1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 1:22-cv-24066-KMM

GRACE, INC., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CITY OF MIAMI,

Defendant.

/

PLAINTIFFS’ STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS

Plaintiffs respond to the City’s Statement of Material Facts (ECF No. 130), as follows:

I. Background

1. Undisputed.

2. Undisputed.1

3. Undisputed.

4. Undisputed.

5. Undisputed.

II. General Demographics

6. Undisputed.

7. Disputed. The district-level racial demographics of P1, P2, P3, and P4 differ from the City’s 

New Plan (“2023 Plan”) in significant ways. Ex. 1, Abott Trial Rep. at 44–45.

III. Plaintiff Clarice Cooper

8. Undisputed.

1 Plaintiffs assume the City inadvertently omitted the word “same” before “racial 

demographics” in this paragraph.

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 134 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/27/2023 Page 1 of 10
2

9. Undisputed.

10. Undisputed.

11. Disputed. Cooper believes that part of Coconut Grove was moved from District 2 and put into 

Districts 3 and 4 for racial reasons. ECF No. 130-3 (Cooper Dep.) at 33:18–34:7, 36:14–18, 

50:20–23, 87:19–88:18; ECF No. 24-37 (Cooper Decl.) ¶ 9.

12. Undisputed.

13. Disputed. Cooper is “worried about the diluting of influence of Black residents” in District 5,

and is concerned that Black residents were artificially stripped from District 2 in the 2022 Plan 

on the basis of their race. Cooper Dep. at 41:3–15; Cooper Decl. ¶ 6.

IV. Plaintiff Steven Miro

14. Undisputed.

15. Undisputed. 

16. Undisputed.

17. Disputed. Miro has multiple issues with District 3, including that race predominated in the 

drawing of it, that the Commission “label[ed] it totally based on race,” that Hispanics were 

packed into the district on the basis of their race, that it split Little Havana to “deliberately [] 

allocate Hispanic residents into different districts,” and that it did not respect natural 

boundaries. ECF No. 130-4 (Miro Dep.) at 21:15–22:18, 33:9–24, 34:13–19, 36:3–11, 70:6–

11, 73:4–12, 74:2–8, 77:22–78:15, 79:18–25; ECF No. 24-39 (Miro Decl.) ¶¶ 5–7.

18. Disputed. Miro has race-based objections to District 3 in both the 2022 Plan and 2023 Plan. 

Miro Dep. at 21:15–22:18, 33:9–24, 34:13–19, 36:3–11, 70:6–11, 73:4–12, 74:2–8, 77:22–

78:15, 79:18–25; Miro Decl. ¶¶ 5–7.

19. Undisputed.

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 134 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/27/2023 Page 2 of 10
3

20. Undisputed.

V. Plaintiff Jared Johnson

21. Undisputed.

22. Undisputed. 

23. Undisputed. 

24. Undisputed. 

25. Undisputed. 

26. Undisputed. 

27. Undisputed. 

28. Undisputed. 

VI. Plaintiff Alexandra Contreras

29. Undisputed. 

30. Undisputed. 

31. Disputed. The racial composition of District 4 had nothing to do with Contreras’ decision to 

move there in August 2022. ECF No. 130-6 (Contreras Dep.) at 12:7–20.

32. Disputed. Contreras stated she is “concerned that Hispanic residents like me have been packed 

into my district on the basis of their race.” Contreras Dep. at 61:7–11. The racial composition 

of District 4 had nothing to do with Contreras’ decision to move there. Id. at 12:7–20. She 

acknowledged that District 4’s Hispanic voting-age population increased from 89.5% in the 

2022 Plan to 90% in the 2023 Plan. Id. at 61:15–18, 61:21–24.

33. Undisputed.

34. Undisputed.

35. Undisputed.

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 134 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/27/2023 Page 3 of 10
4

36. Undisputed.

37. Undisputed.

38. Undisputed.

39. Undisputed.

40. Disputed. Contreras explained her opinion that District 4 was atypical in shape. Contreras Dep. 

at 22:11–18, 37:13–20.

41. Disputed. Contreras objects to the City of Miami using race as a basis to draw its maps 

(including the 2023 Plan), rather than, for example, respecting neighborhoods and boundaries. 

Contreras Dep. at 62:7–15. Contreras objects to the atypical shapes of the 2022 Plan’s districts 

(including District 4), which barely changed in the 2023 Plan. Id. 15:17–25, 22:11–18.

VII. Plaintiff Yanelis Valdes

42. Undisputed. 

43. Undisputed. 

44. Disputed. Valdes’ grievance with the 2022 Plan was not only that she was moved into a 

different district. ECF No. 130-7 (Valdes Dep.) at 18:2–5. Her other grievances with the 2022 

Plan included that “it wasn’t representative of [] the neighborhood[s] and geographic areas that 

represented communities and instead [districts] were drawn based on race;” that “the map was 

drawn to seemingly put Black residents into one district and Hispanic residents into other 

districts,” thereby “split[ting] up . . . communities . . . and neighborhoods,” rather than drawing 

districts along “boundaries that are naturally occurring, but based on people’s race.” Id. at 

18:6–25, 19:13–14, 26:13–28:15, 61:3–10; ECF No. 24-41 (Valdes Decl.) ¶¶ 6–8. These 

grievances were not redressed by the 2023 Plan. Id. at 68:12–20.

45. Undisputed.

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 134 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/27/2023 Page 4 of 10
5

46. Disputed. Valdes objects that the 2023 Plan is drawn based on people’s race, rather than 

communities of interest and neighborhoods. Valdes Dep. at 68:12–20.

