Shawn Kaleta and Beach to Bay Construction LLC have responded with fury in their federal case against the city of Anna Maria.
The city’s motion to dismiss “attempts to disguise the overarching discriminatory actions of the city and its officials,” the developers’ attorney, Randolph Smith of the Najmy Thompson law firm of Bradenton, wrote in a March 23 response.
Kaleta and his company originated the suit in U.S. District Court in Tampa in February.
They alleged the city violated their rights under the First Amendment and 14th Amendment equal protection clause, as well as with federal and state due-process claims. The suit claims more than $50,000 in damages.
In the dismissal motion, city attorney Becky Vose contended Kaleta’s complaint alleged isolated and random acts and otherwise failed to rise to the level of a cause of action under the U.S. or state constitutions.
Smith argued back the city misread the complaint.
The city actions “are part of a larger pattern, by any means possible, to harm, halt, and destroy plaintiffs’ business and development efforts in the city,” he wrote in his response.
According to Smith, with discovery, the plaintiffs will show how the city singled out Kaleta in enforcing codes and ordinances.
The complaint contained facts necessary to withstand a motion to dismiss, he wrote.
He stated the city’s motion “confuses and combines legal standards” and “ignores many of the alleged actions taken by the city.”
“Obviously, the city wishes the complaint (to) be dismissed before discovery is conducted and the extent of the city’s malicious campaign of harassment and discrimination is uncovered,” he concluded.
In the complaint, the developers allege the city:
· Allowed others to build outside the lot coverage limits while it prevented plaintiffs from doing so.
· Delayed a Kaleta development on Magnolia Avenue.
· Shut off power and red-tagged the developers’ property without justification.
· Banned Kaleta and his company from obtaining building permits in the city.
· Filed a baseless complaint against Kaleta with the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation.
Smith stated Kaleta has been “an outspoken proponent of the vacation rental industry.”
The city retaliated after Kaleta spoke against its decisions, according to Smith’s response.
“Every time plaintiffs challenged the city or commented on one of its decisions, the city only placed additional and harsher requirements and restrictions on the plaintiff’s development efforts,” Smith wrote.
The city, on the other hand, argued Kaleta and his company voluntarily came into compliance, did not obtain an appealable order and failed to allege the commission was responsible for arbitrary practices.
Vose’s motion points out city staff — not the elected commissioners — asked the developer to erect a chain-link fence around a construction site, correct certain drainage issues and comply with the lot coverage limits.
Smith wrote the equal protection claim does not stem from an appealable code decision, but from the city officials’ “discriminatory decisions.”
“Throughout its motion, the city views each of its alleged actions in isolation,” Smith wrote, adding the city’s arguments about enforcing its codes are pretexts for discriminatory behavior.
A case management conference is expected this month.
City objects to conditional litigation coverage
Anna Maria Mayor Dan Murphy is taking a hard line against the city insurance carrier in the federal lawsuit filed by Shawn Kaleta and Beach to Bay Construction LLC.
In letters dated March 14 and March 16, the Florida Municipal Insurance Trust agreed to defend the city of Anna Maria but with conditions — including not allowing a city say in a settlement.
Murphy is unhappy with the conditions and told the insurer as much in a March 28 letter.
He told FMIT it must waive its right to settle the suits without prior city approval and appoint a mutually acceptable attorney.
Clearwater attorney Jay Daigneault of Trask Daigneault, appointed by FMIT to defend the city, is not acceptable, according to Murphy.
Murphy’s letter set an April 5 deadline for the carrier to agree to his terms.
If there’s no agreement, the city “explicitly rejects” the FMIT defense, he wrote.
He also said the city doesn’t plan to release the carrier from paying covered losses.
City attorney Becky Vose filed the first pleadings in the case.
In its March 14 letter, the carrier denied responsibility for Vose’s fees and told the city its appointment of Vose “may result in denial of coverage.”
The March 16 letter from FMIT states it will cooperate with Vose’s representation in “any uncovered allegations.”
Vose said she joined the federal bar in 1973-74 and her 42-year career includes representing local government in constitutional law cases.
Murphy said, “It’s not that we may be looking for another insurance carrier. I am looking.”
FMIT did not respond to calls from The Islander.
You write for The Islander, so will you post this? I have seen the piled-high-and-deep rentals built by beach to bay…..fully aware of all you posted. Thanks for the free PR, says B to B.
If you were a builder, would you build what the customer wants or would you force small homes with fewer bedrooms on the people investing here?
Never any good news associated with that name is there?
Yes. In fact, there is. Kaleta funded the community center fitness center … $125,000. He’s a business person and he builds homes that clients want — not what everyone wants — what the client wants.