My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
RE-BID ITB # 23-10-01 JOINT PROCUREMENT CENTRAL ISLAND
SIBFL
>
City Clerk
>
Bids-RFQ-RFP
>
ITB
>
(23-10-01) Re-Bid Joint Procurement with NMB Central Island Drainage Improvements
>
RE-BID ITB # 23-10-01 JOINT PROCUREMENT CENTRAL ISLAND
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/13/2023 1:29:03 PM
Creation date
10/13/2023 1:26:10 PM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
370
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
SCHEDULE 12(f) <br />LITIGATION <br />No.Parties Date Initiated Description Venue <br />1 City of Miami December 21, City of Miami Gardens (“Plaintiff”) Fla. 11th <br />Gardens vs. 2018 filed a “Class Action Complaint” against Circuit Court <br />City of North the City of North Miami Beach (the <br />Miami Beach “City”) seeking “declaratory judgment, <br />injunctive relief and damages on behalf <br />of itself and similarly situated residents <br />or business entities.” The Plaintiff <br />alleges that as a consequence of entering <br />into an agreement with Jacobs <br />Engineering for certain operation and <br />maintenance of the Norwood Plant, the <br />City no longer operates the Norwood <br />Plant as required under the Surcharge <br />Statute to charge the 25% surcharge (the <br />“Complaint”). <br />Plaintiff also takes issue with the fact <br />that the Norwood Plant is located within <br />Plaintiff boundaries and that residents <br />and business entities “located within the <br />City of Miami Gardens continue to pay <br />a premium for treated water processed <br />within their municipality that does not <br />leave the City of Miami Gardens before <br />delivery to consumers.” <br />The City moved to dismiss the damage <br />claims in Plaintiff’s Complaint as barred <br />by sovereign immunity (among other <br />defenses raised in the City’s motion to <br />dismiss). Following a hearing on the <br />City’s motion to dismiss, the Court <br />entered an order denying, in part, the <br />City’s motion to dismiss and ordering <br />Plaintiff to “replead to give a more <br />definite statement.” On February 10, <br />2020, Plaintiff filed a three-count <br />amended class action complaint, which <br />is substantially similar to the original <br />Complaint (the “Amended <br />Complaint”). <br />SCHEDULE 12(f)-1 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.