Miami, FL — A Florida judge on Friday dismissed a lawsuit filed by two Little Havana business owners, Bill Fuller and Martin Pinilla, which aimed to oust Miami Commissioner Joe Carollo from his office. This decision follows a contentious legal battle that previously saw Carollo facing a multi-million-dollar judgment in federal court.
Fuller and Pinilla, who are not residents of Miami, had pursued the lawsuit under the “Miami’s Citizens’ Bill of Rights.” This charter provision mandates the forfeiture of office by any city official found to have wilfully violated a resident’s freedom of speech. The business duo alleged that Carollo, in his role as a public official, had infringed upon their constitutional rights, which they argued warranted his removal from office.
Jeff Gutchess, representing the plaintiffs, argued that the integrity of the city’s charter was at stake, emphasizing the Florida Supreme Court’s stance that such matters fall under the jurisdiction of circuit courts. Despite such arguments, the dismissal underscored a separation of the commissioner’s professional duties and his personal actions, as noted in the judgment dismissing the case.
In response to the ruling, attorney Christina Ceballos Levy, representing the defense, commended the judge’s discernment, highlighting the individual capacity in which Carollo was sued, which she argued did not directly implicate his official duties.
The lawsuit stems in part from a previous federal court decision that went against Carollo, resulting in a staggering $63 million judgment, which the city is also implicated to pay. Gutchess indicated plans to pursue another lawsuit against the city itself, seeking compensation under the same legal arguments.
Adding to Carollo’s robust defense, he expressed confidence in overturning the multi-million-dollar judgment on appeal and criticized the persistence of legal actions against him, framing it as a relentless campaign that belies a larger vendetta.
During the course of legal proceedings, Carollo, choosing not to attend the hearing on Wednesday, later voiced his views from his district office, pointing out the conditional nature of the legal actions he faces. He relayed part of the judge’s remarks questioning the prudence of removing him from office pending an appeal, which could potentially vindicate him.
The outcome of this case not only highlights the complexities involved in litigations that intertwine personal capacities with public office but also sets a precedent on how similar cases might be interpreted by the judiciary in the future in terms of the legal liabilities of public officials in Miami and potentially beyond.