court's
arbitration order. On June 3, 2005, Kogan rendered his decision, substantially finding in favor of
Monroe Cou..'1ty on aU of the issues arbitrated. Kogan rejected Plaintiffs Htwo-takings" theory of
recovery, fmding that there has only been a permanent talr"ing fur which Plaintiff is entitled to the fair
market value of the property on t.l:le date oft.~e taking, plus simple interest at the stattHory tate until the
compensation is paid, as just compensation (plaintiff argued that it was entitled to rebm the stanuor'j
rates with other rates of return that it could have achieved through selective investments, and that the
rate ofretum is applied on a compound basis). Koga11 also found that Monroe County is entitled to a
50% contribution from the State as to compensation owed to Plaintiff On June 6, 2005, Plaintiff
rejected L'1e arbitrator's proposed award and moved for an oider setting tbe case for trial.
Prior to the arbitration proceeding, Plaintiff fHed a motion to amend the surmnary j\ldgment order of
November 10, 2003, and notice of confession of error (seeking to change Lite taking date of April 21,
1994, to April 13> 1997) Thus, all the parties now agree that there was no takiIlg on Apli12l, 1994.
The State filed its response to PlaLl1tiffs motion to amend on May 18, 2005. The County filed its
response to Plaintiff's motion on June 20, 20050 At a hearing on June 21, 2004, the Court denied
Plaintiffs motion to amend Pursuant to the ruling of the Court, the parties will engage in a new round
OfSll.'1IDlaty judgment proceedings on the issue ofiiability as to Plaintiffs allegation that a taking of its
property began on April 13, 1997; the summary judgment hearing is tentatively scheduled. for October
31, 2005. On July 18, 2005, the State filed answers to the County's t.hird party complaint and to
Plaintiffs second amended complainL
(3) As to the third party complaint against the State ofF!orida, the State moved to dismiss for faHure to
state a cause of action, as weB as a motion to transfer action to the Second Judicia! Circuit in and for
Leon County, Florida. On May 24, 2004, the court denied the State's motion to dismiss as to the
County's claim of contribution, as well as t,~e State's motion to transfer. On May 2004, t.~e State
moved to substitute the Department of Communiry Affairs and the Administration COITIInission as third
party defenda.'l1ts. On July 27,2004, the State filed 11 notice of appeal to the 3rd D.CA of the non-final
order denying the motion to transfer venue (Case No. 3D04~2036) and petition for writ of
prohibition/certiorari (Case No. 3D04-1920). On August 24,2004, the Com! granted COt4'1ty's motion
to hold appeal in abeyance. On AUglJSt 25, 2004, the COUc't denied COUilty'S motion to hold petition in
abeyance The Court deferred the deadline for the County to file its response, pending resolution of
matters in the l.L.'lderlying action" On July 18, 2005, the State motior.s to dismiss b<;:th the petition
3
for v,-Til of prohibition/certiorari and me appeaL ($202,030099 as of June 30,2005; does not include
prior Galleon Bay matters).
Good ~ Plaintiff is seeking declaratory judgment that he be awarded "economically viable uses" as to
his Suburban Commercial and Destination Resort-zoned properties on Lower Sugarloa.fKey, as wen as
declaratory judgment "that the existing nonresidential moratorium be declared unlawful" (despite fact
that moratorium ended with the adoption ofNROGO). Plaintiff is also seeking da..-nages for inverse
condew..nation based on the application of Monroe County's non-n::sidemial development moratorium
and regulations. In a separate proceeding, Plaintiff is pursuing a claim under the Ben Harris Act. On
August 27~ 2001, Monroe County filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff's first complaint; the motion was
denied on October 29, 2001, On May 12, 2003, Plaintiff filed an a.'TIcnded complaint. On June 6, 2003,
Monroe County fired a motion to dismiss dIe amended complaint, On June. 23. 2003, the Cou..'i. entered
an order stating that the County's motion to dismiss is under advisement, and holding case in abeyance
lh'1til Plaintiff obtains a letter of understa.iding as to the pennissible uses availabk on the subject
properties, Plaintiff and County STIL.4f met on April 26, 2004, to discuss potential developmenL On
February 14, 2005, Lice parties appeared before tile court for a status conference. On February 17, 2005,
Plaintiff agait, met with County staff to discuss potential development On March 7, 2005, the County
issued a letter addressing the proposed development ofT racts A and B (property S. of US, I} On J wy
25,2005, the County issued another letter addressing the remaining subject properties. On August 1,
2005, the parties appeared before the Court for a case milllilgemem conference, The Court reinstated
the case, ($15,242.91 as of June 30, 2005).
