Case 1:22-cv-20224-KMW Document 27 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/14/2022 Page 1 of 24

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 1:22-CV-20224-WILLIAMS

HUBERT ARTURO ACEVEDO,

Plaintiff,

vs.

CITY OF MIAMI;
COMMISSIONER JOE CAROLLO;
COMMISSIONER ALEX DIAZ DE LA PORTILLA;
ARTHUR NORIEGA; and
COMMISSIONER MANOLO REYES,
Defendants.
_________________________________/

DEFENDANT COMMISSIONER CAROLLO’S MOTION TO DISMISS

COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE; REQUEST FOR HEARING

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), defendant

Commissioner Joe Carollo seeks dismissal of the Complaint

(“Complaint”) (DE1) as to the only Count against him, Count II,

alleging “Retaliation in violation of the First Amendment.” At its core,

the Complaint asserts that Acevedo, the former City of Miami Police

Chief, was targeted and then terminated by Commissioner Carollo

and the entire City of Miami Commission after a mere six (6) months

on the job, allegedly in retaliation for speaking out as the police chief.

The Complaint must be dismissed because it fails to state a legally

cognizable First Amendment retaliation claim against Commissioner

Page 1 of 24
Case 1:22-cv-20224-KMW Document 27 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/14/2022 Page 2 of 24

Carollo acting in his official capacity.

Dismissal is required at this stage of the case because

Commissioner Carollo is protected by the doctrines of legislative

immunity and qualified immunity from suit, since the conduct

alleged in the Complaint occurred during the course and scope of his

official authority as a City of Miami elected official. Accordingly, this

Court should dismiss Count II with prejudice inasmuch as repleading

will not address the fundamental pleading deficiencies.

INCORPORATION OF CODEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS

As set out in his separately filed Motion to Adopt and Join in

Motions to Dismiss Filed by Codefendants (DE26), Commissioner

Carollo asks to adopt the positions of his codefendants as applicable

to his defenses. Consequently, this Motion to Dismiss is intended to

promote judicial efficiency by not duplicating the introduction and

factual background information or the meritorious arguments and

legal analysis contained in the other motions.

REQUEST FOR HEARING

Defendant Commissioner Carollo seeks a hearing pursuant to

Local Rule 7.1(b)(2) for no more than two (2) hours. For the reasons

in this motion and the companion motions to dismiss filed by the

Page 2 of 24
Case 1:22-cv-20224-KMW Document 27 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/14/2022 Page 3 of 24

codefendants, a hearing will allow the parties to present and discuss

the application of the qualified and legislative immunities that bar

this litigation against the City of Miami elected officials. The need for

Commissioner Carollo and his legislative colleagues to obtain a full

resolution of the immunity defenses prior to having to participate in

extensive and intrusive litigation is of the utmost importance. The

Court can seek input from the parties as to any concerns raised by

the pleadings. All defendants join in the request for a hearing.

Plaintiff does not agree to a hearing.

LEGAL STANDARD TO DISMISS COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO

STATE A CLAIM

Rule 12(b)(6) allows dismissal for “failure to state a claim upon

which relief can be granted.” While the court must “accept[] the

allegations in the complaint as true and constru[e] them in the light

most favorable to the plaintiff[,]” Am. Dental Ass’n v. Cigna Corp., 605

F.3d 1283, 1288 (11th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted),

“courts may infer from the factual allegations in the complaint

obvious alternative explanations, which suggest lawful conduct

rather than the unlawful conduct the plaintiff would ask the court to

infer.” Id. at 1290 (citing Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)).

Page 3 of 24
Case 1:22-cv-20224-KMW Document 27 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/14/2022 Page 4 of 24

“To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain

sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief

that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, id. at 1949. A plausible

entitlement to relief exists “when the allegations in the complaint

traverse the thresholds separating the ‘conclusory’ from the ‘factual’

and the ‘factually neutral’ from the ‘factually suggestive.’” Barton v.

Florida, 2007 WL 1724943, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 100486 (N.D. Fla.

2007)). The Court need not accept unsupported conclusions of law or

of mixed law and fact. Marsh v. Butler County, Ala., 268 F.3d 1014,

1022 (11th Cir. 2001).

