By Coral Gables Gazette staff

The Coral Gables Gazette submitted 36 written questions to City Attorney Cristina Suárez on April 16, following a review of court filings that identified more than two dozen active civil cases in which the City of Coral Gables is currently named as a party. The questions covered the City’s litigation docket, outside counsel selection, claims administration practices, infrastructure maintenance, vehicle safety, and specific pending cases. They were submitted simultaneously as a formal media inquiry and as a public records request with a response requested by April 24.

The City Attorney did not respond directly. Within days of the submission, Martha Pantin, the city’s director of Communications and Public Affairs, acknowledged receipt and said the inquiry was under review. Pantin wrote that some of the questions would require a response from the City Attorney, that fulfilling portions of the public records request would involve costs, and that the April 24 deadline could not be met.

On May 8, Pantin transmitted a written response dated May 7 and described as prepared after a meeting with the City Attorney. Suárez’s name does not appear on the response. Pantin copied the City Clerk Billy Urquia on the email, noting the public records component of the request. As of May 18, the City Clerk’s office has not contacted the Gazette regarding the public records request. Under Florida Statute Chapter 119, government agencies are required to acknowledge public records requests within 10 business days. May 18 is the eleventh business day since the Gazette received the response.

The Gazette subsequently left two phone messages for the City Attorney. Neither has been returned.

What the City said

The City’s written response opened with a statement of intent. “The city is committed to transparency and will provide responsive records in accordance with Florida Statute Chapter 119,” the response stated.

On outside counsel, the response stated that the determination to retain outside counsel is made by the City Attorney based on the nature, complexity, and potential exposure of a matter, and that the City has worked with qualified firms over many years as authorized by the City’s code.

On claims administration, the response clarified that the Human Resources and Risk Management Department administers the City’s contract with its third-party claims administrator, Davies Group, and directed records requests on that subject to Risk Management.

On the Beltran matter, the response stated: “Officer (Bryant) Elliott is currently employed by the city.”

On fleet operations, the response stated the City maintains procedures and protocols governing the operation of City vehicles, incident review, and employee conduct, and committed to providing documents through the public records process.

On settlements and litigation exposure, the response stated the City would provide responsive, non-exempt information. The Gazette has requested the settlement amount paid in the Espinoza sidewalk matter. That figure has not been provided.

On risk management practices, litigation strategy, and pending cases, the response was explicit: “The city will not be providing commentary on our strategy.”

The response closed with an indication that further answers may follow. “The city will continue to review your questions and provide additional responses where appropriate following internal coordination and legal review,” it stated.

Outside counsel selection and budget

The Gazette asked: What are the current hourly rates, fee structures, and any applicable caps under the City’s engagement agreements with outside counsel firms, including Pozo-Diaz & Pozo, Wydler Law, Peña Garcia PLLC, HLM Legal, GCC Law Center, Fowler White Burnett, and Holland & Knight?

The City did not answer. Nor did these seven law firm when contacted by email.

The Gazette also asked: Who made the decision to retain Holland & Knight in the University Green dog park litigation, what was the rationale for selecting that firm, and was that retention presented to or approved by the City Commission?

The City did not answer. The response confirmed, however, that Miriam Soler Ramos, a former City Attorney of Coral Gables, is currently a partner at Holland & Knight. The response stated she “is not representing the City of Coral Gables in any pending matters.” The response did not address what role, if any, she played in the firm’s selection.

Claims administration

The Gazette asked: Multiple complaints allege that the City’s claims administrator failed to make a settlement offer, counteroffer, or substantive response within the 180-day statutory period under Florida Statute §768.28. Has the City conducted any review, audit, or corrective action in response to those allegations? When the 180-day statutory period expires without a response, what is the City’s policy — are claims deemed denied, and who makes that determination?

The City did not answer either question. The response redirected claims administration questions to the Human Resources and Risk Management Department.

Systemic litigation exposure

The Gazette asked: Has the City conducted any internal analysis or review to determine whether current litigation exposure reflects broader systemic issues in maintenance, operations, or risk management? If so, what were the findings?

The City did not answer.

The Gazette also asked: Over the past three fiscal years, how many premises liability and vehicle negligence claims has the City settled, and what is the total amount paid in settlements and judgments across those categories?

The City did not answer. The response stated that the City would provide responsive, non-exempt information regarding litigation exposure and settlements, but no figures have been provided.

Infrastructure maintenance

The Gazette asked: The complaint in Zubillaga v. City of Coral Gables references a July 2020 contractor repair proposal identifying the 200 Block Mid-Block crosswalk as requiring repair, and an October 2021 City internal survey specifically documenting that location as needing repair in both eastbound and westbound lanes. Why was the crosswalk not repaired between July 2020 and November 2024, the date of Ms. Zubillaga’s fall?

The City did not answer.

The Gazette also asked: What prompted the April 2025 purchase order for Miracle Mile paver restoration — was it triggered by the incident, subsequent litigation, or an independent infrastructure assessment?

The City did not answer. The response stated that as a full-service municipality with extensive infrastructure, including many miles of sidewalks and a large fleet of vehicles, claims and litigation can arise in the normal course of operations.

Specific cases

The Gazette asked: In Beltran v. City of Coral Gables, was the dismissal with prejudice the result of a settlement, a court ruling, or a voluntary dismissal? If the matter was resolved by settlement, what were the terms and amount?

The City did not answer either question. The response confirmed only that Officer Elliott remains employed by the City.

The Gazette asked: What is the City’s legal position regarding allegations that required public notice procedures under Florida Statute §166.041 were not followed in the adoption of Resolution No. 2025-452? How does the City respond to allegations related to Sunshine Law compliance in the scheduling and communication of the relevant Commission meeting?

The City did not answer.

The discontinued agenda item

The Gazette asked: In the years that the Gazette covered Coral Gables as a printed publication (1996-2008), there was always a pending litigation item for Commission meetings when the City Attorney would give updates. When and why did this practice end?

The City did not answer.

What the Gazette determined independently

One question submitted April 16 asked who was representing the City in the Fresh AN, LLC Golf Club café breach of contract case, which has a trial date of September 2026. The City did not answer. On May 14, court records show that Holland & Knight filed a notice of appearance in that matter. Anna Marie “Annie” Gamez, the Holland & Knight attorney serving as lead counsel in the University Green dog park case, is also lead counsel in Fresh AN. Gamez now appears as lead counsel in both of the City’s non-tort trial-track cases, with combined trial dates spanning September through December.

The records request

The City designated the public records component of the Gazette’s request as an extensive use request, meaning it intends to charge for the cost of fulfilling portions of the request before producing documents. The response stated that a cost estimate would be provided through the Office of the City Clerk. As of publication, no cost estimate has been provided and the City Clerk’s office has not contacted the Gazette.

Several documents identified in the Gazette’s request — including engagement letters with outside counsel firms — are discrete, identified documents that do not require an extensive search to locate or produce.

The inquiry

The Gazette’s 36 questions were organized across eight categories: the litigation budget and outside counsel selection; claims administration and statutory compliance; systemic litigation exposure; infrastructure maintenance and liability patterns; City vehicle collisions and fleet safety; specific cases including Espinoza, Beltran, University Green, Bolton, and Zubillaga; City-initiated enforcement actions; and the history of pending litigation reporting to the Commission.

Here are links to the full text of the Gazette’s inquiry and the City’s written response.