Hardin - Two cases; (1) case filed in federal district court alleging due process violations and inverse
condemnation based on code enforcement orders that resulted in a lien on Plaintiffs' property and (2)
appeal oft.'1e code enforcement orders to the state circuit court, pursuant to Florida Statute 162.11.
(1) As to the federal case, the district court entered its Order of Final Judgment in favor of Monroe
County on August 18, 2003, dismissing Plaintiff's case with prejudice, based on reinstatement of state
court appeal of code enforcement orders.
(2) On September 3, 1999, AppeUant (a pro se litigant) filed her notice of appeal from the fcHowing
orders entered by the Code Enforcement Special Master in Case No~ L9-98-409: Order Denr.ng 1\1otion
for Rehearing, Order Denying Motion For Stay of Fines; and Order Imposing PenaHyILien (Appel1ant
did not timely or belatedly appeal the Findings of fact; Conclusions of Law, and Order entered by Ihe
Special Master on April ] 6, 1999; which found Appellant in violation of VariOIlS provisions of the
Monroe County Code relating to building permits and enclosures below me base flood elevation).
Appellant filed her Lritiai Brief on September 22, ] 999,
On October 19, 1999, Monroe County filed its motion to dismiss based on various procedural grofu"'1ds.
The Court granted the motion on September 27, 2004. Upon the filing of a motion for rehearing by
AppeIIant, the court entered a.'"l order vacating its order granting the Cour.lty's motion to disrrIiss and
denying the County's motion on November 5, 2004,
The ruling on the County's motion to dismiss of October 19, ] 999~ was ddayed because the Cou.'1: had
previously entered lLn order sua sponte dismissing the appeal based on the absence of ft7;':;Ord activity for
a period of over one year. The COUrt vacated tbe order on June 24,20'03, On August 2004, Monroe
County filed a to for lack of pmsecution, which remains pending,
4
Monroe County has not filed its Answer Brief because several pending motions of Appelhmt, including
a motion to postpone the proceeding (filed on February 22, 20(0) are roHing t.l-te time schedule o.fthe
proceeding
On June 27,2005, a case management conference was held before Judge Milley; pending
were set fur hearing on August 1,2005. On August 1,2005, the Court deferred ruling on tile motions
and ordered the Appellant to produce a record of the code er.forcemem proceedings below.
($9,237,07 as of June 30, 2(05).
Kalan ~ Takings claim filed as to residential property in Car.W Pines & Palms subdivision for failure to
obtain ROGO allocation in 4 year period, Based on County's motion to dismiss, w..e parties agreed to
entry of an order holding the case in abeyance while Plaintiff seeks a beneficial use deterrrJJoatiofl., as
required to exhaust available administrative remedies and ripen tI,e case for judicial review, On June
24, 2004, the Court ente.ed an order requiring the County to render a beneficial use determination as to
subject property \-v!thin 90 days, On September 21,2004, the Court granted the County's motion for an
extension of time, extending the deadline for the County to. render a beneficial use determination until
January 20,2005. On October 26,2004, a beneficial USe hearing was held before the Special Master.
The County filed another motion to extend the deadline for the rendering of a beneficial Use
determination, which remains pending. On March 4, 2005, the Special Master rendered a proposed
denial of beneficial use, wpjch was adopted by the BOCC on June 15,2005, ($2,855,77 as of June 30,
2005).