“On a motion to dismiss, ‘[c]onclusory allegations and

unwarranted deductions of fact are not admitted as true,”

particularly “when the conclusory allegations contradict the other

facts alleged in the complaint.” See Berry v. Coleman, 172 Fed. App’x

929 (11th Cir. 2006); see also Battle v. Cent. State Hosp., 898 F.2d

126, 130 n.3 (11th Cir. 1990) (“allegations that are contradicted by

other allegations in the complaint may also constitute grounds for

dismissal”). The Court is not required to ignore factual details of the

pleading in favor of general or conclusory. See Griffin Indus., Inc. v.

Irvin, 496 F.3d 1189, 1205-06 (11th Cir. 2007). A district court may

Page 4 of 24
Case 1:22-cv-20224-KMW Document 27 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/14/2022 Page 5 of 24

take judicial notice of certain facts without converting a motion to

dismiss into a motion for summary judgment. See Bryant v. Avado

Brands, Inc., 187 F.3d 1271, 1278 (11th Cir. 1999). “Public records

are among the permissible facts that a district court may consider.”

Universal Express, Inc. v. U.S. S.E.C., 177 Fed. App’x 52, 53 (11th Cir.

2006). Therefore, the October 11, 2021 Suspension Memorandum

attached to the Motion to Dismiss by Commissioner Diaz de la Portilla

(DE24), while not essential to a dismissal, nonetheless undermines

Acevedo’s conclusions in the Complaint and provides affirmative

reasons to order a dismissal with prejudice.

GROUNDS FOR DISMISSAL

A. Commissioner Carollo Is Entitled to Legislative

Immunity for Actions Taken in his Legislative
Function as a Commissioner.

Legislative immunity is a form of absolute immunity protecting

a legislator from having to answer for conduct in a civil lawsuit.

Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 525, 105 S. Ct. 2806, 2815 (1985);

see Harris v. Deveaux, 780 F.2d 911, 913 (11th Cir. 1986) (“Absolute

immunity is meant to protect not only from liability, but from going

to trial at all.”). Legislative immunity protects lawmakers from suit

for their legislative acts. Scott v. Taylor, 405 F.3d 1251, 1254 (11th

Page 5 of 24
Case 1:22-cv-20224-KMW Document 27 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/14/2022 Page 6 of 24

Cir. 2005). The absolute immunity protecting legislative functions is

not limited to merely the passing of bills and ordinances but also

encompasses “conduct in the furtherance of their duties.” Hernandez

v. City of Lafayette, 643 F.2d 1188, 1193 (5th Cir. 1981), cert. denied,

455 U.S. 907, 102 S. Ct. 1251 (1982). “The absolute immunity of

legislators, in their legislative functions, ... now is well settled.”

Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 807, 102 S. Ct. 2727, 2732 (1982)

(citations omitted); see Tower v. Glover, 467 U.S. 914, 920, 104 S. Ct.

2820, 2824 (1984) (“The Court has recognized absolute §1983

immunity for legislators acting within their legislative roles....”). The

Supreme Court extended absolute immunity to state and local

legislators. Lake Country Estates, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning

Agency, 440 U.S. 391, 99 S. Ct. 1171 (1979); Tenney v. Brandhove,

341 U.S. 367, 71 S. Ct. 783 (1951). “[L]ocal legislators are entitled to

legislative immunity in this Circuit.” Executive 100, Inc. v. Martin

County, 922 F.2d 1536, 1539 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 810,

112 S. Ct. 55 (1991); Ellis v. Coffee Cnty. Bd. of Registrars, 981 F.2d

1185, 1189 (11th Cir. 1993).

“[O]fficials seeking absolute immunity must show that such

immunity is justified for the governmental function at issue.” Hafer

Page 6 of 24
Case 1:22-cv-20224-KMW Document 27 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/14/2022 Page 7 of 24

v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21, 27, 112 S. Ct. 358, 363 (1991) (citation omitted).

The Eleventh Circuit “has decided that ‘the absolute immunity

inquiry’ is determining whether the local legislators were engaging in

legislative activity in the particular case under consideration.” Brown

v. Crawford County, 960 F.2d 1002, 1011 (11th Cir. 1992) (quoting

Espanola Way Corp. v. Meyerson, 690 F.2d 827, 829 (11th Cir. 1982),

cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1039, 103 S. Ct. 1431 (1983)). And “subjective

motivations are irrelevant to absolute legislative immunity.” Ellis v.

Coffee Cnty. Bd. of Registrars, 981 F.2d at 1192.

