Filing # 143461930 E-Filed 02/07/2022 10:53:34 PM
`
`IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 11th
`JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF FLORIDA, IN AND
`FOR MIAMI - DADE CITY
`
`GENERAL JURISDICTION DIVISION
`
`CASE NO: 2022-001586-CA-01
`
`JOHN E. PATE
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`
`CITY OF OPA LOCKA, a political subdivision
`of the State of Florida, VERONICA WILLIAMS,
`JOHN H. TAYLOR, SHERELEAN BASS,
`AUDREY DOMINGUEZ, MATTHEW A.
`PIGATT,
`
`Defendants.
`
`/
`
`VERIFIED MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION REQUIRING IMMEDIATE
`REINSTATEMENT AS CITY MANAGER
`
`Plaintiff, JOHN PATE (“PATE”), through undersigned Counsel, hereby moves
`
`for a Preliminary Injunction Requiring Immediate Reinstatement as City Manager against
`
`Defendants CITY OF OPA LOCKA, ET AL., and in support thereof would show:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Plaintiff, JOHN PATE (“PATE”), is entitled to immediate reinstatement as the City
`
`Manager for the City of Opa Locka because there is no question that he was illegally
`
`removed in violation of the Florida Whistleblower Statute, F.S. 112.3187, the Florida
`
`Sunshine Law, F.S. 286.011 and in violation of the City Charter and his employment
`
`1
`
`
`
`IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 11th
`JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF FLORIDA, IN AND
`FOR MIAMI - DADE CITY
`
`GENERAL JURISDICTION DIVISION
`
`CASE NO: 2022-001586-CA-01
`
`JOHN E. PATE
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`
`CITY OF OPA LOCKA, a political subdivision
`of the State of Florida, VERONICA WILLIAMS,
`JOHN H. TAYLOR, SHERELEAN BASS,
`AUDREY DOMINGUEZ, MATTHEW A.
`PIGATT,
`
`Defendants.
`
`/
`
`VERIFIED MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION REQUIRING IMMEDIATE
`REINSTATEMENT AS CITY MANAGER
`
`Plaintiff, JOHN PATE (“PATE”), through undersigned Counsel, hereby moves
`
`for a Preliminary Injunction Requiring Immediate Reinstatement as City Manager against
`
`Defendants CITY OF OPA LOCKA, ET AL., and in support thereof would show:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Plaintiff, JOHN PATE (“PATE”), is entitled to immediate reinstatement as the City
`
`Manager for the City of Opa Locka because there is no question that he was illegally
`
`removed in violation of the Florida Whistleblower Statute, F.S. 112.3187, the Florida
`
`Sunshine Law, F.S. 286.011 and in violation of the City Charter and his employment
`
`1
`
`
`
`contract. The plaintiff’s immediate reinstatement is predicated upon his clear likelihood of
`
`success on the merits, the lack of an adequate remedy at law, the irreparable harm that he
`
`would suffer if an injunction is not entered and the overwhelming interest in fighting public
`
`corruption and supporting the right of public employees to report misconduct without
`
`jeopardizing their employment.
`
`II.
`
`THE FACTS
`
`1. PATE was hired September 25th, 2019, and improperly and illegally terminated for
`
`prohibited reasons and in violation of his employment agreement on January 13th, 2022;
`
`2. Pigatt was the Mayor of Opa Locka until November 10th, 2021.
`
`3. Bass, Dominguez, and Taylor are current City Commissioners in the City of Opa Locka.
`
`4. PATE reported improper conduct, including malfeasance and misfeasance, on the
`
`part of the higher-ups in the City, including the former Mayor and the current Mayor
`
`and Commission.
`
`5. Subsequent
`
`to PATE submitting written, signed reports of malfeasance,
`
`misfeasance, and mismanagement on the part of City officials to the City and the
`
`Miami Dade Ethics Commission, and cooperating in investigations of same, he was
`
`retaliated against in violation of Florida's Whistleblower Act by being illegally fired
`
`for prohibited reasons in violation of Florida Statute 112.3187.
`
`6. Among other things, Pate reported the following misconduct:
`
`A. VIOLATIONS OF THE FLORIDA SUNSHINE LAW BY THE MAYOR AND
`
`CITY COMMISSIONERS;
`
`2
`
`
`
`Mayor Williams and Vice Mayor Taylor violated the Sunshine Law by speaking
`
`by phone to discuss and plan the termination of the City Manager;
`
`B.
`
`IMPROPER RECEIPT OF GIFTS AND SPECIAL FAVORS BY CITY
`
`OFFICIAL;
`
`Mr. Pate explicitly advised City Officials about the impropriety of them accepting
`
`gifts above the legal limit;
`
`C. ILLEGAL AND IMPROPER POLICITCAL INFLUENCE IN PERSONAL
`
`MATTERS
`
`Mr. Pate was constantly harassed by Mayor Pigatt, the Late Commissioner
`
`Burke, and the current Mayor and City Commission, including Vice Mayor
`
`Taylor, to make personnel and administrative decisions that violated the City
`
`Charter.
