HomeMy Public PortalAboutPRR 16-2280From: Records [mailto:records@commerce-group.com]
Sent: Friday, July 22, 2016 2:03 PM
To: rsweetapple@sweetapplelaw.com; 'OConnor, Joanne M.' <JOConnor@jonesfoster.com>; Rita Taylor
<RTaylor@gulf-stream.org>; 'postman@csklegal.com' <postman@csklegal.com>;
'joshua.goldstein@csklegal.com'<joshua.goldstein@csklegal.com>; 'hochman@jambg.com'
<hochman@jambg.com>; cfeld@richmangreer.com; Ifreire@richmangreer.com
Subject: Records Request #1275
RECORDS REQUEST (the "Request")
Date of Request: 7/22/16
Requestor's Request ID#: 1275
REQUESTEE: Custodian of Records Sweetapple. Broeker & Varkas
Custodian of Records Jones, Foster. Johnston & Stubbs
Custodian of Records Town of Gulf Stream
Custodian of Records Richman Greer, P.A.
Custodian of Records Cole Scott & Kissane. (Lakeview Avenue)
Custodian of Records Johnson Anselmo Murdoch Burke Piper & Hochman. P.A.
REQUESTOR: Martin E. O'Boyle
REQUESTOR'S CONTACT INFORMATION: E -Mail: records@commerce-group.com
Fax: 954-360-0807 Or Contact Records Custodian at records ,commerce-eroun.corn
Phone: 954-360-7713; Address: 1280 West Newport Center Drive, Deerfield Beach, FL 33442
REQUEST: Provide conies of all claims for insurance coverage from the Florida League of Cities or any
of its affiliates made by any of the Reguestees This Request shall be limited to the following period of
time beginning January 1, 2013 to the date of this Request.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING REQUEST:
THIS REQUEST IS MADE PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 1, SECTION 24 OF THE FLORIDA CONSTITUTION AND CHAPTER 119,
FLORIDA STATUTES
IF THE PUBLIC RECORDS BEING SOUGHT ARE MAINTAINED BY YOUR AGENCY IN AN ELECTRONIC FORMAT PLEASE
PRODUCE THE RECORDS IN THE ORIGINAL ELECTRONIC FORMAT IN WHICH THEY WERE CREATED OR RECEIVED.
SEE 6119.01(2)(F). FLORIDA STATUTES. IF NOT AVAILABLE IN ELECTRONIC FORM, IT IS REQUESTED THAT THIS
RECORDS REQUEST BE FULFILLED ON I I X 17 PAPER NOTE, IN ALL CASE (UNLESS IMPOSSIBLE) THE COPIES
SHOULD BE TWO SIDED AND SHOULD BE BILLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH Section 119.07(4) (a) (2)
ALSO PLEASE TAKE NOTE OF §119.070)(H) OF THE FLORIDA STATUTES. WHICH PROVIDES THAT -IF A CIVIL ACTION
IS INSTITUTED WITHIN THE 30 -DAY PERIODTO ENFORCE THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION WITH RESPECT TO
THE REQUESTED RECORD, THE CUSTODIAN OF PUBLIC RECORDS MAY NOT DISPOSE OF THE RECORD EXCEPT BY
ORDER OF A COURT OF COMPETENT.IURISDICTION AFTER NOTICE TO ALL AFFECTED PARTIES'."
ALL ELECTRONIC COPIES ARE REQUESTED TO BE SENT BY E-MAIL DELIVERY.
PLEASE PROVIDE THE APPROXIMATE COSTS (IF ANY) TO FULFILL THIS PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST IN ADVANCE.
It will be required that the Requester approve of any costs, asserted by the Agency (as defined in Florida Statute, Chapter 119.01
(Definitions)), in advance of any costs Imposed to the Requestor by the Agency.
"BY FULFILLING THIS RECORDS REQUEST, THE AGENCY ACKNOWLEDGES THAT THE RESPONSIVE DOCUMENTS
ARE "PUBLIC RECORDS" AS DEFINED 1N CHAPTER 119, FLORIDA STATUTES".
I/P/NP/FLRR
07.28.2015
TOWN OF GULF STREAM
PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA
Delivered via e-mail
July 22, 2016
Martin E. O'Boyle [mail to: recordsna,commerce-groun.coml
Re: GS #2280 (Records Request #1275)
Provide copies of all claims for insurance coverage from the Florida League of Cities or any
of its affiliates made by any of the Requestees. This Request shall be limited to the following
period of time beginning January 1, 2013 to the date of this Request.
Dear Martin E. O'Boyle [mail to: recordsaa,commerce-groun.coml,
The Town of Gulf Stream has received your public records request dated July 22, 2016. The
original public record request can be found at the following link
hqp://www2.gulf-stream.org/weblink/O/doc/97515/Pagel.aspx.
Please be advised that the Town of Gulf Stream is currently working on a large number of
incoming public records requests. The Town will use its very best efforts to respond to you in a
reasonable amount of time with the appropriate response or an estimated cost to respond.
Sincerely,
Town Clerk, Custodian of the Records
TOWN OF GULF STREAM
PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA
Delivered via c -mail
August 3, 2016
Martin E. O'Boyle [mail to: recordsAcommerce-groun.coml
Re: GS #2280 (Records Request #1275)
Provide copies of all claims for insurance coverage from the Florida League of Cities or anyof
its affiliates made by any of the Requestees. This Request shall be limited to the following period
of time beginning January 1, 2013 to the date of this Request.
Dear Martin E. O'Boyle [mail to: records(d,commerce-erouo.coml,
The Town of Gulf Stream has received your original record requests dated July 22, 2016. Your
original public records request can be found at the following link:
hqp://www2.gulf-stream.ore/weblink/O/doc/97515/Pagel.aspxx. Please refer to the referenced
number above with any future correspondence.
Please be advised the Requestees have made no claim for insurance coverage from the Florida
League of Cities or its affiliates on any Gulf Stream matter and, therefore, has no claims
responsive to the aforementioned public records request.
We consider this matter closed.
Sincerely,
Town Clerk, Custodian of the Records
TOWN OF GULF STREAM
PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA
Delivered via e-mail
August 12, 2016
Martin E. O'Boyle [mail to: recordsacommerce-eroup.com
Re: GS #2280 (Records Request #1275)
Provide copies of all claims for insurance coverage from the Florida League of Cities or any of
its affiliates made by any of the Requestees. This Request shall be limited to the following period
of time beginning January 1, 2013 to the date of this Request.
Dear Martin E. O'Boyle [mail to: recordsaa.commerce-eroun.coml,
The Town of Gulf Stream has received your original record requests dated July 22, 2016. Your
original public records request can be found at the following link:
bttu://www2.gulf-stream.ore/weblink/O/doc/97515/Pagel.aVxx. Please refer to the referenced
number above with any future correspondence.
Please be advised that the only Requestee to have made a claim to the League of Cities
responsive to your request is the Town of Gulf Stream. The Town is producing to you, at the
above link, its Loss Claim Report, which identifies claims submitted to the League of Cities by
the Town during the referenced time period, as well as e-mails from the Town asking if coverage
was available.
To ensure that there are no other communications to the League of Cities inquiring regarding
coverage during the two and a half years you requested will require extensive resources. The
Town estimates that to fully respond to your request will require an additional .50 hour of
administrative support at $28.92 per hour, the labor cost of the personnel providing the service,
per Fla. Stat. § I I9.07(4)(d). If the costs of producing these documents will exceed your deposit,
the Town will provide you with an initial production of responsive records and an estimate for
the production of any additional responsive records. If the costs of production are less than the
deposit, the Town will provide you with the responsive records and a refund.
(.50 hours @ 28.92 =14.46) = Deposit Due: $14.46 in cash or check.
We consider this matter closed.
Respectfully,
Town Clerk, Custodian of the Records
FLORIDA MUNICIPAL INSURANCE TRUST
MEMBERS QUARTERLY REPORT- LIABILITY / PROPERTY
FMIT #: 0228 CLAIMS ACTIVITY FOR OCTOBER 1, 2007 - SEPTEMBER 30, 2016
TOWN OF GULF STREAM AS OF JUNE 30, 2016
CLAIMS FOR FUND YEAR: 2012
FILE NUMBER LOSS DATE RECEIVED DATE OPEN / CLOSE CLOSED DATE
GC2013074801 05/07/2013
05/09/2013 C
CLAIM CODE: 408103 TELEPHONE SYSTEM DAMAGED BY LIGHTINING STRIKE
PRIMARY CLAIMANT: 'ROWN OF GULF STREAM
$0.00
$0.00
0/S RESERVES
REAL AND PERSONAL PROPERTY:
$0.00
AUTO PHYSICAL DAMAGE:
$0.00
PROPERTY DAMAGE:
$0.D0
INJURY:
$0.00
EXPENSE/LEGAL:
$0.00
TOTAL FOR CLAIM:
$0.00
07/05/2013
PAID TO DATE RECOVERIES TOTAL INCURRED
$3,295.00
$O.DO
$3,295.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
v.00
$0.D0
$62.50
$0.00
$62.50
$3,357.50
$0.00
$3,357.50
FILE NUMBER
LOSS DATE
RECEIVED DATE
OPEN/ CLOSE
CLOSED DATE
VA2013074772
CLAIM CODE:
04/22/2013
305415 OV HIT IV
05/06/2013
C
09/30/2014
PRIMARY CLAIMANT: CHRISTINE KRINVIC
0/S RESERVES PAID TO DATE RECOVERIES TOTAL INCURRED
REAL AND PERSONAL PROPERTY:
AUTO PHYSICAL DAMAGE:
PROPERTY DAMAGE:
INJURY:
EXPENSE/LEGAL:
TOTAL FOR CLAIM:
CLAIMS ACTIVITY FOR 10/01/2012 - 09/30/2013
PREMIUM: $51,714.D0 NUMBER OF CLAIMS: 2
$0.00
$O.Go
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$415.38
$332.69
$82.69
$0.00
$3,500.55
$0.00
$3,500.55
$0.00
$0.00
$0.G0
$0.00
$0.00
$85.00
$0.00
$85.00
$0.00
$4,000.93
$332.69
$3,668.24
TOTAL INCURRED: $7,025.74 LOSS RATIO: 0.14
Page 4 of S
FLORIDA MUNICIPAL INSURANCE TRUST
MEMBERS QUARTERLY REPORT- LIABILITY / PROPERTY
FMIT #: 0228 CLAIMS ACTIVITY FOR OCTOBER 1, 2007 - SEPTEMBER 30, 2016
TOWN OF GULF STREAM AS OF JUNE 30, 2016
CLAIMS FOR FUND YEAR: 2013
FILE NUMBER LOSS DATE RECEIVED DATE OPEN / CLOSE CLOSED DATE
GC2013076963 10/23/2013
01/28/2014
OL
CLAIM CODE: 1063999 DENIAL OF BUILDING APPLICATION FOR ZONING
REVIEW ...P
PRIMARY CLAIMANT: CHRISTOPHER O'HARE
$0.00
$25,000.00
$0.00
O/S RESERVES
PAID TO DATE
REAL AND PERSONAL PROPERTY:
$0.00
$0.00
AUTO PHYSICAL DAMAGE:
$0.D0
$0.00
PROPERTY DAMAGE:
$0.00
$0.00