Other Matters
Department of Community Affairs v, Monroe County - Case before Land a.'1d Water Adjudicatory
Commission in which DCA aHeges t.~at the County failed to comply utiLI; various Comp Plan
requirements by failing to routinely ti.rnend enda'1gered species maps; and vegetation surveys as to high
& moderate quality harnlnock areas, DCA also alleges that the County has aliowed higher ROGO
scores than should have been allocated due to failure to amend maps, thereby allowing more residential
development tha.'1 should have been approved. DCA entered voluntary dismissal pending adoption of
moratorium & revised regulations, but moved forward with appeals: as to individual permits (see te1ow).
($14,796.42 as ofJune 30, 2005),
It Department of Community Affairs v. Monroe County - Pursuant to 380,07, Florida
Statutes, DCA appealed the building permit issued by Morace County to Nancy Suarez-Cannon.
DCA aHeged that Monroe County did nN correctly interpret and apply portions of its
Comprehensive Plan and LDRs in scoring the application for development. On February 25,
2004, the ft...LJ dismissed Respondent Nancy Suarel>Cannon from the case because she sold the
three subjeCT lots to DC6, L.Lc.
On June 13, 2005, DCA and Intervenor DC6, L.LC. entered L'ito a Stipulated Sen}ement
Agreemem, which was approved by the BOCC on June 15,2005. On June 16,2005, DCA filed
its Notice ofVo!untary Dismissal wit..h the Florida L&"'ld & Water Adjudicatory Commission.
On June 21,2005, the COlTk'nisslon entered its Final Order of DismissaL ($2,399.50 as of June
5
2005).
O'Daniel and mils v. Monroe County ~ Petitioners filed a vested rights claim in Circuit Court on
March 13,2002. Petitioners also appealed fi..'1ding of Code Enforcement Special Master that were
conducting a com.>nerda.! business on the subject, which is in a residential zoning district, W'idlCiut
having first obtained a special use permit. The Court affirmed the Special Master's fmding and order.
The vested rights claim went to bench trial on May 25, 2004, On October 7,2004, the Court entered its
final judgm.ent in favor of Petitioners. The COlL'1 held that AppeHants/Pe6tioners have vested rights to
maintain is mixed residentiaifcommerdal structure on the subject property, and to Use the subject
property for both residential and commercial office purposes, The relief granted to Petitioners is
relatively narrow compared to the relief soug..~t. The Court, for example, held t.<iat (1) allY application
for a cl1--<mge in commercial use is subject to current regulations regarding non~conforming structures
and uses, fu'1d (2) the commercial portion of t.~e structure must substantially comply \V'ith current
standard building, electrical, mechapjcaJ and plumbing codes before a certificate of occupancy is issued.
The COlJ..."'t did not vacate its prior order affirmi...'lg the Code Enforcement Special Master order.
On November 4,2004. Petitioners filed motions to ta'l( costs and tor attomey's fees pursuant 10957.105,
Fla. Stat On November 11.2004, the County filed a motion to strike the motion for attorney's fees for
Petitioners' failure to comply with the procedural requirements of S 57.105, On February 9, 2005, the
Court entered its order granting the County's motion. On March 1,2005, Appellants/Petitioners filed a
notice of appeal as to the order granting the County's motion to strike. AppeHantslPetitioners filed their
Initial Brief with the Third District COurt of Appeal on June 6, 2005, arguing that ~ 51J05 is
constitutionally infirm because the iegislature may not enact rules of court practice and procedure, The
deadline forL>te County to file its Answer Briefhas been deferred until August 16,2005. ($29,819.72
as of June 30, 2005).
Iodustrial. Communications & Electronics v. Monroe County - LC.E. filed acdon against Monroe
County in federal court alleging wireless tower moratoria violated t.1;e Federal Telecommunications Act
of1996 and the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. The district court
granted the county's motion to dismiss on grounds of res judicata/collateral estoppel (claims were
identical to those brought in state court action and plaintiff failed to reserve federal daims therein).
l.C.E appealed the decision to the 11 th Circuit.