Analysis of the Complaint must be on the objective conduct of

Commissioner Carollo and two other elected commissioners acting as

elected commissioners, whose duties and responsibilities are set out

in the City Charter. The actions described in the Complaint include

policy discussions at Commission meetings, deciding policy matters

for the City, making budgetary considerations and legislation

involving the Miami Police Department, and voting on whether the

City Manager’s termination of the police chief was appropriate as a

matter of City policy. Because the challenged actions uniquely involve

the exercise of legislative prerogative “in furtherance of

[Commissioner Carollo’s] duties” involving the legislative function, he

Page 7 of 24
Case 1:22-cv-20224-KMW Document 27 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/14/2022 Page 8 of 24

and his Commission colleagues are protected by absolute legislative

immunity. Hernandez v. City of Lafayette, 643 F.2d at 1193.

Commissioner Carollo’s legislatively immunized conduct

encompasses the introduction of legislation and all commentary

made during and in connection with City Commission meetings as

made plain in the Complaint (Complaint ¶¶28-34, 56-64, 74-75, 108-

124, 126-138, 140-142, 152-164, 171, 173, 175, 188-200, 201-211,

219-228). Commissioner Carollo’s legislative immunity further

extends to the entirety of the inquiries, fact-findings, and

investigations that are a necessary extension of the Commission’s

policy-making function.

O’Boyle v. Sweetapple, 187 F. Supp. 3d 1365, 1373 (S.D. Fla.

2016), is sufficiently analogous to this case. There, the plaintiff

claimed that an ordinance enacted to regulate where people may park

their cars “violated his First Amendment rights because the

motivation for its enactment was to suppress his” protected speech.

Id. at 1373. The retaliation claims failed because an allegedly

improper motivation for enacting an otherwise neutral ordinance

does not constitute First Amendment retaliation. Id.

Similarly, in this case, the Complaint describes actions taken

Page 8 of 24
Case 1:22-cv-20224-KMW Document 27 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/14/2022 Page 9 of 24

by commissioners in furtherance of their legislative obligations,

including fact-finding, making inquiries, conducting district

inspections, speaking out about perceived violations of zoning and

code enforcement ordinances as a matter of public policy priorities,

and voting on legislation that Acevedo viewed as retaliatory. These

actions, all taken within the scope of a commissioner’s duties, were

part and parcel of Commissioner Carollo’s legislative. His duties are

not limited to merely voting on legislation; they also encompass

conduct intended to further the Commission’s legislative

responsibilities. Because an objective reading of the conduct

contained in the Complaint is consistent with the “legitimate sphere

of legislative activity[,]” absolute legislative immunity applies here.

Eastland v. United States Servicemen’s Fund, 421 U.S. 491, 503, 95

S. Ct. 1813, 1821 (1975).

The Eleventh Circuit “has construed legislative acts as ‘an

integral part of the deliberative and communicative processes’

regarding the consideration and action of a legislative body for

matters statutorily placed within its jurisdiction.” Ellis v. Coffee Cnty,

981 F.2d at 1192 (quoting Gravel v. United States, 408 U.S. 606, 625,

92 S. Ct. 2614, 2627 (1972)). As the Supreme Court explained,

Page 9 of 24
Case 1:22-cv-20224-KMW Document 27 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/14/2022 Page 10 of 24

“immunity is justified and defined by the functions it protects and

serves, not by the person to whom it attaches.” Forrester v. White,

484 U.S. 219, 227, 108 S. Ct. 538, 544 (1988); Yeldell v. Cooper Green

Hosp., Inc., 956 F.2d 1056, 1062 (11th Cir. 1992) (“It is the nature of

the act which determines whether legislative immunity shields the

individual from suit.”). The nature of the challenged conduct is

objectively consistent with Commissioner Carollo’s exercise of his

legislative mandate, such that Commissioner Carollo is protected

from suit by absolute legislative immunity. Accordingly, the

Complaint based on conduct in furtherance of the legislative

prerogative must be dismissed with prejudice.

B. Commissioner Carollo, in his Capacity as a Municipal

Elected Official, Is Entitled to Qualified Immunity.