47. Disputed. Valdes testified that, “given [she] already testified that [she] do[es]n’t have a 

problem being represented by a Black commissioner or a Hispanic commissioner,” she does 

not “have a concern with representation,” but was “not really sure how to answer that.” Id. at 

67:13–20. Valdes continues to be concerned that the City Commission’s maps are “based on 

people’s race and not necessarily communities of interest and neighborhood makeup.” Id. at 

68:16–20.

48. Undisputed.

VIII. Plaintiff Miami-Dade NAACP

49. Undisputed.

50. Undisputed.

51. Disputed. The Miami-Dade NAACP corporate representative testified that she personally 

knows that there are branch members who live in Districts 1, 2, 3, and 5. ECF No. 130-8 (Pierre 

Dep.) at 42:17–43:1, 71:14–73:7, 86:12–89:2.

52. Undisputed.

53. Disputed.2 The Miami-Dade NAACP’s issues with the 2022 Plan included that it unfairly 

classified Miami residents on the basis of race, and that Black residents in the northern half of 

the city had been packed into a single district. Pierre Dep. at 43:2–44:1, 47:13–48:20; ECF No. 

24-36 (Pierre Decl.) ¶¶ 6–8.

54. Disputed. The Miami-Dade NAACP objects to both the 2022 Plan and 2023 Plan unfairly 

classifying Miami residents on the basis of race, and packing Black voters into District 5, 

2 Plaintiffs do not dispute the second sentence of this paragraph.

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 134 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/27/2023 Page 5 of 10
6

among other objections. Pierre Dep. at 43:2–44:1, 47:13–48:20, 29:9–30:19; Pierre Decl. ¶¶ 6–

8.3 During her deposition, Pres. Pierre was asked whether she recognized the maps of the 2022 

Plan and 2023 Plan; she replied that she did not. Pierre Dep. at 28:4–8, 31:20–23. Pres. Pierre 

was then asked whether the Miami-Dade NAACP had an objection to those exhibits; she 

replied that she did not know. Id. at 30:23–31:16, 31:24–32:1.

IX. Plaintiff South Dade NAACP

55. Disputed. Information on where South Dade NAACP members live is available at the national 

level of the NAACP. ECF No. 130-9 (Donaldson Dep.) at 23:15–18. Donaldson herself 

personally knows of South Dade NAACP members who live in District 2, and knows of 

members who lived in District 4 as of early 2023. Id. at 24:2–6, 24:19–25:11.

56. Disputed. Information on where South Dade NAACP members live is available at the national 

level of the NAACP. Donaldson Dep. at 23:15–18.

57. Disputed. The cited testimony discusses GRACE board members, not South Dade NAACP 

board members. Donaldson Dep. at 80:14–81:5.

58. Undisputed.

59. Disputed. The South Dade NAACP was concerned that the 2022 Plan split the West Grove and 

Coconut Grove into Districts 2, 3, and 4, and was also concerned that the 2022 Plan unfairly 

classified Miami residents on the basis of race. Id. at 35:12–17, 37:24–38:12; ECF No. 24-35 

(Ford Decl.) ¶¶ 6–9.

3 See also ECF No. 109 (Supp. Compl.) ¶¶ 55–63, 134–59, 177–80 (Supplemental 

Complaint filed September 7, 2023 demonstrating objections to the 2023 Plan).

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 134 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/27/2023 Page 6 of 10
7

60. Disputed.4 The South Dade NAACP corporate representative did not express an opinion on 

whether the capturing of the piece of Coconut Grove with Commissioner Carollo’s house had 

been done for racially motivated reasons. Donaldson Dep. at 39:2–21.

61. Undisputed.

62. Disputed. At her deposition, the South Dade NAACP corporate represented stated that she 

could not say whether the South Dade NAACP objects to the 2023 Plan, because she had not 

discussed it with the branch’s board. Donaldson Dep. at 47:20–48:11, 54:16–55:16. The South 

Dade NAACP filed the Supplemental Complaint objecting that the 2023 Plan classifies its 

members on the basis of race and subordinates traditional redistricting principles like 

compactness, following major boundaries, and respecting neighborhoods. Supp. Compl. 

¶¶ 55–63, 134–59, 177–80. 

X. Plaintiff GRACE

63. Undisputed.

64. Disputed. GRACE has both organizational and individual members. ECF No. 130-1 (Robinson 

Dep.) at 9:15–22. Individual members of GRACE’s organizational members are also members 

of GRACE. Id. at 59:5–18.

65. Undisputed.

66. Disputed. GRACE has identified that its members, and constituent organizations’ members,

reside in Districts 2 and 4. Robinson Dep. at 51:3–17, 52:1–4, 60:20–61:6.

67. Disputed. GRACE’s concerns with the Enjoined Plan included that part of the West Grove was 

being split from District 2, that the opinions of the community had not been taken into 

4 Plaintiffs do not dispute that “South Dade NAACP was also concerned with a piece of 

District 3 that covered Coconut Grove.”

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 134 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/27/2023 Page 7 of 10
8

consideration, that communities of interest and neighborhoods were respected in some parts of 

the city but not in others, that natural boundaries weren’t used, and that the neighborhood 

divisions were to achieve a particular racial balance of the different districts, rather than to 

serve neighborhoods. Robinson Dep. at 29:12–30:16; ECF No. 24-33 (Donaldson Decl.) ¶¶ 6–

9.

68. Undisputed.

69. Undisputed.

70. