1992-09-01 Morell to DCA MICHAEL WM. MORELL
ATTORNEY AT LAW
310 WEST COLLEGE AVENUE
ADMINISTRATIVE AND GOVERNMENTAL LAW TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32301-1408 ALSO ADMITTED IN THE
ENVIRONMENTAL AND LAND USE LAW DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
(904) 425-8300
(904) 423•6301 FACSIMILE
September 1, 1992
2 :00 p.m.
VIA FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION 904/922-2679 and U.S. Mail
Karen Brodeen
David Russ
Assistants General Counsel
Florida Department of Community Affairs
2740 Centerview Drive
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100
Re: City of Okeechobee v. DCA, DOAH Case No. 92-4909GM;
Shirley Pinder v. DCA and Okeechobee County, DOAH Case No. 92-
4910GM Florida Manufactured Housing Association, Inc. and Ted
Kelchner v. DCA, DOAH Case No. 92-4911GM.
Dear Karen and David:
In the spirit of good faith cooperation and coordination among
all counsel of record, and in keeping with principles of efficient
case management, I would like to propose the following 7 point
stipulation as one way to facilitate the hearing officer's orderly
consideration of at least some of the preliminary procedural
matters in the above-referenced three cases :
1 . DCA would immediately file a notice of withdrawal of
its motions to dismiss for failure to join an
indispensable party which have been filed in the cases of
City of Okeechobee v. DCA and FMHA, Inc. & Kelchner v.
DCA.
2 . DCA would then file, pursuant to DOAH Rule 22I-6 . 012,
F.A.C. , motions for entry of an order in the cases of
City of Okeechobee v. DCA and FMHA, Inc. & Kelchner v.
DCA. In the motions the Department would request that
the hearing officer enter orders notifying Okeechobee
County of the two proceedings and giving the County an
opportunity to be joined as a party of record upon the
County filing petitions for leave to intervene in each
case pursuant to DOAH Rule 22I-6 . 010; DCA would be
authorized to represent that petitioners in each
respective case do not oppose the Department' s motion for
entry of an order notifying the County of an opportunity
to file a petition for leave to intervene in each case.
(The petitioners would appreciate the courtesy of
reviewing the motions prior to filing. )
David Russ
Karen Brodeen
September 1, 1992
Page Two
3 . DCA would immediately notify the hearing officer by
filing a pleading which stated that, consistent with the
motion for entry of an order filed on August 20, 1992 by
the City in the case of City of Okeechobee v. DCA and
consistent with Karen Brodeen's earlier conversation with
David Eastman, counsel for FMHA, Inc. and Ted Kelchner,
the Department has no opposition to the entry of an order
granting the City, FMHA, Inc. and Kelchner leave to file
amended petitions within 10 days of the entry of the
order;
4 . The parties in all three of the above-referenced
cases would reserve their right to oppose, respond or
support the motion to consolidate the above-referenced
three cases filed by the Department in City of Okeechobee
v. DCA; and
5 . In the case of City of Okeechobee v. DCA, the City
would file a joint response to the hearing officer's
notice of assignment and order dated August 21, 1992 in
which the City and DCA would inform the hearing officer
that in order to accommodate a broad scope of discovery,
settlement negotiations and/or mediation between the
parties (should the parties so voluntarily agree to
participate in such mediation) , the City and DCA prefer
a 5 day hearing be scheduled in Okeechobee County on
February 22-26, 1993 and that the formal hearing should
not be scheduled on the following dates: November 2-10,
1992, November 23-30, 1992, December 2-11, 1992 and
December 21-31, 1992 .
6 . In the case of FMHA, Inc. and Kelchner v. DCA, FMHA,
Inc. and Kelchner would file a joint response to the
hearing officer' s notice of assignment and order entered
in that case in which FMHA, Kelchner and DCA would inform
the hearing officer of the number of days, place and date
of the final hearing to be held in February of 1993
(after counsel for FMHA and Kelchner and counsel for DCA
have conferred) .
7 . Should the hearing officer ultimately end up
consolidating the three cases, the number of days and
dates of hearing would have to redetermined pursuant to
subsequent order of the hearing officer.
Karen Brodeen
David Russ
September 1, 1992
Page Three
Karen and David, I hope that the Department, other counsel of
record, and counsel for Okeechobee County agree that this would be
a sensible way to manage at least some of the preliminary
procedural matters in the cases while still allowing each attorney
to counsel and represent their respective client's interests .
I have spoken with David Eastman this morning, counsel for
FMHA, Inc. and Ted Kelchner. David agrees that this sort of a
stipulation makes sense.
Please contact me as soon as possible to let me know what the
Department ' s position with regard to such a stipulation would be.
If I do not hear from the Department by 5 : 00 p.m. on Wednesday,
September 2, 1992 I will assume that the Department is not
interested in pursuing such a stipulation and the attorneys for the
various parties may proceed accordingly.
With best personal regards, I am
Sincerely,
4141a(A)Milika
Michael Wm. Morell
MWM:mm
cc. Via Facsimile and U.S. Mail to the following:
John Cassels, Okeechobee County Attorney
David Eastman, Counsel for FMHA and Ted Kelchner
Robert V. Kennedy, Counsel for Shirley Pinder
John Cook, City Attorney for City of Okeechobee
John Drago, City Administrator