The doctrine of qualified immunity compels dismissal of the

Complaint with prejudice. “The doctrine of qualified immunity

protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar

as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or

constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have

known.” Stanton v. Sims, 571 U.S. 3, 5-6, 134 S. Ct. 3, 4-5 (2013)

(quoting Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231, 129 S. Ct. 808, 815

Page 10 of 24
Case 1:22-cv-20224-KMW Document 27 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/14/2022 Page 11 of 24

(2009)). Qualified immunity is “an immunity from suit rather than a

mere defense to liability; and like an absolute immunity, it is

effectively lost if a case is erroneously permitted to go to trial.” Scott

v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 376, 127 S. Ct. 1769, 1773-74 (2007). This

immunity recognizes the “strong public interest in protecting public

officials from the costs associated with the defense of damages

actions.” Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 590, 118 S. Ct. 1584,

1592-93 (1998). These costs, as explained in Harlow v. Fitzgerald,

457 U.S. 800, 814, 102 S. Ct. 2727, 2736 (1982), can be

insurmountable, implicating life and career consequences. See

Gregoire v. Biddle, 177 F.2d 579, 581 (2d Cir. 1949), cert. denied, 339

U.S. 949, 70 S. Ct. 803 (1950).

Qualified immunity “is intended to ‘allow government officials to

carry out their discretionary duties without the fear of personal

liability or harassing litigation, protecting from suit all but the plainly

incompetent or one who is knowingly violating the federal law.’”

Brown v. City of Huntsville, 608 F.3d 724, 733 (11th Cir. 2010)

(quoting Lee v. Ferraro, 284 F.3d 1188, 1194 (11th Cir. 2002)); Grider

v. City of Aubern, Ala., 618 F.3d 1240, 1254 (11th Cir. 2010).

To state a retaliation claim, a plaintiff must establish the

Page 11 of 24
Case 1:22-cv-20224-KMW Document 27 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/14/2022 Page 12 of 24

existence of constitutionally protected speech, that the defendant’s

conduct adversely affected the protected speech, and a causal

connection between the retaliatory actions and the adverse effect on

speech. Bennett v. Hendrix, 423 F.3d 1247, 1250 (11th Cir. 2005).

The Complaint does not satisfy these elements.

1. Commissioner Carollo’s Conduct Is Within His

Discretionary Authority.

For qualified immunity to apply, the public official must first

establish that actions were taken within the allowable scope of

discretionary authority. Gray ex rel. Alexander v. Bostic, 458 F.3d

1295, 1303 (11th Cir. 2006) (quoting Lumley v. City of Dade Cty., Fla.,

327 F.3d 1186, 1194 (11th Cir. 2003)). “After the defendant has

established that he was acting in a discretionary capacity, ‘the

burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that qualified immunity is not

appropriate.’” Brooks v. Powell, 800 F.3d 1295, 1306 (11th Cir. 2015)

(quoting Lee, 284 F.3d at 1194). “To meet this burden, a plaintiff

must establish that (1) his complaint pleads a plausible claim that

the defendant violated his federal rights (the ‘merits’ prong), and that

(2) precedent in this Circuit at the time of the alleged violation ‘clearly

established’ those rights (the ‘immunity’ prong).” Wall-DeSousa v.

Page 12 of 24
Case 1:22-cv-20224-KMW Document 27 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/14/2022 Page 13 of 24

Florida Dep’t of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, 691 F. App’x 584,

589 (11th Cir. 2017); Carollo v. Boria, 833 F.3d 1322, 1328 (11th Cir.

2016). A complaint must be dismissed when it fails to allege a

violation of a clearly established right. Williams v. Bd. of Regents of

the Univ. Sys. of Ga., 477 F.3d 1282, 1300 (11th Cir. 2007).

During the actions alleged in the Complaint, Commissioner

Carollo and his legislative colleagues addressed matters well within

their discretionary functions expressly authorized by the City

Charter. Part 1.A, Section 4(d) of the Charter empowers

commissioners to make “inquiry” as to the operations of the City

itself. Indeed, commissioners are elected as the people’s

representatives, charged with the public policy responsibility to

assure the public health, safety, and welfare of the entire City. Under

the City’s form of governance, the “buck stops” with the Commission.

Section 4(d) authorizes commissioners to work with and through the

City Manager and to interact with “subordinates of the city manager.”