INJURY:
$25,000.00
$0.00
EXPENSE/LEGAL:
$40,008.60
$.31,086.90
TOTAL FOR CLAIM:
$65,008.60
$31,086.90
RECOVERIES TOTALINNRRED
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$25,000.00
$0.00
$71,095.50
$0.00
$96,095.50
FILE NUMBER LOSS DATE
RECEIVED DATE
OPEN / CLOSE
CLOSED DATE
GC2014077401 02/17/2014
03/18/2014
OL
CLAIM CODE: 1033199 WRONGFUL REMOVAL OF POLITICAL CAMPAIGN SIGNS/CML
PRIMARY CLAIMANT: MARTIN O'BOYLE
O/S RESERVES
PAID TO DATE
RECOVERIES
TOTAL INCURRED
REAL AND PERSONAL PROPERTY:
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
AUTO PHYSICAL DAMAGE:
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
PROPERTY DAMAGE:
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
INJURY:
$20,000.00
$0.00
$0.00
$20,000.00
E%PENSE/LEGAL•
$38,527.85
$165,460.50
$0.D0
$203,988.35
TOTAL FOR CLAIM:
$58,527.85
$165,460.50
$0.00
$223,98835
FILE NUMBER LOSS DATE
RECEIVED DATE
OPEN / CLOSE
CLOSED DATE
GC2014078889 04/03/2014
09/17/2014
OL
CLAIM CODE: 1233199 RETALIATION/ CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT SLANDER ... PKG
PRIMARY CLAIMANT: MARTIN O'BOYLE
CIS RESERVES
PAID TO DATE
RECOVERIES
TOTAL INCURRED
REAL AND PERSONAL PROPERTY:
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
AUTO PHYSICAL DAMAGE:
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
PROPERTY DAMAGE:
$0.D0
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
INJURY:
$25,000.00
$0.00
$0.D0
$25,000.00
EXPENSE/LEGAL:
$121,785.44
$114,437.33
$0.D0
$236,222.77
TOTAL FOR CLAIM:
$146,785.44
$114,437.33
$0.D0
$261,222.77
Page 5 of S
FLORIDA MUNICIPAL INSURANCE TRUST
MEMBERS QUARTERLY REPORT- LIABILITY/ PROPERTY
FMIT #: 0228 CLAIMS ACTIVITY FOR OCTOBER 1, 2007 - SEPTEMBER 30, 2016
TOWN OF GULF STREAM AS OF JUNE 30, 2016
CLAIMS FOR FUND YEAR: 2013
FILE NUMBER LOSS DATE
RECEIVED DATE
OPEN /CLOSE
CLOSED DATE
$0.00
GC2014079013 07/15/2014
10/02/2014
OL
$O.DO
AUTO PHYSICAL DAMAGE:
CLAIM CODE: 1233199 ALLEGED BATTERY/VIOLATION OF CML RIGHTS (SF)
PROPERTY DAMAGE:
$25,000.00
INJURY:
PRIMARY CLAIMANT: MARTIN O'BOYLE
EXPENSE/LEGAU
$33,798.60
TOTAL FOR CLAIM:
$58,798.60
FILE NUMBER LOSS DATE
0/S RESERVES
PAID TO DATE
RECOVERIES
TOTAL INCURRED
REAL AND PERSONAL PROPERTY:
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
AUTO PHYSICAL DAMAGE:
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
PROPERTY DAMAGE:
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
INJURY:
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
EXPENSE/LEGAL:
$32,576.86
$55,394.42
$0.00
$87,971.28
TOTAL FOR CLAIM:
$32,576.86
$55,394.42
$0.00
$87,971.28
FILE NUMBER LOSS DATE
RECEIVED DATE
OPEN / CLOSE
CLOSED DATE
GC2014080149 08/27/2014
02/17/2015
CLAIM CODE: 1096099 INVERSE CONDEMNATION / TREPASS
PRIMARY CLAIMANT: MARTIN O'BOYLE
$0.00
$0A0
O/S RESERVES
REAL AND PERSONAL PROPERTY:
$O.DO
AUTO PHYSICAL DAMAGE:
$0.00
PROPERTY DAMAGE:
$25,000.00
INJURY:
$0.G0
EXPENSE/LEGAU
$33,798.60
TOTAL FOR CLAIM:
$58,798.60
FILE NUMBER LOSS DATE
RECEIVED DATE
GC2014080553 DB/25/2014
04/02/2015
CLAIM CODE: 1033299 VIOLATION OF SUNSHINE LAW
PRIMARY CLAIMANT: MARTIN O"BOYLE
O/S RESERVES
REAL AND PERSONAL PROPERTY:
$0.00
AUTO PHYSICAL DAMAGE:
$0.00
PROPERTY DAMAGE:
$0.00
INJURY:
$0,00
EXPENSE/LEGAL:
$D.00
TOTAL FOR CLAIM:
$0.00
OL
PAID TO DATE RECOVERIES TOTAL INCURRED
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0A0
$O.DO
$0.D0
($25,000.00)
$0.00
$O.DO
$0.00
$11,201.40
$0.00
$45,000.00
$11,201.40
$0.00
$20,000.00
OPEN / CLOSE CLOSED DATE
C 64/06/2015
PAID TO DATE RECOVERIES TOTALINCURRED
$O.DO
$0.00
$O.DO
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$O.DO
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$DAO
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
Page 6 of S
FMIT #: 0228
TOWN OF GULF STREAM
CLAIMS FOR FUND YEAR: 2013
FLORIDA MUNICIPAL INSURANCE TRUST
MEMBERS QUARTERLY REPORT- LIABILITY / PROPERTY
CLAIMS ACTIVITY FOR OCTOBER 1, 2007 - SEPTEMBER 30, 2016
AS OF JUNE 30, 2016
FILE NUMBER LOSS DATE RECEIVED DATE
GC2014080827 03/17/2014 04/29/2015
CLAIM CODE: 1233199 ADA VIOLATIONS ... PKG
PRIMARY CLAIMANT: MARTIN O'BOYLE
0/S RESERVES PAID TO DATE RECOVERIES TOTAL INCURRED
OPEN / CLOSE CLOSED DATE
C G4/30/2015
REAL AND PERSONAL PROPERTY:
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
AUTO PHYSICAL DAMAGE:
$0.00
$O,OO
$0.00
PROPERTY DAMAGE:
$0.00
$0.00
$0.DO
INJURY:
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
EXPENSE/LEGAL:
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
TOTAL FOR CLAIM:
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
FILE NUMBER LOSS DATE
RECEIVED DATE
OPEN/ CLOSE
CLOSED DATE
VA2014078428 07/21/2014
07/22/2014
C
08/14/2014
CLAIM CODE: 305415 OV STRUCK IV (SF)
PRIMARY CLAIMANT; MYER BUCHBINDER
0/S RESERVES
PAID TO DATE
RECOVERIES
REAL AND PERSONAL PROPERTY:
AUTO PHYSICAL DAMAGE:
PROPERTY DAMAGE:
INJURY:
EXPENSE/LEGAU
TOTAL FOR CLAIM:
CLAIMS ACTIVITY FOR 10/01/2013 - 09/30/2014
PREMIUM: $57,085.00 NUMBER OF CLAIMS: 8
$0.00
$0.DO
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
TOTALINCURRED
$D.DO
$0.00
$0.00
$O.Do
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$O.DO
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
TOTAL INCURRED: $739,277.90 LOSS RATIO: 12.95
Page 7 of S
FLORIDA MUNICIPAL INSURANCE TRUST
MEMBERS QUARTERLY REPORT- LIABILITY / PROPERTY
FMIT #: 0228 CLAIMS ACRVITY FOR OCTOBER 1, 2007 - SEPTEMBER 30, 2016
TOWN OF GULF STREAM AS OF JUNE 30, 2016
CLAIMS FOR FUND YEAR: 2014
FILE NUMBER LOSS DATE RECEIVED DATE OPEN / CLOSE CLOSED DATE
GC2015080845 03/12/2015
04/30/2015
C
02/16/2016
CLAIM CODE: 1033199 ADA VIOLATIONS ... PKG
PRIMARY CLAIMANT: MARTIN O'BOYLE
CIS RESERVES
O/S RESERVES
PAID TO DATE
RECOVERIES
TOTAL INCURRED
REAL AND PERSONAL PROPERTY:
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
AUTO PHYSICAL DAMAGE:
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
10.00
PROPERTY DAMAGE:
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
INJURY:
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
EKPENSE/LEGAL:
$0.00
$1,003.60
$0.00
$1,003.60
TOTAL FOR CLAIM:
$0.00
$1,003.60
$O.DO
$1,003.60
FILE NUMBER LOSS DATE RECEIVED DATE OPEN / CLOSE CLOSED DATE
GC2015082191 03/27/2015 03/26/2015
C
11/10/2015
CLAIM CODE: 1033299 PUBLIC RECORD REQUEST ... PKG
PRIMARY CLAIMANT:
CIS RESERVES
PAID TO DATE
RECOVERIES
TOTAL INCURRED
REAL AND PERSONAL PROPERTY:
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
AUTO PHYSICAL DAMAGE:
$0.00
$O.DO
$0.00
$0.00
PROPERTY DAMAGE:
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
INJURY:
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
EXPENSE/LEGAL:
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
TOTAL FOR CLAIM:
$0.00
$0.00
$O.DO
$0.00
CLAIMS ACTIVITY FOR 10/01/2014 - 09/30/2015
PREMIUM: $63,113.00 NUMBER OF CLAIMS:
2
TOTAL INCURRED:
$1,003.60
LOSS RATIO: 0.02
Page 8 of 5
FLORIDA MUNICIPAL INSURANCE TRUST
MEMBERS QUARTERLY REPORT - LIABILITY/PROPERTY
FMIT #: 0228 OHMS ACTIVITY FOR OCTOBER 1, 2007 - SEPTEMBER 30, 2016
TOWN OF GULF STREAM AS OF JUNE 30, 2016
CLAIMS FOR FUND YEAR: 2015
FILE NUMBER LOSS DATE RECEIVED DATE OPEN/ CLOSE CLOSED DATE
GC2016084868 06/24/2016
0624/2016
OL
CLAIM CODE: 1232499 MALICIOUS PROSECUTION
TOTAL INCURRED:
$75,000.00
LOSS RATIO:
PRIMARY CLAIMANT:
O/S RESERVES
PAID TO DATE
RECOVERIES
TOTAL INCURRED
REAL AND PERSONAL PROPERTY:
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
AUTO PHYSICAL DAMAGE:
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
PROPERTY DAMAGE:
$0.D0
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
INJURY:
$25,000.00
$0.00
$0.00
$25,000.00
EXPENSE/LEGAL:
$50,000.00
$0.00
$0.00
$50,000.00
TOTAL FOR CLAIM:
$75,000.00
$0.00
$O.DO
$75,000.00
CLAIMS ACTIVITY FOR 10/01/2015 - 09/30/2016
PREMIUM: $63,113.00 NUMBER OF CLAIMS: 1
TOTAL INCURRED:
$75,000.00
LOSS RATIO:
1.19
Page 9 of S
6.
0
I
8 8
=88
aqqQ
8
»
»
S
$ $
e3
Z �
»
6.
0
I
X11 d 3
,T5� 1a y
o` o`
syr � �WWW����444rrr
S
A �� R � °�'
n
k
9
= " a
v�9 Mill I
Fpg vF r C g
iV°
3 € g
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
�F
yg9 9 E
g gig_
pp gg bpi �
S i 9 i$�� .� � S� z� 5 3 m�$ i e i -32F
Renee Basel
From: Bill Thrasher
Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2014 1:01 PM
To: ccoleman@flcities.com; Irma Cohen
Cc: Matias, Sally (SMatias@jonesfoster.com)
Attachments: Case #14-803174.pdf
To all,
The Town received this attached case late yesterday, 4/29/14. Ms. O'Connor and Mr. Hochman were listed as to be
"served".
Please advise? This appears to be similar to a previous case document, yet different.
Thank you,
MM
William H. Thrasher
Town Manager, ICMA-CM
100 Sea Rd.
Gulf Stream, FL 33483
561-276-5116
561-737-0188 fax
www.gulf-stream.org
Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipients). If
you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original
message. Florida has a very broad public records law. Written communications regarding Town of Gulf Stream business
are public records available to the public upon request. Your e-mail communications are therefore subject to public
disclosure. Under Florida law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in
response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by phone or in
writing.
Case 9:14-cv-80317-DMM Document 28 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/28/2014 Page 1 of 30
MARTIN E. O'BOYLE,
Plaintiff,
V.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No.14-80317-CIV-Middlebrooks
THE TOWN OF GULF STREAM;
William Thrasher (Individually);
Garret Ward (Individually);
Defendants.