On May 27, 2005, the 1 hh Circuit vacated the judgment of the district court, but remanded wid}
instruction to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdictiOfL A proposed order was 5ubmjttcd by the
County to the district court On June 28,2005, ($18,966,92 as of June 30, 20(5).
Johnson - Writ of Mandamus challenging Director of Plwilling's determination that application for
"boundary determination" by alleged error requires zoning map ruilend,'11ent application. Applicant
applied for boundary determination based on allegation that BOCC previously adopted change in
zoning, Director's determination was based on review of records failing 10 show any error or prior
consideration of such zoning change. Director rejected application and informed o"mer to properly file
for zoning map amendmenL (Boundary determination may be placed on BOCC agenda without the
pu.blic notice required for a :wning change), Pursuant to oral argtunent, Monroe County agreed to re~
process application for denial Or approval (application was previously returned iL<; incomplete) and
Plaintiffs may appeal as provided by the MOt'l10e Cou,'1.ty Code if derried. On May 26, 2005, opposing
6
counsel submitted a proposed finaljudgment for the County's consideration. ($1,889.62 as of June 30,
2005)"
Sierra Chtbt et at v. Department ofCODUnuQity Affairs &: Miami.Dade County (MtmroeCounty
& City of Homestead as. Intervenors) - On October 10, 2002, the l\1iami-Dade County Board of
County Commissioners approved Ordinance No. 02-198, WIDen amends the Land Use Elemem and
Transportation Element of Miami Dade's Comprehensive Gro'-"'th Management Plan to change the
designation of Krome Avenue from a "Minor Roadway" (2 lanes) to a "Major Roadway" (3 or more
lanes). On Jarlua.) 10,2003, Petitioners filed a petition for formal administrative hearing to challenge
DCA':; finding that tlds and other amendments to t.'1e Miami-Dade's Plan are "in compliance" as defined
in section 16331 &4( I )(0), Fla. Stat On December 16, 2003 l the AU granted Monroe County's petition
to intervene. On March 22, 2004, Miami-Dade filed a motion to relinquish ju.."isdiction to DCA. in
December 2004, the parties reached a tentative settlement agreement, but the Board of Cou.'1ty
COIll..'Ilissioners of Miami-Dade County formally rejected tI1e agreement on March 1,2005. On April
11,2005, City of Homestead filed its petition for leave to intervene (in support. of Miami-Dade); DOAH
granted the petition on May 4,2005, On May 11, 2005, Petitioners filed their response to Miami-Dade's
motion to re1inqillshjurisdiction; the response was adopted by Monroe County, On June 3, 2005, DCA
filed its response to Miami - Dade's: motion to relinquish jurisdiction, asking tl:te ALl to deny the motion.
On July 21, 2005, DCA withdrew its response and joined in Miami-Dade's motion to relinquish
jurisdiction and to issue a recommended order. The case is set for final hearing on September 19
fr...tough 23 and 26 fruough 30, 2005. (Legal services are being provided by Morgan & Hendrick
vrithout charge to Monroe Counry).
Smart Planning llnd Growth Coalition v, Monroe County (Circuit Court Case No. OJ-CA-507-P)-
SPOC challenged 1\'ROGO, allegL'1g that the aUocations violated NROGO/Comp Plan provisions
because Key Largo COnL!'J1uniKeys Master Plan had not yet been adopted. Case ~'aS dismissed by
DOAH for lack ofjurisdktion, SPGC flied action in circuit court on same grounds, Cou..'1ty prevailed
on its motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction on grounds that SPGC is not an "aggrieved party," as
required by section 163.3215, Florida Statutes. SPGC filed an amended complaint on February 20,
2004. County filed its answer on March 5.2004. On July 29, 2004, Judge Payne entered a.'1 order
granting Lee Rohe's motion to v.i.thdraw as counsel for Petitioners; the order required Petitioner to
obtain substirute counsel withi'1 30 da.ys or face disll'JssaL No attorney subsequently entered an
appearance on behalf of Petitioners.
On June 9,2005, Judge Payne entered verbatim a proposed order submitted by tile County dismissing
the case with prejudice, ($609A9 as of June 30, 2005),
7