One such “subordinate” is the Chief of Police with whom the

Commission may engage “for the purpose of inquiry and as may be

necessary as provided in section 14.” Miami City Charter, Section

4(d). In furtherance of that Charter authority, Commissioner Carollo

Page 13 of 24
Case 1:22-cv-20224-KMW Document 27 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/14/2022 Page 14 of 24

and the entire Commission are duty-bound to conduct relevant

inquiries into the activities of the various City departments.

The allowable inquiries challenged by Acevedo in the Complaint

include determining how the Chief is managing the Police

Department, whether the Department is responsibly using its

budgetary resources, and questioning whether the Department is

“top-heavy” in its administrative staff at the expense of street patrol

or other policy objectives of the City Commission. Whether or not

Acevedo approved of that inquiry, the Commission and the

commissioners are ultimately charged (and tested) by the public with

safeguarding the voters’ interests. These inquiries are decidedly

within the scope of the commissioners’ discretionary duties.

Inquiry into the City’s finances and the conduct of any City

official, including the Chief of Police, is specifically identified in

Section 14 of the City Charter. That includes looking into whether a

department head, such as the police chief, is acting against dedicated

City staff members and thereby engaging in an abuse of authority.

Just as the Complaint asserts, it is within the authority of the

Commission to obtain information from City officials, especially when

it occurs on the Commission dais at a publicly noticed Commission

Page 14 of 24
Case 1:22-cv-20224-KMW Document 27 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/14/2022 Page 15 of 24

meeting inquiring about the actions of a possibly out of control police

chief. Not only are these actions allowable, but it might be

responsibly said that a commissioner who fails to make inquiry into

the uses of City resources and the means for exercising authority is

abdicating his or her responsibility to the public.

On this Complaint, Commissioner Carollo’s official actions are

entirely consonant with his discretionary authority as a public

official. When viewed in the context of the City Charter, the

Complaint is capable of only one interpretation: Carollo’s actions

“were (1) undertaken pursuant to the performance of his duties, and

(2) within the scope of his authority.” Harbert Int’l, Inc. v. James, 157

F.3d 1271, 1282 (11th Cir. 1998). This “inquiry is not whether it was

within the defendant’s authority to commit the allegedly illegal act.”

Id. at 1282. “Instead, a court must ask whether the act complained

of, if done for a proper purpose, would be within, or reasonably

related to, the outer perimeter of an official’s discretionary duties.”

Id. The conduct attributable to Commissioner Carollo is well within

allowable authority empowering commissioners to exercise all

corporate and political power conferred upon the City by the Florida

Constitution, Florida laws, and the Miami-Dade County Home Rule

Page 15 of 24
Case 1:22-cv-20224-KMW Document 27 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/14/2022 Page 16 of 24

Charter. See Turk v. Richard, 47 So. 2d 543, 544 (Fla. 1950)

(recognizing authority of legislators to act in matters affecting the

public interest in addition to official legislative decisions).

The conduct described in the Complaint is within the

Commissioner’s authority and does not state a plausible claim of

First Amendment retaliation as required by Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.

at 677-678, 129 S. Ct. at 1949 (“A claim has facial plausibility when

the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the

reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct

alleged.”); Dermer v. Miami-Dade Cnty., 599 F.3d 1217, 1220 (11th

Cir. 2010). Commissioner Carollo’s alleged role in conducting factual

inquiry and seeking relevant information, but not ordering staff to

make decisions, does not state a plausible claim of First Amendment

retaliation. Acevedo’s conclusory allegations suggesting otherwise do

not buttress the implausible. See Berry v. Coleman, 172 Fed. App’x

929 (11th Cir. 2006) (“On a motion to dismiss, ‘[c]onclusory

allegations and unwarranted deductions of fact are not admitted as

true,’ particularly “when the conclusory allegations contradict the

other facts alleged in the complaint”).

2. Commissioner Carollo Did Not Violate a Clearly

Page 16 of 24
Case 1:22-cv-20224-KMW Document 27 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/14/2022 Page 17 of 24

Established Right.

“[T]o survive a defense of qualified immunity, it ‘must be obvious

to every reasonable person in [the defendant’s] place that [the

defendant’s conduct] would violate federal law.”’ Building

Empowerment by Stopping Trafficking, Inc. v. Jacobo, No. 12-23925-

CIV, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139336, at *4, 2013 WL 5435729, at *4

(S.D. Fla. Sep. 27, 2013) (citing Beauregard v. Olson, 84 F.3d 1402,

1404 (11th Cir. 1996)). For First Amendment retaliation, a defendant

“will only rarely be on notice that his actions are unlawful” because

it requires balancing “legal determinations that are intensely fact-

specific and do not lend themselves to clear, bright-line rules.”