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
COMES NOW, The Plaintiff, Martin E. O'Boyle, ("Plaintiff'), by and through the
undersigned counsel, hereby sues the Town of Gulf Stream (the "Town', Town Manager
William Thrasher, individually, ("Thrasher"), and Town Police Chief Garret Ward, individually,
and as grounds therefore alleges the following:
Introduction
The Town of Gulf Stream is a small, selective, prestigious, and provincial town with a
country club mentality that has held elections for commissioners only twice since the late 1970's.
In the many years the Town did not hold elections, the candidates were selected by the sitting
Commission or candidates were chosen to run unopposed by the town's Civic Association.
Elections have always been disfavored and no one becomes commissioner without the support of
the Civic Association.
1 of 30
Case 9:14-cv-80317-DMM Document 28 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/28/2014 Page 2 of 30
Martin O'Boyle challenged the status quo in 2014 by deciding to run as a 6i6 candidate,
unendorsed by the Civic Association, thereby prompting an election. O'Boyle is a colorful
character from Camden New Jersey who did not fit into the refined, understated, country -club
group. A salesman at heart, he campaigned in an overt and highly visible manner. Because
O'Boyle disrupted the cabal -like ordainment by the Civic Association which preceded
Commissioner status, the Town government retaliated to thwart O'Boyle's election efforts. The
Town enforced facially unconstitutional laws targeting O'Boyle's political speech up until and
including the Election Day. This suit seeks redress and recognition that the United States'
Constitution protects against the below mentioned transgressions.
Parties, Jurisdiction, and Venue
Martin O'Boyle ("Plaintiff') is a citizen of the United States of America, over
18 years of age.
2. O'Boyle owns a residence located in Palm Beach County, in the Southern
District of Florida, at 23 Hidden Harbour Drive, Gulf Stream, Florida, 33483.
3. O'Boyle was a candidate for Town Commissioner in the Town of Gulf Stream
in the March 11, 2014 Election.
4. The Town of Gulf Stream is located in Palm Beach County, in the Southern
District of Florida (the "Town").
S. William Thrasher resides in Palm Beach County and is the Town Manager for
the Town of Gulf Stream.
6. Police Chief Garret Ward resides in Palm Beach County and is the Police Chief
for the Town of Gulf Stream.
7. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, 1367, and 42 U.S.C. §
2 of 30
Case 9:14-cv-80317-DMM Document 28 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/28/2014 Page 3 of 30
1983 because:
"Every person who, under color of any
statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of
any State or Territory or the District of Columbia,
subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of
the United States or any other person within its
jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights,
privileges, or immunities secured by the
Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party
injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other
proper proceeding for redress, except that in any
action brought against a judicial officer or an act or
omission taken in such officer's judicial capacity,
injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a
declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief
was unavailable".
8. Venue is appropriate in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and Rule
3.1, Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
Factual Background
The 1980's. Martin O'Boyle, the Town of Gulf Stream, Mayor Koch. and Signs
9. In the mid 1980's (Circa 1985) Plaintiff was developing residential homes in the
Hidden Harbour district of the Town.
10. Plaintiff completed a residential home and wanted to attract potential buyers.
11. Plaintiff erected a sign in the Hidden Harbour district stating "Open House Custom
Home" and listing an address.
12. Shortly thereafter, Plaintiff's sign disappeared and Plaintiff replaced his sign with an
identical copy.
13. Plaintiffs sign would then go missing and he would replace it, the cycle continued
several more times.
14. Each sign would disappear overnight.
3 of 30
Case 9:14-cv-80317-DMM Document 28 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/28/2014 Page 4 of 30
15. After about six signs went missing Plaintiff spoke to Town Mayor Koch —the premier
realtor in the Town — and Mayor Koch asked Plaintiff if Koch's real-estate agency could have
the listing to sell the property. Plaintiff refused.
16. Mayor Koch ominously told Plaintiff that real-estate signs could only contain the
owner's name and the address of the property.
17. Plaintiff then asked the Town Police to set up a stakeout to watch for the thief who
had been taking Plaintiffs signs.
18. For the next three nights, Plaintiffs signs remained unmolested while the police were
allegedly conducting a stakeout.
19. All three nights Plaintiff went out to check on his sign at around 3:00-4:00 a.m. and
saw no Police presence.
20. On the day after the third night, Plaintiff was informed by Town Police that the sign
thief had given up.
21. Shortly thereafter, Plaintiffs sign was stolen again.
22. Plaintiff then went to the Town garage to talk to Clarence, a public works employee,
and found several of his real-estate sales signs.
signs.
Koch.
23. Clarence confessed that the Police Chief Greer and others made him take Plaintiff s
24. Plaintiff confronted the Town Clerk who linked Plaintiff telephonically with Mayor
25. Words were exchanged between Plaintiff and the Mayor.
26. Plaintiff replaced his real-estate sign again and the Town arrested him because the
sign read "Open House Custom Home." The Town insisted that its sign ordinance required the
4 of 30
Case 9:14-cv-80317-DMM Document 28 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/28/2014 Page 5 of 30
sign to contain only the owners name and address.
27. Town Prosecutor John Randolph failed to secure a conviction for the Town because
Plaintiff had transferred ownership from Martin E. O'Boyle to Open House Custom Home, Inc,
thereby complying with the "owner's name" provision.
28. Mayor Koch continued to serve as Mayor until 2012 and continued to operate a real
estate agency that conducted business in the Town.
29. Mayor Joan Orthwein, successor of Mayor Koch, served as commissioner with Koch
for over 15 years and was an agent with Koch's realty company.
30. The current Town Attorney is John Randolph.
31. The Town has not shaken its arbitrary/intentional policies of suppressing undesirable
speech as of April 2014.
The Campaign
32. On or about late January or early February 2014, Plaintiff duly registered to ran for
Town Commissioner in the March 11, 2014, election.
33. It was during this time frame that Mayor Joan Orthwein told Plaintiff that he was "the
least -well known candidate."
34. Plaintiff campaigned by advertising his candidacy with yellow signs bearing his name
and the elected position for which he is running.
35. Plaintiffs signs were identical in size and configuration to any other temporary
political signs common in municipal, national, and state elections.
36. Plaintiffs signs were made of more robust material than a typical campaign sign and
cost five dollars each.
37. February 16, 2014, Plaintiff and his employees started placing signs around the Town
5 of 30
Case 9:14-cv-80317-DMM Document 28 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/28/2014 Page 6 of 30
of Gulf Stream, Florida.
38. On February 17, 2014, Town Sgt. Haseley created an incident report noting that
Plaintiffs signs were in violation of the Town's code because they were political signs placed in
the right of way.
39. This prohibition is codified in the content -based section 66-446(a)(5)(d) of the Town
code, which regulates only political signage; 66446(a)(5)(f) regulates temporary political signs
only if their content relates to an election.
40. Other sections of the Town's code govern other types of signs, such as real-estate
signs or club signage.
41. Under 66-446(a) signs are not permitted unless they contain specific content; no
historical, holiday -related, or educational signs are allowed.
42. Signs are defined under Town Code Sec. 66-1 but "signs placed or erected by a
governmental agency or nonprofit civic associations for a public purpose in the public interest
shall not be included herein..."
43. Additionally, Town Code Sec. 66-447 relates solely to a subset of real-estate signs
and Town Code Sec. 66-448 requires review and approval for all non -real-estate signs by a board
that meets once monthly but not every month.
44. On or about February 17 or 18, 2014 Plaintiff noticed that some of his political
campaign signs were missing.
45. Plaintiff went to the Town public works garage, based on his experience from the
1980's, where he discovered some of his missing political campaign signs.
46. Plaintiff asked the Town public -works employees how his campaign signs made their
way to the Town's public works garage.
6 of 30
Case 9:14-cv-80317-DMM Document 28 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/28/2014 Page 7 of 30
47. The Town employees informed Plaintiff that they had no knowledge of how the signs
ended up in the Town's public works garage.
48. In an effort to further his campaign, Plaintiff continued to place and re -place his
political campaign signs around Town.
49. Plaintiff placed his signs in various locations, some locations constituted municipal
property and the Town right-of-way.
50. On February 21, 2014 Thrasher issued Plaintiff a charging document from the Town,
signed by Thrasher, which stated that Plaintiff was in violation of Town code section 66-
446(a)(5)(d): The placing of signs anywhere on public property or rights-of-way is prohibited.
51. Thrasher gave Plaintiff 12 hours to remove the signs which were placed on public
property and on the right-of-way.
52. Thrasher also wrote that if Plaintiff did not remove his political campaign signs, the
Town would remove them.
53. Around that time, Plaintiff began parking his pickup truck, which had political
campaign banners affixed to stands places in the bed of the truck, in the Town Hall parking lot.
54. The Town has specifically designated the Town Hall parking lot for public parking in
its comprehensive land use plan.
55. Plaintiffs pick-up truck did not impede ingress or egress from the Town's parking lot
or in any way interfere with accessibility to Town Hall.
56. The parking lot of Town Hall has traditionally been used for public speech.
57. On February 24, 2014, Plaintiff received another charging document stating that his
banner clad truck was in violation of the Town code because the truck carried signs on town
property and in the right-of-way. These violations ostensibly stemmed from the mere fact that
7 of 30
Case 9:14-cv-80317-DMM Document 28 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/28/2014 Page 8 of 30
the truck had speech on it.
58. Town Manager Thrasher, along with other public officials, have bumper stickers or
other personalized speech on their vehicles when they utilize parking at Town Hall or public
roadways.
The Sign Sweep
59. On or about March 1 and 2, 2014 Plaintiff campaigned door-to-door in the Place Au
Soleil district of the Town.
60. While he campaigned, Plaintiff earned the consent of numerous residents to place his
political signs on their lawns.
61. The residents who gave Plaintiff their consent expressed a desire to join Plaintiff's
cause, group, or "join his team" in displaying Plaintiffs signs and offering support as needed.
62. Many of the residents in Place Au Soleil were extremely friendly to Plaintiff because
they felt disenfranchised due to their geographical separation from the majority of the Town.
63. On March 3, 2014 Thrasher directed Town police and Town public works employees
to remove all of Plaintiffs signs that existed in the town right-of-way.
64. Thrasher gave this order after conversing with Plaintiff whereupon Thrasher told
Plaintiff that he would like to see all campaign sings removed around the Town because they are
ugly or detract from the Town's elegance.
65. Plaintiff responded to Thrasher's actions via email, telling Thrasher to not remove
any of Plaintiff s political campaign signs and to mind Due Process.
66. Residents of Place Au Soleil called Plaintiff to tell him that Thrasher had Plaintiff s
political campaign signs removed.
67. During the "Sign Sweep," Town employees removed only political campaign signs,
8 of 30
Case 9:14-cv-80317-DMM Document 28 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/28/2014 Page 9 of 30
which they unilaterally determined to be in the right-of-way of the Place Au Soleil district.
68. The Town had a special focus on the Place Au Soleil district since the district was
exceedingly pro Plaintiff and against the other candidates, four of whom included sitting
commissioners.
69. The "Sign Sweep" was conducted with a flatbed Town truck followed by a police
vehicle.
70. Neither Thrasher, nor the Town employees provided any notice to the property
owners whose lawns displayed Plaintiff's political signs as was customary and also required
under the Town code.
71. Town employees removed Plaintiffs political campaign signs from residents' lawns
even though the signs were not in the right-of-way.
72. Town employees did not follow their long-established practice of issuing
charging/warning letters to those residents who displayed Plaintiffs political campaign signs on
their lawns before removing Plaintiffs political campaign signs.
73. Town employees did not knock on the doors of those residents who displayed
Plaintiff s political campaign signs to ask the residents to move the signs off the portion of their
lawn where the right-of-way was located and onto the portion of their lawns where the right-of-
way ceased to exist.
74. Town employees did not remove the signs and place them near the property owner's
door rather; the signs were taken to public works and so that Plaintiff had to retrieve them before
reinstallation was possible.
75. The Town removed more than 50 of Plaintiffs political campaign sign that day, some
in the right-of-way and others on unencumbered private property.