`
`7. Among other things, the Late Commissioner Burke, and Mayor Pigatt repeatedly
`
`pressured PATE to terminate Police Chief James Dobson because of Dobson’s refusal
`
`to make police personnel moves at their direction and in part because of Dobson’s refusal
`
`to offer special favors, including to relatives of Mayor Pigatt, who has been arrested.
`
`8. The City breached provisions 1F and 2A of Pate’s Employment Contract by interfering
`
`and refusing to permit PATE to manage the City Government;
`
`9. The City violated provision 3A by terminating PATE without legitimate reasons and
`
`without adequate and required notice.
`
`10. The City violated section 5 in its entirety by never conducting the required evaluations
`
`and guidance.
`
`3
`
`
`
`(PATE’S ILLEGAL TERMINATION)
`
`11. On January 11th, 2022, the brother of Vice Mayor John Taylor was at fault in a car accident
`
`in Hollywood, Florida;
`
`12. Police Officer Taylor rear ended a car while he was improperly using a City Police vehicle
`
`without permission;
`
`13. At the time, Officer Taylor’s license was invalid and had been suspended twice;
`
`14. On January 12th, 2022, PATE received a phone call from the father of Vice Mayor John
`
`Taylor, requesting on behalf of the family that PATE ignore Officer Taylor’s
`
`transgressions and not follow the appropriate mandated procedures for police misconduct;
`
`15. PATE refused to cover up the bad act, and began to actively participate in and direct the
`
`ongoing investigation into Officer Taylor’s misconduct;
`
`16. On January 12th, after a City Commission meeting, Vice Mayor Taylor advised PATE
`
`that he intended to fire him, for, among other things, PATE’s refusal to condone
`
`misconduct;
`
`17. The same day Taylor scheduled a meeting for January 13th to fire PATE;
`
`18. Vice Mayor Taylor then violated the Florida Sunshine Law, F.S. 286.011 by calling
`
`Mayor Williams and other Commissioners to orchestrate the vote;
`
`19. On January 13th, 2022, PATE was fired with no Due Process and no proper notice.
`
`4
`
`
`
`II.
`
`TEMPORARY INJUNCTION RELIEF
`
`20. Plaintiff is an employee and protected party as that term is defined in Florida Statute
`
`112.3187;
`
`21. City of Opa Locka is a political subdivision of the State of Florida and is a local
`
`government agency as those terms are defined in Section 112.3187.
`
`22. Plaintiff participated in investigations of misfeasance and malfeasance and gross
`
`mismanagement. Plaintiff also filed complaints and cooperated in investigations with
`
`Miami Dade Ethics and the Inspector General.
`
`23. Plaintiff also filed and signed written complaints about this misconduct;
`
`24. Plaintiff satisfied all conditions precedent and exhausted his administrative remedies.
`
`25. In retaliation for making these disclosures and for his role in becoming a Whistle-blower
`
`under Florida Statutes, the CITY retaliated against Plaintiff by firing him.
`
`A. Plaintiff will suffer irreparable harm unless the injunction is issued;
`
`If the City appoints and ratifies that appointment of a new City Manager, there will be no position
`
`for the plaintiff to resume and he will suffer irreparable harm.
`
`B. There is no adequate remedy at law to protect plaintiff’s interests;
`
`The plaintiff came to Miami specifically to make his career as the City of Opa Locka City
`
`Manager and no amount of monetary damages will provide him with the relief of getting his job
`
`back. One of the principal remedies under Chapter 112.3187 is the reinstatement of the employee
`
`as a deterrent to the improper actions taken by the City here.
`
`5
`
`
`
`C. Pate has a substantial likelihood of succeeding on the merits of the complaint;
`
`Plaintiff Pate has established through his Sworn Complaint a Prima Facie case of entitlement to
`
`reinstatement and other relief as a Whistleblower. He was a municipal City Manager who reported
`
`misconduct and participated in investigations. Pate was fired almost immediately after he refused
`
`to cave into political pressure to turn a blind eye to misconduct by one of his police officers.
`
`D. There is a public interest in the granting of an injunction.
`
`The public in general, and in particular the citizens of Opa Locka have a vested interest in not
`
`having qualified career public servants terminated and replaced by unqualified political lackies
`
`breach the public trust in order to maintain their employment.
`
`IV.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`For all of these reasons and in order to maintain the status quo, the Plaintiff requests that this
`
`Court enter an injunction Ordering that John Pate be immediately reinstated as the City Manager
`
`for the City of Opa Locka.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`MICHAEL A. PIZZI, JR., P.A.
`On behalf of the Plaintiff
`Florida Bar No. 79545
`6625 Miami Lakes Drive East - Suite 316
`Miami Lakes, Florida 33014
`Telephone: 786 594 3948
`FAX:
`305 777 3802
`E-Mail:
`mpizzi@pizzilaw.com
`
`6
`
`
`
`SELTZER MAYBERG LLC
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`10750 NW 6th Court
`Miami, Florida 33168
`Telephone: (305) 444-1565
`Facsimile: (305) 444-1665
`menachem@Smfirm.com
`
`VERIFICATION
`
`I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Florida and the United States
`
`of America that the facts in the foregoing Verified Motion For Injunction are true and correct.
`
`Executed this 6th day of February 2022.
`
`_______________________________________________
`John E. Pate
`
`7
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