Maggio v. Sipple, 211 F.3d 1346, 1354 (11th Cir. 2000). “Likewise, in

determining contested issues of causation, the defendant is entitled

to qualified immunity [w]here the facts assumed for summary

judgment purposes . . . show mixed motives (lawful and unlawful

motivations).” Brannon v. Finkelstein, 754 F.3d 1269, 1278-79 (11th

Cir. 2014).

The Complaint does not establish that Commissioner Carollo’s

conduct unlawfully retaliated against Acevedo for his protected

exercise of free speech. It is not enough for a complaint to claim

Page 17 of 24
Case 1:22-cv-20224-KMW Document 27 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/14/2022 Page 18 of 24

retaliation. The right must be clearly established in a “particularized”

sense, so that “the contours of the right” are clear enough for any

reasonable official to know that what the official is doing violates that

right. Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640, 107 S. Ct. 3034,

3039 (1987). Courts “look for a case based on materially similar

facts.” Randall v. Scott, 610 F.3d 701, 715 (11th Cir. 2010).

As the City pointed out in its Motion to Dismiss (DE17, pp. 12-

18), the “speech” described in the Complaint is not protected by the

First Amendment. Government employees have a more restricted

scope of First Amendment protection when speaking about matters

within their official sphere. Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410, 418,

126 S. Ct. 1951, 1958 (2006) (“When a citizen enters government

service, the citizen by necessity must accept certain limitations on

his or her freedom.”). Police officers have less First Amendment

protections. Lawrenz v. James, 852 F. Supp. 986, 991 (M.D. Fla.

1994), aff’d, 46 F.3d 70 (11th Cir. 1995).

Here, Acevedo’s speech as described in the Complaint was not

(1) in the context of speaking as a citizen and (2) did not involve a

matter of public concern. Indeed, the only way Acevedo could have

spoken as he did was because he possessed the confidential

Page 18 of 24
Case 1:22-cv-20224-KMW Document 27 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/14/2022 Page 19 of 24

information as Police Chief that was unavailable to the citizen at

large. And his memorandum that is at the center of his Complaint is

focused solely on self-preservation, not an overriding public interest.

Pickering v. Bd. of Educ., 391 U.S. 563, 568, 88 S. Ct. 1731, 1734-35

(1968); Vila v. Padron, 484 F.3d 1334, 1339 (11th Cir. 2007) (“When

a public employee speaks as an employee on matters of personal

interest and not as a citizen upon matters of public concern, the First

Amendment is not implicated.”).

This Complaint does not give rise to an actionable First

Amendment retaliation claim to overcome the qualified immunity

defense. No reasonable elected official would be on notice that acting

within given authority could subject the official to litigation for

violating clearly established law.

3. Commissioner Carollo Was Not on Notice that His

Actions Violated a Clearly Established Right.

An objective analysis of the Complaint provides no allowable

basis for a reasonable public official to conclude the conduct violated

well-established law. Rigdon v. Georgia Bd. of Regents, 2008 WL

11348453, at *6 (S.D. Ga. June 27, 2008) (citing Harlow v. Fitzgerald,

457 U.S. 800, 818, 102 S. Ct. 2727, 2783 (1982) (“We therefore hold

Page 19 of 24
Case 1:22-cv-20224-KMW Document 27 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/14/2022 Page 20 of 24

that government officials performing discretionary functions

generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their

conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or

constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have

known.”)). As a matter of law for this “core qualified immunity

analysis[,]” Johnson v. Clifton, 74 F.3d 1087, 1091 (11th Cir. 1996),

the Complaint offers no basis upon which to conclude Commissioner

Carollo was on actual notice of a civil rights violation. Legislative

action investigating the use of municipal resources and the exercise

of municipal power is far from an outlier. Neither Commissioner

Carollo’s actions nor those of his legislative colleagues were

reasonably understood to violate clearly established law. Because the

Complaint does not counter Commissioner Carollo’s showing that his

conduct was within the scope and furtherance of his discretionary

authority, the Complaint must be dismissed with prejudice.