9 of 30
Case 9:14-cv-80317-DMM Document 28 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/28/2014 Page 10 of 30
76. Upon information and belief, no citations were issued to any of the Place Au Soleil
residents for placing political signs on the right-of-way like the Town and Thrasher had done to
Plaintiff.
77. The Town did not remove any other type of sign, even if it was in the right-of-way;
numerous real estate signs in the right-of-way (some right next to political signs) were left
unmolested.
78. Plaintiff received an outpouring of support from numerous Town residents, urging
him to stop Thrasher and to assist them in their dealings with the Town.
79. Specifically, Plaintiffs supporters asked him to protect them from the Town's
intervention and/or trespass by Town employees who entered their property without permission
and removing Plaintiff's political campaign signs from their property.
Political Signs on Plaintiff's Truck
80. On March 4, 2014 Plaintiff retrieved his signs from the Town and proceeded to place
two signs at Town Hall in a grassy area next to a sidewalk.
81. Thrasher again removed Plaintiff s political campaign signs.
82. During the above exchange, Thrasher hinted that something would be done about
Plaintiffs truck because it is clad in political signage.
83. When Plaintiff asked about other vehicles containing signage, Thrasher replied that
commercial signs on vehicles are different than political signage.
Viewpoint Discrimination between Pro and Anti Plaintiff Signs
84. In the aftermath of the "sign sweep" Plaintiff discovered that some of his signs were
removed when they were not placed in the Town right-of-way and that opposition signs were not
removed despite being in the Town right-of-way.
10 of 30
Case 9:14-cv-80317-DMM Document 28 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/28/2014 Page 11 of 30
85. Plaintiff was running against 4 incumbents and the head of the Town architectural
Review Board and current Mayor: Scott Morgan.
86. During the campaign the 5 sitting public officials banded together against O'Boyle.
87. The 5 officials were endorsed by the Civic Association; O'Boyle was not.
98. On March 4, 2014 Plaintiff received a communication from the Town's acting
attorney who informed Plaintiff that the Town Code would be enforced.
89. Plaintiff observed an opposition political campaign sign, placed in the Town's right-
of-way, very close to A -I -A.
90. The opposition campaign sign was placed near Plaintiffs political campaign signs but
only Plaintiffs signs were removed.
91. Incidentally, both political signs were located next to a real estate sign, promoting a
custom house.
The Town Denied O'Boyle Important Public Records to Thwart his Campaign
92. On January 24, 2014, Plaintiff requested "a copy of all communications and Public
Records ... sent or received by Scott Morgan [candidate and chairman] of the Architectural
review and Planning Board ... [since 20121."
93. O'Boyle received less than 5 documents on February 3, 2014.
94. O'Boyle announced his candidacy, publically challenging Scott Morgan, before the
Town responded.
95. On February 7, 2014, O'Boyle was forced to file a public records lawsuit to compel
the Town to tum over all of the responsive documents.
96. On March 12, 2014, the day after the election — the Town gave O'Boyle over 1400
pages of responsive documents.
I 1 of 30
Case 9:14-cv-80317-DMM Document 2B Entered on FLSD Docket 04/28/2014 Page 12 of 30
97. The Town withheld responsive documents to prevent O'Boyle from using Scott
Morgan's public records during the candidacy because the Town did not want O'Boyle to
become a member of the commission.
Election Day Withholding of Signage
98. On March 11, 2014, Plaintiff went to Town hall (the polling place) to set up for his
final campaign push for that day's municipal election.
99. At about 5:30 a.m. at Town Hall, Plaintiff began unloading campaign materials
outside of the 100 foot election barrier for candidates. Plaintiff hoped to reserve the best
location.
100. Plaintiff was unloading a tent draped with banners and wood boards with banners
affixed thereto around the grassy area of Town Hall, next to the cartway to the south, so that he
could: advertise the Election Day, promote his candidacy, greet potential voters, and answer any
questions they may have before casting their ballot.
101. Town Police Chief Garret Ward noticed this activity and told Plaintiff that he
would be arrested if he set up any signs around Town hall.
102. Chief Ward placed his hands on Plaintiff s employee and told him that he would
be arrested if he engaged in setting up the banners.
103. Plaintiff placed the banners affixed to the wooden mounts on top of his vehicle —
lying face down — in order to curb the display of his speech until the situation could be resolved.
104. Plaintiffs campaign advisor Denise DeMartini then arrived at the scene a little
before 6:00 a.m.
105. Plaintiff then left the scene to change into his campaign suit.
106. As two Police officers watched, Plaintiffs employees began erecting the banner
12 of 30
Case 9:14-cv-80317-DMM Document 28 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/28/2014 Page 13 of 30
laden campaign tent on a grassy knoll to the west of Town hall as well as 8 or 9 banners around
the perimeter of the southern grassy portion of the municipal property.
107. Suddenly, at about 7:45 a.m., the Town Police and Town public works
department, at the direction of Chief Ward, raided Plaintiffs campaign camp.
108. The Police and public works employees forcibly confiscated Plaintiffs banners
affixed to plywood and the banners on his tent. Plaintiff s employees were taken by surprise.
109. The Town employees had removed four signs and placed them into the back of a
pickup truck when Plaintiff arrived on the scene.
110. Plaintiff latched on to one of his signs and the police began to yank it from him
and place it into the back of the truck.
111. Denise DeMartini grabbed a banner affixed to the tent as the police were ripping
off the others and she sat on it.
112. She fearfully asked the Police if she could hold two banners that were not affixed
to anything.
113. The Police allowed Denise to have the banner but not the wooden boards to which
the banners were previously affixed.
114. At this time, Plaintiff was still grabbing onto one of the wooden banner signs
which was lying in the bed of the truck.
115. The driver, Brian Dietrick, was reluctant about moving the truck with Plaintiff
grabbing something in the bed due to safety concerns but Officer Adam Gorel ordered Brian to
speed off with reckless disregard for Plaintiffs safety.
116. Plaintiff was then handed a copy of the Town sign ordinance but was not told why
his signs had been removed in such a violent manner.
13 of 30
Case 9:14-cv-80317-DMM Document 28 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/28/2014 Page 14 of 30
117. After the raid, Plaintiff was left with one wooden board with a banner affixed and
another banner which was being held by two of Plaintiffs employees. Also, Plaintiffs tent had
two banners left affixed to it.
118. Minutes later, Plaintiff sought out Police Chief Ward to ask about the raid.
119. Chief Ward said that he ordered the raid because Plaintiff s signs exceeded 4
square feet in area.
120. The Chief also said that the banners would incite disorder and that it was
impossible to get an injunction or utilize the normal citation procedure against plaintiff for that
reason.
121. A member of Plaintiff's campaign asked if the Town could return the missing six
banners, unaffixed to the wooden stands, Chief Ward told Plaintiff and his employees that
Plaintiff had "too much signage" or "enough signage."
122. Plaintiffs attorney later asked the Town's lawyer if the banners could be returned
so Plaintiff could rotate his banners amongst the two sign holders; having a total of 9 banners in
rotation to be displayed at two spots.
123. The Chief gave no further reasoning as to how the banner's would incite any
disruption (other than causing votes for Plaintiff) and presented Plaintiff with no direction for
review such as talking to the Town Manager or the Mayor.
124. The Town refused to return the banners with or without the wooden back boards
yet allowed Plaintiff to display two banners adjacent to the road and two banners affixed to
Plaintiffs tent.
125. The Town returned the remaining banners at the close of polls.
Count I — Prevention of Free Speech
14 of 30
Case 9:14-cv-80317-DMM Document 28 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/28/2014 Page 15 of 30
126. Plaintiff re -alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 9 through 31 and 92
through 97 as though fully set forth herein.
127. The Town willfully refused to provide Plaintiff the public records relating to
candidate Scott Morgan for the sole purpose of preventing Plaintiff from using his First
Amendment rights to use that information to bolster his own campaign and criticize Scott
Morgan and Morgan's running mates — then sitting commissioners,
128. Plaintiff was not afforded the opportunity to read and use information he was
entitled to under state law because the Town did not want Plaintiff to have a greater chance to
succeed in the election.
129. Plaintiff was further harmed by feeling outrage and humiliation knowing that his
local government used their police power to thwart his candidacy in this day and age.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays this Court:
(a) Award presumptive damages, damages compensating plaintiff for his lost opportunity to
read or use information, damages compensating plaintiff for his humiliation and
emotional turmoil, and award Plaintiff all other reasonably foreseeable monetary
damages, including interest.
(b) Award Plaintiff his reasonable attorney's fees, costs, and expenses incurred in this action
and,
(c) Grant such further relief as the Court deems proper.
Count H — Facially Unconstitutional Content -Based Enforcement (Temporary Siens)
130. Plaintiff re -alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 91 as
though fully set forth herein.
131. As Town Manager, Thrasher is the final policymaker for the Town's executive
15 of 30
Case 9:14-cv-80317-DMM Document 28 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/28/2014 Page 16 of 30
branch.
132. The Town violated Plaintiff s First Amendment rights when they utilized the
Town Sign Ordinance to confiscate Plaintiffs political signs.
133. Town Code Sec. 66-446, 447, and 448 are all impermissible content -based
restrictions that were utilized to remove Plaintiffs temporary signs.
134. Moreover, Town Code Sec. 66-1 is a content -based and speaker -based restriction
which harmed Plaintiff because his signs would remain unregulated and unmolested if the Town
considered Plaintiffs campaign a non-profit civic association and Plaintiffs political signage in
the public interest and for a public purpose.
135. Individually or taken as a whole, Section 66-446(5) or the entire panoply of sign
ordinances unconstitutionally burdened, chilled, or stopped Plaintiffs use of campaign signs to
promote his political speech and candidacy.
136. Plaintiff lost precious campaigning/advertising time for his election.
137. Plaintiff was forced to expend fungible time, money, and other resources traveling
to and from the Town retrieving his signage and monitoring it when placed.
138. Plaintiff has also suffered embarrassment, mental anguish, and the terrible awe
associated with government suppression of speech.
139. Plaintiff has suffered harm to the morale of Plaintiffs campaign and his
supporters who had allowed Plaintiff to place signs at their homes.
140. Penultimately, Plaintiff plans to run for election in the future or otherwise be
associated with referenda where he plans to use temporary political signs.
141. Lastly, Plaintiff has utilized political signage for protest in the past (where he was
also cited under Town Ord. 66-446) and plans to use miscellaneous political signage in the future
16 of 30
Case 9:14-cv-80317-DMM Document 28 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/28/2014 Page 17 of 30
which will likely subject him to prosecution under Town Ord. 66-1; 66-446, 447, and 448.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays this Court:
(a) Strike Town Code Sections 66-1; 66-446, 447, and 448 as unconstitutional
content -based, speaker -based, prior restraint, or overly broad restrictions.
(b) Enjoin the Town from continuing to enforce Town code sec. 66-1; 66-446, 447,
448 and, including but not limited to, the policies, customs, or usages flowing from those
ordinances in whole or in part.
(c) Award Plaintiff his reasonable attorney's fees, costs, and expenses incurred in this
action and,
(d) Award Plaintiff all reasonably foreseeable monetary damages, including but not
limited to presumptive damages, damages compensating Plaintiff for the cost his time
and efforts, the cost of his employees time and efforts, lost advertising opportunity, and
his mental anguish and embarrassment, all with interest.
(e) Grant such further relief as the Court deems proper.
Count III — Florida Free Speech Const. Art. I Sec. 4 (Temporary Siens)
142. Plaintiff re -alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 91 as
though fully set forth herein.
143. As Town Manager, Thrasher is the final policymaker for the Town's executive
branch.
144. The Town violated Plaintiff's right to free speech under Art. I Sec. 4 of the
Florida Constitution when they utilized the Town Sign Ordinance to confiscate Plaintiffs
political signs.
145. Town Code Sec. 66-446, 447, and 448 are all impermissible content -based
17 of 30
Case 9:14-cv-80317-DMM Document 28 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/28/2014 Page 18 of 30
restrictions that were utilized to remove Plaintiff temporary
146. Moreover, Town Code Sec. 66-1 is a content -based and speaker -based restriction
which harmed Plaintiff because his signs would remain unregulated and unmolested if the Town
considered Plaintiffs campaign a non-profit civic association and Plaintiffs political signage in
the public interest and for a public purpose.
147. Individually or taken as a whole, Section 66-446(5) or the entire panoply of sign
ordinances unconstitutionally burdened, chilled, or stopped Plaintiffs use of campaign signs to
promote his political speech and candidacy.
148. Plaintiff lost precious campaigningladvertising time for his election.
149. Plaintiff was forced to expend fungible time, money, and other resources traveling
to and from the Town retrieving his signage and monitoring it when placed.
150. Plaintiff has also suffered embarrassment, mental anguish, and the terrible awe
associated with government suppression of speech.
151. Plaintiff has suffered harm to the morale of Plaintiffs campaign and his
supporters who had allowed Plaintiff to place signs at their homes.
152. Penultimately, Plaintiff plans to run for election in the future or otherwise be
associated with referenda where he plans to use temporary political signs.
153. Lastly, Plaintiff has utilized political signage for protest in the past (where he was
also cited under Town Ord. 66-446) and plans to use miscellaneous political signage in the future
which will likely subject him to prosecution under Town Ord. 66-1; 66-446, 447, and 448.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays this Court:
(a) Strike Town Code Sections 66-1; 66-446, 447, and 448 as unconstitutional
content -based, speaker -based, prior restraint, or overly broad restrictions.
18 of 30
Case 9:14-cv-80317-DMM Document 28 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/28/2014 Page 19 of 30
(b) Enjoin the Town from continuing to enforce Town code sec. 66-1; 66-446, 447,
448 and, including but not limited to, the policies, customs, or usages flowing from those
ordinances in whole or in part.
(c) Award Plaintiff his reasonable attorney's fees, costs, and expenses incurred in this
action and,
(d) Award Plaintiff all reasonably foreseeable monetary damages, including but not
limited to presumptive damages, damages compensating Plaintiff for the cost his time
and efforts, the cost of his employees time and efforts, lost advertising opportunity, and
his mental anguish and embarrassment, all with interest.
(e) Grant such further relief as the Court deems proper.
Count IV— Violation of First Amendment (Sienase on Plaintiff's Truck)
154. Plaintiff re -alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 9 through 31, 53
through 58, and 80 through 83 as though fully set forth herein.
155. Plaintiffs First Amendment rights were violated when the Town threatened
Plaintiff with official adverse action if Plaintiff did not remove the banners on the side of his
truck
156. As a result, Plaintiff was forced to engage legal services.
157. After the election, Plaintiff has parked his truck at Town Hall with new banners
advising the public that Town Hall and the Police Department are not compliant with the
Americans with Disabilities Act and that the Town Commissioners are ambivalent.
158. Plaintiff plans to use his truck at Town Hall and over public right-of-ways to
express speech in the future.
159. Plaintiff fears prosecution under the Town Code because his truck signage will
19 of 30
Case 9:14-cv-80317-DMM Document 28 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/28/2014 Page 20 of 30
violate the Town Code when driven around town as it will contain signs on the right-of-way or
on public property.
160. Lastly, Plaintiff has been and continues to be harmed by the 66-1 ordinance
because neither his campaign nor his self are considered a non-profit civic association. Plaintiff
feels that this ordinance unfairly affords speech -related benefits dependent on both the identity of
the speaker and the content of the message.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays this Court:
(a) Enjoin the Town from continuing to enforce Town code sec. 66-1; 66-446,447,
448 and, including but not limited to, the policies, customs, or usages flowing from those
ordinances in whole or in part.
(b) Award Plaintiff presumed damages for abridgement of Free Speech, his
reasonable attorney's fees, costs, and expenses incurred in this action and,
(c) Grant such further relief as the Court deems proper.
Count V — Florida Free Speech Const. Art. I. Sec. 4 (Truck Sienaae)
161. Plaintiff re -alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 9 through 31, 53
through 58, and 80 through 83 as though fully set forth herein.
162. Plaintiffs right to free speech under Art. I, Sec. 4, of the Florida Constitution was
violated when the Town threatened Plaintiff with official adverse action if Plaintiff did not
remove the banners on the side of his truck.
163. As a result, Plaintiff was forced to engage legal services.
164. After the election, Plaintiff has parked his truck at Town Hall with new banners
advising the public that Town Hall and the Police Department are not compliant with the
Americans with Disabilities Act and that the Town Commissioners are ambivalent.
20 of 30
Case 9:14-cv-80317-DMM Document 28 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/28/2014 Page 21 of 30
165. Plaintiff plans to use his truck at Town Hall and over public right-of-ways to
express speech in the future.
166. Plaintiff fears prosecution under the Town Code because his truck signage will
violate the Town Code when driven around town as it will contain signs on the right-of-way or
on public property.
167. Lastly, Plaintiff has been and continues to be harmed by the 66-1 ordinance
because neither his campaign nor his self are considered a non-profit civic association. Plaintiff
feels that this ordinance unfairly affords speech -related benefits dependent on both the identity of
the speaker and the content of the message.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays this Court:
(a) Enjoin the Town from continuing to enforce Town code sec. 66-1; 66-446, 447,
448 and, including but not limited to, the policies, customs, or usages flowing from those
ordinances in whole or in part.
(b) Award Plaintiff presumed damages for the abridgement of free speech, reasonable
attorney's fees, costs, and expenses incurred in this action and,
(c) Grant such further relief as the Court deems proper.
Count VI — Thrasher (Temporary Sign Violation) First Amendment
168. Plaintiff re -alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 91 as
though fully set forth herein.
169. Town Manager Thrasher knew that Plaintiff's signs outnumbered opposition signs
by more than 3 to 1.
170. Town Manager Thrasher also knew that Plaintiff would tenaciously attempt to fire
him if elected because that was one of Plaintiffs campaign platforms.
21 of 30
Case 9:14-cv-80317-DMM Document 28 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/28/2014 Page 22 of 30
171. Town Manager Thrasher violated Plaintiff's First Amendment rights with malice,
gross negligence, or purpose when he ordered that only political signs be removed during the
March "sign sweep."
172. Town Manager Thrasher's purpose was to thwart Plaintiffs candidacy.
173. Thrasher knew that his "sign sweep" order was restricted to the content of the
signage.
174. Thrasher had knowledge that Town sign ordinance was unconstitutional.
175. Thrasher actually knew or should have known that his "sign sweep" order, other
directives to remove Plaintiff s signage or use of official coercion via "removal letters," violated
clearly established law or was particularly offensive to the First Amendment.
176. Thrasher's intentional order was reckless with disregard for Plaintiffs right to be
free from content -based speech enforcement, and also cost Plaintiff reasonably foreseeable
monetary damages such as the time, costs, and energy required to remedy Thrasher's actions.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays this Court:
(a) Enjoin Thrasher from enforcing Town code sec. 66-1; 66446, 447, 448 and,
including but not limited to, the policies, customs, or usages flowing from those
ordinances in whole or in part.
(b) Award Plaintiff his reasonable attorney's fees, costs, and expenses incurred in this
action and,
(c) Award Plaintiff all reasonably foreseeable monetary damages, including but not
Limited to presumptive damages, punitive damages, damages compensating Plaintiff for
the cost his time and efforts, the cost of his employees time and efforts, lost advertising
opportunity, and his mental anguish and embarrassment, all with interest.
22 of 30
Case 9:14-cv-80317-DMM Document 28 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/28/2014 Page 23 of 30
(d) Grant such further relief as the Court deems proper.
Count VII — Thrasher (Temporary Sian Violation) Florida Free Speech
177. Plaintiff re -alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs I through 91 as
though fully set forth herein.
178. Town Manager Thrasher knew that Plaintiff s signs outnumbered opposition signs
by more than 3 to 1.
179. Town Manager Thrasher also knew that Plaintiff would tenaciously attempt to fire
him if elected because that was one of Plaintiff s campaign platforms.
180. Town Manager Thrasher violated Plaintiffs Art. I, Sec. 4, right to free speech
under the Florida Constitution with malice, gross negligence, or purpose when he ordered that
only political signs be removed during the March "sign sweep."
181. Town Manager Thrasher's purpose was to thwart Plaintiffs candidacy.
182. Thrasher knew that his "sign sweep" order was restricted to the content of the
signage.
183. Thrasher had knowledge that Town sign ordinance was unconstitutional.
184. Thrasher actually knew or should have known that his "sign sweep" order, other
directives to remove Plaintiffs signage or use of official coercion via "removal letters," violated
clearly established law or was particularly offensive to the Florida Constitution.
185. Thrasher's intentional order was reckless with disregard for Plaintiff s right to be
free from content -based speech enforcement, and also cost Plaintiff reasonably foreseeable
monetary damages such as the time, costs, and energy required to remedy Thrasher's actions.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays this Court:
(a) Enjoin Thrasher from enforcing Town code sec. 66-1; 66-446, 447, 448 and,
23 of 30
Case 9:14-cv-80317-DMM Document 28 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/28/2014 Page 24 of 30
including but not limited to, the policies, customs, or usages flowing from those
ordinances in whole or in part.
(b) Award Plaintiff his reasonable attorney's fees, costs, and expenses incurred in this
action and,
(c) Award Plaintiff all reasonably foreseeable monetary damages, including but not
limited to presumptive damages, punitive damages, damages compensating Plaintiff for
the cost his time and efforts, the cost of his employees time and efforts, lost advertising
opportunity, and his mental anguish and embarrassment, all with interest.
(d) Grant such further relief as the Court deems proper.
Count VIII — Thrasher (Temporary Sign Violation) Equal Protection
186. Plaintiff re -alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 91 as
though fully set forth herein.
187. Town Manager Thrasher ]mew that Plaintiff's signs outnumbered opposition signs
by more than 3 to 1.
188. Town Manager Thrasher also knew that Plaintiff would tenaciously attempt to fire
him if elected because that was one of Plaintiff's campaign platforms.
189. Town Manager Thrasher violated Plaintiffs right to Equal Protection with malice,
gross negligence, or purpose when he ordered that only political signs be removed during the
March "sign sweep."
190. Town Manager Thrasher's knew that an order removing only political campaign
signs would have a disparate impact on Plaintiffs speech because Plaintiff had more signs on
display (and in reserve) than the opposition.
191. Thrasher's order did in fact have a disparate impact on Plaintiffs speech because
24 of 30
Case 9:14-cv-80317-DMM Document 28 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/28/2014 Page 25 of 30
Plaintiffs signs were taken by in a greater number than other political signs.
192. Moreover, more opposition political signs remained after the "sign sweep" than
Plaintiffs political signs.
193. Thrasher's intentional order was reckless with disregard for Plaintiff s rights to
equal speech, and also cost Plaintiff reasonably foreseeable monetary damages such as the time,
costs, and energy required to remedy Thrasher's actions.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays this Court:
(a) Enjoin Thrasher from enforcing Town code sec. 66-1; 66-446, 447, 448 in a
manner intended to create a disparate impact.
(b) Award Plaintiff his reasonable attorney's fees, costs, and expenses incurred in this
action and,
(c) Award Plaintiff all reasonably foreseeable monetary damages, including but not
limited to presumptive damages, punitive damages, damages compensating Plaintiff for
the cost his time and efforts, the cost of his employees time and efforts, lost advertising
opportunity, and his mental anguish and embarrassment, all with interest.
(d) Grant such further relief as the Court deems proper.
Count IX — Violation of Free Speech (Election Day)
194. Plaintiff re -alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 9 through 31, 53
through 58, 80 through 83, and 98 through 125 as though fully set forth herein.
195. Chief Ward is the final policymaking authority for the Town Police force.
196. The Town ordinance 66-446(5), limiting political signage to four square, was the
content -based restriction cited by Chief Ward as the basis for removing Plaintiffs signs and is
unconstitutional under the First Amendment.
25 of 30
Case 9:14-cv-80317-DMM Document 28 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/28/2014 Page 26 of 30
197. During Election Day, Plaintiff witnessed several non -Town vehicles with
commercial signage more than 4 square feet either parking or driving around the election polls
uncited or otherwise subject to executive action.