CONCLUSION

Commissioner Carollo is entitled to the protections of qualified

and legislative immunity at the earliest stage of the case. Dismissal

for reasons of immunity should be ordered because a fair and

plausible reading of the Complaint establishes that Commissioner

Page 20 of 24
Case 1:22-cv-20224-KMW Document 27 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/14/2022 Page 21 of 24

Carollo acted within the discretionary scope and authority of his

responsibilities. His alleged conduct did not violate clearly

established laws. His actions as a City Commissioner-legislator were

within the legitimate sphere of his policy-making authorization. This

Court should dismiss the Complaint with prejudice for reasons of

qualified and legislative immunity and for failure to state a claim of

First Amendment Retaliation.

Respectfully submitted,

KUEHNE DAVIS LAW, P.A.

100 SE 2 Street, Suite 3105
Miami, FL 33131
Tel: 305.789.5989
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]

By: S/ Benedict P. Kuehne

BENEDICT P. KUEHNE
Florida Bar No. 233293

Page 21 of 24
Case 1:22-cv-20224-KMW Document 27 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/14/2022 Page 22 of 24

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify on March 14, 2022, I electronically filed the foregoing

document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify

the foregoing document is being served this day on all counsel of

record either via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing

generated by CM/ECF or in another authorized manner for those

counsel or parties not authorized to receive electronically Notices of

Electronic Filing.

By: S/ Benedict P. Kuehne

BENEDICT P. KUEHNE

Page 22 of 24
Case 1:22-cv-20224-KMW Document 27 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/14/2022 Page 23 of 24

SERVICE LIST

Marcos D. Jimenez Mason A. Pertnoy

Marcos D. Jimenez, P.A. Florida Bar No. 18334
Florida Bar No. 441503 Krinzman Huss Lubetsky
255 Alhambra Circle, 8th Fl. Feldman & Hotte
Miami, FL 33134 Alfred I. duPont Building
Tel: (305) 740-1975 169 E. Flagler Street, Suite 500
[email protected] Miami, Florida 33131
Counsel for Plaintiff Tel: (305) 854-9700
[email protected]
John R. Byrne [email protected]
Leon Cosgrove, LLP [email protected]
Florida Bar No. 126294 Counsel for Defendant City Manager Noriega

255 Alhambra Circle, 8th Fl.

Miami, Florida 33134 Frank Quintero, Jr.
Tel: (305) 740-1975 Quintero Broche, P.A.
[email protected] Florida Bar No. 399167
Counsel for Plaintiff 75 Valencia Ave., Suite 800
Coral Gables, Florida 33134
Victoria Mendez, City Attorney Tel: (305) 446-0303
Florida Bar No. 194931 [email protected]
Kevin R. Jones [email protected]
Florida Bar No. 119067 [email protected]
Counsel for Defendant Commissioner Reyes
Kerri L. McNulty
Florida Bar No. 16171
Jose M. Quinon
Stephanie K. Panoff
Florida Bar No. 201944
Florida Bar No. 69214
2333 Brickell Ave Ste A1
444 S.W. 2nd Avenue, Suite 945
Miami, FL 33129-2497
Miami, FL 33130-1910
Tel: 305-858-5700
Tel: (305) 416-1800
[email protected] [email protected]
Counsel for Defendant Commissioner Reyes
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Counsel for Defendant City

Page 23 of 24
Case 1:22-cv-20224-KMW Document 27 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/14/2022 Page 24 of 24

Thomas A. Tucker Ronzetti

Tucker Ronzetti, P.A.
Florida Bar No. 965723
5760 SW 46th Ter
Miami, FL 33155-6015
Tel: 305-546-4638
[email protected]
Counsel for Defendant Commissioner
Diaz de la Portilla

Robert W. Rodriguez
Fla. Bar. No. 856975
ROBERT W. RODRIGUEZ, P.A.
4909 S. W. 74 Court, 1st Floor
Miami, FL 33155
Tel: (305) 444-1446
[email protected]
Counsel for Defendant Commissioner
Diaz de la Portilla

Javier A. Lopez
Fla. Bar. No. 016787
Michael R. Lorigas
[email protected]
Fla. Bar No. 1011803
KOZYAK TROPIN &
THROCKMORTON LLP
2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd., 9th Floor
Coral Gables, FL 33134
(305) 372-1800
[email protected]
[email protected]
Counsel for Defendant Commissioner
Diaz de la Portilla

Page 24 of 24