198. Additionally, Plaintiffs political banners were a matter of public concern and
contained content in the public interest.
199. The Town would not have taken action against Plaintiff if he was a non-profit
civic association (Town Ord. 66-1) because such organizations are exempt from Town sign laws.
200. Lastly, the Town's refusal to return Plaintiffs banners was an unconstitutional ad
hoc time, place, and manner restriction which had the effect of allowing Plaintiff to utilize
certain banners which the Town allowed Plaintiff to display while preventing Plaintiff from
displaying the content withheld by the Town.
201. Plaintiff feels that the use of content -based, speaker -based, and ad-hoc speech
policing on the day of his election was highly offensive and disturbing.
202. The actions caused Plaintiff great stress, embarrassment, humiliation, and
emotional discomfort.
203. It also caused Plaintiff time and energy to investigate and plead with local
authorities to return his banners.
204. The actions caused Plaintiff to be distracted from campaigning; Plaintiff also lost
his ability to execute his pre -planned election -day campaign and was not able to utilize his
speech through rotating the display of his banners to engage voters to vote for him.
205. Plaintiff plans to utilize political speech in the Town in the future, including the
use of banners over four square feet in area affixed to Plaintiffs pickup truck on the Town's
right-of-way or public property.
26 of 30
Case 9:14-cv-80317-DMM Document 28 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/28/2014 Page 27 of 30
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays this Court:
(a) Enjoin the Town from continuing to enforce Town code sec. 66-446, 447,448
and, including but not limited to, the policies, customs, or usages flowing from that
ordinances in whole or in part. This includes prohibiting the Town from removing
political signs, engaging in ad-hoc speech restrictions, or signage on the truck.
(b) Award Plaintiff his reasonable attorney's fees, costs, and expenses incurred in this
action and,
(c) Award Plaintiff all reasonably foreseeable monetary damages, including interest
(d) Award Plaintiff presumed damages and punitive damages where applicable.
(e) Grant such further relief as the Court deems proper.
Count X — Violation of Free Speech (Election Day) Chief Ward
206. Plaintiff re -alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 9 through 31, 53
through 58, 80 through 83, and 98 through 125 as though fully set forth herein.
207. Chief Ward is the final policymaking authority for the Town Police force.
208. The Town ordinance 66-446(5), limiting political signage to four square, was the
content -based restriction cited by Chief Ward as the basis for removing Plaintiff's signs and is
unconstitutional under the First Amendment.
209. During Election Day, Plaintiff witnesses several non -Town vehicles with
commercial signage more than 4 square feet either parking or driving around the election polls
uncited or otherwise subject to executive action.
210. Additionally, Plaintiffs political banners were a matter of public concern and
contained content in the public interest.
211. Chief Ward would not have taken action against Plaintiff if he was a non-profit
27 of 30
Case 9:14-cv-80317-DMM Document 28 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/28/2014 Page 28 of 30
civic association (Town Ord. 66-1) because such organizations are exempt from Town sign laws.
212. Lastly, the Chief Ward's refusal to return Plaintiffs banners was an
unconstitutional ad hoc time, place, and manner restriction which had the effect of allowing
Plaintiff to utilize certain banners which the Town allowed Plaintiff to display while preventing
Plaintiff from displaying the content withheld by the Town.
213. Chief Ward knew his actions violated clearly established constitutional precedent
or were patently offensive to the right to free speech.
214. Plaintiff feels that the use of content -based, speaker -based, and ad-hoc speech
policing on the day of his election was highly offensive and disturbing.
215. The actions caused Plaintiff great stress, embarrassment, humiliation, and
emotional discomfort.
216. It also caused Plaintiff time and energy to investigate and plead with local
authorities to return his banners.
217. The actions caused Plaintiff to be distracted from campaigning; Plaintiff also lost
his ability to execute his pre -planned election -day campaign and was not able to utilize his
speech through rotating the display of his big banners to engage voters to vote for him.
218. Additionally, the enforcement of the content -based ordinance or ad hoc
regulations in withholding certain banners yet not others constitutes viewpoint discrimination or
unconstitutional ad-hoc time, place, and manner restrictions.
219. Plaintiff was embarrassed and humiliated by the Town's and Chief Ward's
actions.
220. Plaintiff plans to utilize political speech in the Town in the future, including the
use of banners over four square feet in area affixed to Plaintiffs pickup truck on the Town's
28 of 30
Case 9:14-cv-80317-DMM Document 28 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/28/2014 Page 29 of 30
right-of-way or public property.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays this Court:
(a) Enjoin the Chief Ward from continuing to enforce Town code sec. 66-446, 447,
448 and, including but not limited to, the policies, customs, or usages flowing from that
ordinances in whole or in part. This includes prohibiting Chief Ward from removing
political signs, engaging in ad-hoc speech restrictions, or signage on the truck.
(b) Award Plaintiff his reasonable attorney's fees, costs, and expenses incurred in this
action and,
(c) Award Plaintiff all reasonably foreseeable monetary damages, including interest
(d) Award Plaintiff presumed damages and punitive damages where applicable.
(e) Grant such further relief as the Court deems proper.
JURY TRIAL REQUEST
Plaintiff requests a jury trial on all issues.
ATTORNEY'S FEES
Plaintiff requests attorney's fees pursuant to 42. U.S.C. § 1988 for all applicable counts.
Respectfully submitted,
Dated: April 28 .2014 THE O'BOYLE LAW FIRM, P.C.
Attorneys for Plaintiff
1286 West Newport Center Drive
Deerfield Beach, FL 33442
Telephone: (954) 574-6885
Facsimile: (954) 360-0807
For Service of Court Documents:
oboylecourtdocs(@,oboylelawfirm.com
By: /s/ Ryan L. Witmer
Ryan L. Witmer, Esq.
Florida Bar #0107563
rwitmer(@,oboylelawfirrn.com
29 of 30
Case 9:14-cv-80317-DMM Document 28 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/28/2014 Page 30 of 30
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing was electronically filed on April 28, 2014 via
the CM/ECF system. I further certify that a true copy of the foregoing was provided to each of
the following:
Hudson Carter Gill hgillRiambg.com,blanca(@bambg.com
Jeffrey Lawrence Hochman Hochman(a iambg com, ericksen 2( iambg.com,
fmleyl7a iambe.com
Joanne M. O'Connor ioconnor(r0,iones-foster.com, mmacfarlanena'ones-foster.com
Marrett Willis Hanna f3mhannat7a,yahoo.com
Ryan L Witmer rwitmer(i0boylelawfirm.com
Giovanni Mesa gmesa(@obovlelawfirm.com
By: /s/ Ryan L. Witmer
Ryan L. Witmer, Esq.
Florida Bar #0107563
rwitmer(a)obovlelawfum.com
30 of 30
Renee Basel
From:
Bill Thrasher
Sent:
Tuesday, September 16, 2014 1:42 PM
To:
Irma Cohen; ccoleman@flcities.com
Subject:
Complaint
Attachments:
2014CA011052.pdf
Irma,
Our Mayor has received the following complaint
Is this covered?
Sorry and thanks,
f:71I
William H. Thrasher
Town Manager, ICMA-CM
100 Sea Rd.
Gulf Stream, FL 33483
561-276-5116
561-737-0188 fax
www.gulf-stream.org
Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). If
you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original
message. Florida has a very broad public records law. Written communications regarding Town of Gulf Stream business
are public records available to the public upon request. Your e-mail communications are therefore subject to public
disclosure. Under Florida law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in
response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by phone or in
writing.
VVM 1(5�p
Filing W 181637/1 Electronically Filed 09!1712014 11:30:58 AM q /rq/v 70 C/ � 0. r'>l
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15T" JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN
AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA
MARTIN E. O'BOYLE
Plaintiff,
V.
ROBERT A. SWEETAPPLE
and MAYOR SCOTT
MORGAN,
Defendants.
SUMMONS
THE STATE OF FLORIDA
To each Sheriff of the State:
Case No: 2014CA011052
YOU ARE COMMANDED to serve this summons and a copy of the complaint in this
law suit on defendant:
Scott Morgan, mayor of the Town of Gulf Stream
100 Sea Road
Gulf Stream, Florida 33483
Each defendant is required to serve written defenses to the complaint or petition on Daniel
DeSouza, Plaintiffs attorney, whose address is 1515 N. University Drive, Suite 209, Coral
Springs, Florida 33071, within twenty (20) days after service of this summons on that defendant,
exclusive of the day of service, and to file the original of the defenses with the clerk of this court
either before service on plaintiffs attorney or immediately thereafter. If a defendant fails to do
so, a default will be entered against the defendant for the relief demanded in the complaint or
petition.
DATED on SEP 12 2014
By: &74
74
Clerk of the Court
Robin Pender
DESOUZA LAW, P.A.
Attorney for the Plaintiff
1515 N. University Drive, Suite 209
Coral Springs, Florida 33071
Telephone: (954) 551-5320
DDesouzaCir desouzalaw.com
SHARON R. BOCK
Clerk & Comptroller
P.O. Box 4667
West Palm Beach, Florida
33402-4667
Filing # 18042111 Electronically Filed 091092014 08:04:34 PM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN
AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA
MARTIN E. O'BOYLE,
Plaintiff,
V.
ROBERT A. SWEETAPPLE
and MAYOR SCOTT
MORGAN,
Defendants.
Case No.o2Q1y mit. L)11 0O o2
VERIFIED COMPLAINT
Plaintiff Martin E. O'Boyle ("Plaintiff') sues Defendants Robert A. Sweetapple
("Sweetapple') and Scott Morgan ("Morgan'), mayor of the Town of Gulf Stream (the "Town"),
and alleges as follows:
PARTIES. JURISDICTION. AND VENUE
This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this case in that it is an action at
law where the amount in controversy exceeds the sum of $15,000.00, exclusive of interest and
costs, and attorneys' fees
2. Plaintiff is an individual who resides in Palm Beach County.
3. Sweetapple is an individual who, upon information and belief, resides in Palm
Beach County.
4. Morgan is an individual who, upon information and belief, resides in Palm Beach
County. At all times relevant to the claims asserted herein, Morgan served in the capacity as
mayor of the Town. This lawsuit is brought against Morgan in his individual capacity and in
DESOUZA LAW, P.A.
1515 N, UNIVERSITY DR, SUITE 2D9 • CORAL SPRINGS, FL 33071
TELEPHONE (954) 603-1340
his official capacity as mayor of the Town.
5. Venue is proper in this judicial district, inter alia, because Defendants reside in
this judicial district and the causes of action brought by Plaintiff accrued in this judicial circuit.
BACKGROUND
6. The Town is a relatively small municipality with approximately 1,000 residents
located within its approximately 500 acres of land.
7. Plaintiff is a resident of the Town, owning and occupying the home located at 23
N. Hidden Harbour Drive, Gulf Stream, Florida 33483.
8. Plaintiff is an avid supporter of Florida's Public Records Law and, in an exercise
of his Constitutional and statutory rights, has over the years submitted numerous public records
requests to the Town and various other municipalities/agencies.
9. Occasionally, these public records requests are not complied with and Plaintiff
has exercised his right under Fla. Stat. § 119 to bring a lawsuit to enforce his rights under the
Public Records Law.
10. Plaintiff has filed approximately 29 lawsuits against the Town for alleged
violations of the Public Records Law. As of the date of this lawsuit, Plaintiff is currently
engaged in 12 lawsuits against the Town relating to alleged violations of the Public Records
Law.
11. In addition to public records requests and lawsuits, Plaintiff has also sued the
Town for alleged violations of Plaintiffs civil rights and Constitutional protections.
12. In total, Plaintiff has filed approximately 30 lawsuits against the Town since
January 1, 2013.
13. Plaintiff has not filed any of these lawsuits to harass the Town or for any
2
DEsOUZA LAW, P.A.
1515 N. UNIMSYTY DR., SUITE 209 • CORAL SPRINGS, FL 33071
TELEPHONE (954) 603.1340
improper purpose — rather, each of the lawsuits filed by Plaintiff against the Town was filed to
enforce a specific Constitutional or statutory right which Plaintiff contends was violated by the
Town and/or its officials.
14. Plaintiff views these lawsuits as meritorious and necessary to enforce State and
federal laws, and, with respect to at least some of the public records lawsuits filed by Plaintiff,
Morgan has stated on the record that he agrees.
15. Notwithstanding this limited agreement, the Town (through the actions of Morgan
and Sweetapple) has endeavored to ratchet up its defense of all lawsuits filed by Plaintiff through
threats, intimidation, and harassment (as opposed to defending on the merits).
16. in a June 2, 2014 letter from Morgan to all Town residents, Morgan noted that the
Town's general fund reserves had fallen below an acceptable number and blamed this occurrence
on the lawsuits filed by Plaintiff and another Town resident.
17. With respect to the public records requests filed by Plaintiff and the other Town
resident, Morgan stated that, in his opinion, they "have little purpose other than to harass and
financially damage our town."
18. Morgan's letter then goes on to state that the money to defend these lawsuits
would likely have to come from increased taxes to the residents of the Town — a premonition that
the Town made good on in July 2014 when Town commissioners voted unanimously to approve
a tax hike for Town residents.
19. In a final show of bravado regarding the lawsuits filed by Plaintiff and the other
Town resident, the June 2, 2014 letter states:
In response to this continuing problem, the Commission is stepping
up its defense of the O'Boyle and O'Hare litigation. Special
counsel has been hired to assist our other attorneys in this regard.
The Commission believes strongly that a firm stance is necessary
3
DESOUZA LAW, P.A.
1515 N. UNIVERSITY DR., SUITE 209 • CORAL SPRINGS, FL 33071
TELEPHONE (954) 603-1340
to limit the detrimental effects that these lawsuits are having on
staff morale and Town reserves.
20. That statement was at least partially true. Indeed, the Town hired Sweetapple, an
attorney with Sweetapple, Broeker & Varkas, P.L., to serve as special counsel with respect to,
inter alia, the lawsuits filed by Plaintiff.
21. Although "stepping up its defense" can mean several things, it quickly became
apparent to Plaintiff that the Town's newfound strategy in dealing with him did not involve
litigating the merits of his lawsuits in a court of law.
22. Rather, Morgan and Sweetapple (and likely other Town officials unknown to
Plaintiff at this time) devised a plan to smear Plaintiffs name among his friends and colleagues
and to assert undue pressure on Plaintiff by lashing out against his family.
23. By acting together, the mayor (Morgan) and the attorney (Sweetapple) decided
that they could accomplish what neither one of them could accomplish on their own — systematic
and pervasive pressure on Plaintiff designed to silence and/or extinguish Plaintiffs exercise of
statutory/Constitutional rights.
24. Morgan and Sweetapple devised their plan to defame, harass, intimidate, and
antagonize Plaintiff during a private meeting on April 3, 2014 and continued their scheming
during further meetings on at least the following dates: 4/17/14, 5/4/14, 6/5/14 and 6/10/14.
25. During this meeting and in subsequent conversations between the two, Morgan
and Sweetapple decided on a course of action of (1) falsely and maliciously publishing to others
that Plaintiff is violating the federal and Florida RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organization) Acts by his filing and pursuit of public records cases; (2) falsely and maliciously
publishing to others that Plaintiffs pursuit of public records cases against the Town is a
'scheme' devised by Plaintiff to 'line his pockets' with profit; and (3) putting pressure on
4
GESOUZA LAW, P.A.
1515 N. UNIVERSITY DR., SUITE 209 • CORAL SPRINGS, FL 33071
TELEPHONE (954) 603.1340
Plaintiffs son in an effort to gain an undue advantage over Plaintiff in Plaintiffs lawsuits against
the Town.
26. Although the plan was hatched by Morgan and Sweetapple, it is Sweetapple who
is carrying forth the clandestine plan which does not relate to Plaintiffs litigation against the
Town but rather to Plaintiff and his family's personal lives.
27. On several occasions over the last four months, Sweetapple has spoken to friends,
colleagues, business associates, and attorneys for Plaintiff and conveyed the same message to
each — Plaintiff is a criminal, he has violated the federal and Florida RICO Acts, and that he is
engaging in a for-profit scheme by having the audacity to file public records requests and the
willpower to enforce them through lawsuits.
28. Sweetapple has for months boasted to each of these individuals that Plaintiff was
'Finished' and that Sweetapple would soon file suit against Plaintiff for the various alleged RICO
violations. Sweetapple further suggested in these conversations that Plaintiffs Friends/attorneys
should sever their ties with Plaintiff so as not to be caught in the impending litigation (implicitly
threatening them in the process).
29. With respect to one such individual, Sweelapple's threats were more explicit and
bordering on extortion (if not in fact extortion) — Sweetapple demanded that this individual drop
his lawsuits against the Town or else he would also be named as a defendant in the supposedly
forthcoming RICO lawsuit against Plaintiff.
30. These communications and allegations (which were completely false), together
with Morgan's June 2, 2014 letter, were calculated to damage Plaintiffs reputation in the Town
and among his friends/advisors. They were further designed to have a chilling effect on
Plaintiff's protected activities.
5
DESOUZA LAW, PA
1515 N. UNIVERSITY nR., sun's 209 • CORAL SPRINGS, FL 33071
TELEPHONE (954) 603.1340
31. As stated above, Morgan and Sweetapple's plan did not stop with the spreading
false and malicious lies about Plaintiffs purported involvement in criminal activities and
violation of the RICO Acts, but also included plans to exert pressure on Plaintiffs son wholly
unrelated to the merits of any of Plaintiffs lawsuits against the Town.
32. On or about April 24, 2014, Sweetapple himself publicly proclaimed that, as a
result of Plaintiffs multiple lawsuits against the Town, Sweetapple was going to investigate and
go after Plaintiffs son.
33. Sweetapple has made these statements directly to various members of the Town's
population as well as friends, advisors, and business associates of Plaintiff. The statements were
not made to voice some legitimate concern but rather to force Plaintiff into dropping his lawsuits
against the Town and refrain from exercising his Constitutional and statutory rights.
34. By attacking Plaintiffs reputation in the community and threatening Plaintiffs
son, Morgan and Sweetapple 'stepped up their defense' of Plaintiffs lawsuits by doing
everything in their power — under color of law — to avoid actually litigating the merits of the
lawsuits. Rather, they set off on a course of intimidation, harassment, and retaliation with a
singular purpose of silencing Plaintiff at any cost.
35. All conditions precedent to this action have been performed or have been waived
COUNT I — SLANDER PER SE
(Sweetapple)
36. Plaintiff re -alleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 35 as set forth above.
37. As described herein, Sweetapple has, on numerous occasions over the past four
months, stated to Plaintiffs friends, colleagues, business associates, and attorneys (among other
individuals and agency representatives) that Plaintiff is a 'criminal' and is violating the federal
and Florida RICO Acts through his filing of public records requests and pursuit of lawsuits to
6
OESOUZA LAW, P.A.
1515 N. UNIVERSITY DR., SUITE 209 - CORAL SPRINGS, FL 33071
TELEPHONE (954) 603.1340
enforce alleged violations of the Public Records Law.
38. Further, Sweetapple has further stated to numerous individuals that Plaintiffs
pursuit of public records lawsuits is a 'money -making scheme' designed by Plaintiff to line his
pockets with profit.
39. These statements falsely and maliciously charge Plaintiff with the commission of
a crime, and were likewise made with reckless disregard for their truth.
40. The above-described false and malicious statements were made with the purpose
of causing harm to Plaintiffs reputation, both in the Town and among his friends, colleagues,
business associates, and attorneys.
41. As a result of Sweetapple's false and malicious statements, Plaintiff has sustained
substantial damages resulting from the loss of reputation, the full amount of which will be
established at trial.
COUNT II—SLANDER
(Sweetapple)
42. Plaintiff re -alleges and incorporates paragraphs I through 35 as set forth above.
43. As described herein, Sweetapple has, on numerous occasions over the past four
months, stated to Plaintiffs friends, colleagues, business associates, and attorneys (among other
individuals and agency representatives) that Plaintiff is a 'criminal' and is violating the federal
and Florida RICO Acts through his filing of public records requests and pursuit of lawsuits to
enforce alleged violations of the Public Records Law.
44. Further, Sweetapple has further stated to numerous individuals that Plaintiffs
pursuit of public records lawsuits is a 'money -making scheme' designed by Plaintiff to line his
pockets with profit.
45. These statements falsely and maliciously charge Plaintiff with the commission of
7
DESOUZA LAW, P.A.
1515 N. UNIVERSITY DR., SUITE 209 • CORAL SPRINGS, FL 33071
TELEPHONE (954) 603-1340
a crime, and were likewise made with reckless disregard for their truth.
46. The above-described false and malicious statements were made with the purpose
of causing harm to Plaintiffs reputation, both in the Town and among his friends, colleagues,
business associates, and attorneys.
47. As a result of Sweetapple's false and malicious statements, Plaintiff has sustained
substantial damages (including, but not limited to, the loss of personal and business
relationships) resulting from the intended loss of reputation, the full amount of which will be
established at trial.
COUNT III — RETALIATION (42 U.S.C. 11 1983)
(Morgan and Sweetapple)
48. Plaintiff re -alleges and incorporates paragraphs I through 35 as set forth above.
49. Plaintiffs filing of public records requests and lawsuits against the Town to
enforce the Public Records Law constitute Constitutionally -protected acts.
50. Plaintiff further engages in Constitutionally -protected acts/speech with respect to
the Town by virtue of his February/March 2014 campaign for political office and the numerous
signs/banners Plaintiff has erected around and/or flown above the Town which are critical of the
Town's elected officials.
51. As state actors, Morgan and Sweetapple's retaliatory conduct of threatening to
attack Plaintiffs son and spreading malicious lies about Plaintiffis designed to interfere with and
ultimately quash Plaintiffs clearly established Constitutional rights (including, but not limited
to, Plaintiffs Fust Amendment right of free speech).
52. Morgan and Sweetapple's threats, harassment, and intimidation would cause a
reasonable person to cease from exercising his Constitutional rights to petition the courts for
relief and exercising his First Amendment rights, and indeed they are succeeding in doing just
8
DESOUZA LAW, PA
1515 N. UNIVERSITY DR., SUITE 209 • CORAL SPRINGS, FL 33071
TELEPHONE (954) 603.1340
that with respect to Plaintiff.
53. As a result of this retaliatory conduct, Plaintiff has sustained substantial damages,
the full amount of which will be established at trial.
COUNT 1V — CIVIL CONSPIRACY
(Morean and Sweetapple)
54. Plaintiff re -alleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 35 as set forth above.
55. Morgan and Sweetapple conspired together to exert undue pressure on Plaintiff to
cause him to dismiss his lawsuits against the Town and refrain from activities/speech that the
Town apparently disagrees with.
56. By virtue of their unique relationship — a town mayor and an experienced private
practitioner well-known in Palm Beach, Morgan and Sweetapple possess a peculiar power of
coercion that neither would have operating on his own.
57. As a result of the civil conspiracy between Morgan and Sweetapple, Plaintiff has
suffered substantial damages, the full amount of which will be proved at trial.
COUNT V — CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT SLANDER
(Morgan and Sweetapple)
58. Plaintiffre-allegesand incorporates paragraphs 1 through 35 as set forth above.
59. As described herein, Morgan and Sweetapple met privately on 4/3/14 and at
various times thereafter to discuss their joint plan to slander Plaintiff by spreading false and
malicious lies about Plaintiff to his friends, colleagues,, business associates, and attorneys (and
various others unknown to Plaintiff at this time).
60. Morgan and Sweetapple conspired to spread information that Plaintiff is a
'criminal,' is violating the federal and Florida RICO Acts, and is engaging in a for-profit scheme
by virtue of his public records requests/lawsuits.
9
DESOUZA LAW, P.A.
1515 N. UNIVERSITY DR.. SUITE 209 • CORAL SPRINGS, FL 33071
TELEPHONE (954) 603-1340
61. In so conspiring, Morgan and Sweetapple demonstrated a reckless disregard for
the truth of the above-described statements, and cared only that the statements assist them in
their ulterior motive of silencing Plaintiff once and for all.
62. As a result of the civil conspiracy between Morgan and Sweetapple, Plaintiff has
suffered substantial damages, the full amount of which will be proved at trial.
COUNT VI — CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT RETALIATION
(Morean and Sweetapple)
63. Plaintiffre-allegesand incorporates paragraphs 1 through 35 as set forth above.
64. As described herein, Morgan and Sweetapple met privately on 4/3/14 and at
various times thereafter to discuss their joint plan to slander Plaintiff by spreading false and
malicious lies about Plaintiff to his friends, colleagues, business associates, and attorneys (and
various others unknown to Plaintiff at this time).
65. During these same meetings, Morgan and Sweetapple devised a plan to threaten
to attack Plaintiffs son in an effort to dissuade Plaintiff from continuing his lawsuits against the
Town.
66. Morgan and Sweetapple's conspiracy is designed to force Plaintiff into dismissing
his lawsuits against the Town, cease from exercising his Constitutionally -protected right to make
public records requests, and cease from engaging in Constitutionally -protected speech.
67. As a result of the civil conspiracy between Morgan and Sweetapple, Plaintiff has
suffered substantial damages, the full amount of which will be proved at trial.
Demand For Jury Trial
Plaintiff demands a trial by jury on all issued so triable.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Morgan and Sweetapple for:
(i) Direct, incidental, and consequential damages, interest, and costs, in an
10
DESOUZA LAW, P.A.
1515 N. UNIVERSITY DR., SUITE 209 • CORAL SPRINGS, FL 33071
TELEPHONE (954) 6M-1340
amount to be determined at trial;
(ii) Attorneys' fees and costs incurred in pursuit of this action;
(iii) Punitive damages wherever applicable; and
(iv) Issuance of such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.
Dated: September 9, 2014. DESOUZA LAW, P.A.
1515 N. University Drive
Suite 209
Coral Springs, FL 33071
Telephone: (954) 551-5320
DD esouza(a)desouzal aw.co m
By: /s/ Daniel DeSouza, Esq,
Daniel DeSouza, Esq.
Florida Bar No.: 19291
11
DESOUZA LAW, P.A.
1515 N. UNIVERSITY DR, SUITE 209 • CORAL SPRINGS, FL 33011
TELEPHONE (954) 603.1340
VERIFICATION
The undersigned hereby verifies that the factual allegations contained herein are true,
correct and accurate.
By
MARTIN E. O'BOYLE
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF BROWARD
MARTIN E. O'BOYLE personally appeared before me thisday of September,
2014, and having taken an oath, stated (lint he has read the foregoing and that the contents
thereof are true and correct. He is personally known to me or has produced
as identification. i
4845-165641605. v. 1
A
HARYBETH HARALY
Rowy poo k - Bu18 of 14"Ida
Aly comm. E1012 Apr T. 2018
comminlan 0 FF 104180
12
DESOUZA LAW, P.A.
1515 N. UNIVERSITY DR., SUITE 2D9 • CORAL SPRINGS. FL 33071
TELEPHONE (954) 603-1340
Renee Basel
From: Bill Thrasher
Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2015 2:06 PM
To: Irma Cohen
Cc: Rita Taylor
Subject: FW: SERVICE OF COURT DOCUMENT - CASE NUMBER New Case
Attachments: Civil Cover Sheet.pdf; Complaint.pdf; Summons.pdf; 23495316_22725700.tif
Good afternoon Irma,
Unfortunately our general counsel received this complaint today.
Is this covered by FMIT?
Thank you for your assistance and response.
mm
From: OConnor, Joanne M. [mailto:JOConnor@jonesfoster.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2015 10:44 AM
To: Bill Thrasher
Cc: scottmorgan75@gmail.com; Randolph, John C.; Matias, Sally; Macfarlane, Mary
Subject: FW: SERVICE OF COURT DOCUMENT - CASE NUMBER New Case
ME
Please let me know if you have any objection to me accepting service of this complaint for inverse
condemnation (underground pipelines) of Marty O'Boyle.
Thanks,
Joanne
JONESFOSTER
Joanne M. O'Connor Attorney
Direct Dial: 561.650.0498 1 Pas: 561.650.5300 1 joconnor(aljonesfoster.com
Jones, Foster, Johnston & Stubbs, P.A.
Flagler Center Tower, 505 South Plagler Drive, Suite 1100, West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
561-659-3000 1 www.jonesfoster.com
Incoming emails are filtered \Ihich mac dcl:n receipt. Ibis email is personal to the named recipient(s) and may be privileged
and confidential. ]f you are not the intended recipient, you received this in error. If so, ant- review, dissemination, or copying
of this email is prohibited. Please immediately notifj- us by email and delete the original message.
From: Daniel DeSouza [mailto:ddesouzaCaldesouzalaw.coml
Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 3:30 PM
To: OConnor, Joanne M.
Subject: FW: SERVICE OF COURT DOCUMENT - CASE NUMBER New Case
Joanne,
New Marty case against Gulf Stream (and it's not public records!). Let me know if you'll agree to accept service or
whether I have to arrange for formal service.
Thanks,
Dan
From: eservice(@mvflcourtaccess.com[mailto:eservice(almyFlcourtaccess.coml
Sent: Friday, February 06, 2015 7:48 PM
Subject: SERVICE OF COURT DOCUMENT - CASE NUMBER New Case
Notice of Service of Court Documents
E -service recipients selected for service:
Name Email Address
Daniel Desouza DDesouza desouzalaw.com
E -service recipients deselected for service:
Name Email Address
Matching Entries
Filing Information
Filing #:
Filing Time:
Filer:
Court:
Case #:
Court Case #:
Case Style:
Documents
Cover Sheet
23495316
02/06/2015 07:47:35 PM ET
Daniel Desouza 954-551-5320
Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida
New Case
NEW CASE
Martin E. O'Boyle VS Town of Gulf Stream
2
v Gulf Stream (takings) - Complaint.
v Gulf Stream (takings) - summons.f
This is an automatic email message generated by the Florida Courts E -Filing Portal. This
email address does not receive email.
Thank you,
The Florida Courts E -Filing Portal
req uest_id#:23495316;Audit#:80422779;UCN#:New Case;
3
**** CASE NUMBER: 2015CA001498 DIVISION: Al ****
Filing # 23495316 E -Filed 02/06/2015 07:47:35 PM
MARTIN E. O'BOYLE
Plaintiff,
V.
TOWN OF GULF STREAM,
Defendant.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA
To each Sheriff of the State:
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE
FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN
AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY,
FLORIDA
CASE NO.:
SUMMONS
YOU ARE COMMANDED to serve this summons and a copy of the complaint in this
law suit on defendant:
Town of Gulf Stream
100 Sea Road
Gulf Stream, FL 33483
Each defendant is required to serve written defenses to the complaint or petition on Daniel
DeSouza, Plaintiff's attorney, whose address is 1515 N. University Drive, Suite 209, Coral
Springs, Florida 33071, within twenty (20) days after service of this summons on that defendant,
exclusive of the day of service, and to file the original of the defenses with the clerk of this court
either before service on plaintiff's attorney or immediately thereafter. If a defendant fails to do
so, a default will be entered against the defendant for the relief demanded in the complaint or
petition.
DATED on FEB 112015
By &;z
Clerk of the Court
Robin Pender
DESOUZA LAW, P.A.
Attorney for the Plaintiff
1515 N. University Drive,
Coral Springs, Florida 330'
Telephone: (954) 603-134
DDesouza@desouzalaw.cc
SHARON R. BOCK
Clerk & Comptroller
P.O. Box 4667
West Palm Beach, Florida
33402-4667
*** FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL SHARON R BOCK, CLERK. 2/6/2015 7:47:35 PM ***
Renee Basel
From: Bill Thrasher
Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 3:55 PM
To: Irma Cohen
Subject: FW: O'Boyle vs Town of Gulf Stream, et al, Case No. 2015CA001737 AJ (13147.87)
Attachments: 1 L17857 -complaint 87.PDF
Irma,
Is this complaint covered by the Town's insurance?
Thanks,
In
From: Randolph, John C.[mailto:JRandolph@jonesfoster.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 11:28 AM
To: Bill Thrasher; scottmorgan75@gmail.com
Subject: O'Boyle vs Town of Gulf Stream, et al, Case No. 2015CA001737 AJ (13147.87)
Gentlemen,
Please see the attached. Please let me know when you are served with this complaint.
Thank you.
JOHN C. RANDOLPH
JONES FOSTER
-- IM P,S 10.V&51t'31aS, P.A.
John C. Randolph Attornec
Direct Dial: 561.650.0458 1 Has: 561.650.5300 1 jrandolphna,jonesfoster.com
Jones, poster, Johnston & Stubbs, R -N.
Flagler Center Tower, 505 South Hagler Drive, Suite 1100, \\ est palm Beach, Florida 33401
561-659-3000 1 www.jonesfoster.com
Incoming emails are filtered which maN delay receipt. This email is personal to the named recipient(s) and may be privileged
and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you received this in error. If so, any reiiew, dissemination, or copying
Of this email is prohibited. please immediately notify us by email and delete the original message.
Renee Basel
From: Bill Thrasher
Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2015 1:40 PM
To: Irma Cohen
Subject: RE: O'Boyle vs Town of Gulf Stream, et al, Case No. 2015CA001737 AJ (13147.87)
Irma,
The Town was officially served this complaint on March 6.
Thanks,
Bill Thrasher
From: Irma Cohen [mailto:ICohen@flcities.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 4:23 PM
To: Crosby Coleman
Cc: Bill Thrasher
Subject: FW: O'Boyle vs Town of Gulf Stream, et al, Case No. 2015CA001737 AJ (13147.87)
APPEARS TO BE YET ANOTHER SUIT!
ADVISE MEMBER.
Irma Cohen
Litigation Specialist
Florida League of Cities
407-367-1762
icohen@flcities.com
From: Bill Thrasher [mailto:bthrasherC@gulf-stream.org]
Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 3:55 PM
To: Irma Cohen
Subject: FW: O'Boyle vs Town of Gulf Stream, et al, Case No. 2015CA001737 AJ (13147.87)
Irma,
Is this complaint covered by the Town's insurance?
Thanks,
From: Randolph, John C. [mailto:JRandolohftionesfoster.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 11:28 AM
To: Bill Thrasher; scottmorgan75Cdgmail.com
Subject: O'Boyle vs Town of Gulf Stream, et al, Case No. 2015CA001737 AJ (13147.87)
Gentlemen,
Please see the attached. Please let me know when you are served with this complaint.
Thank you.
JOHN C. RANDOLPH
JONESFOSTER
- 101 P, 1I ON tiSI UPBS, P.A.
John C. Randolph Attorney
Direct Dial: 561.650.0458 1 hax: 561.650.5300 1 irandolph(2iones foster.com
Jones, hoster, Johnston & Stubbs, P.A.
Plagler Center lower, 505 South Flagler Drive, State 11001 \\ v, [ Palm Beach, Florida 33401
561-659-3000 1 m m7jonesfoster.com
Incoming cnnails are filtered which may delay receipt. This email is personal to the named recipient(s) and may be privileged
and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you received this in error. If so, any review, dissemination, or copying
of this email is prohibited. Please immediately notify us by email and delete the original message.
Renee Basel
From: Bill Thrasher
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2016 3:54 PM
To: ccoleman@flcities.com
Cc: Rita Taylor, Renee Basel
Subject: Checking on status of Determination of Coverage - O'Hare Utility Undergrounding
Project
Mr. Coleman,
As you know, the Town was served with yet another lawsuit: O'Hare vs Town of Gulf Stream regarding the
undergrounding of utilities in Gulf Stream. Has there been a determination for coverage? We were told that the
determination would be today.
Thanks,
Bill Thrasher, Town Manager
Town of Gulf Stream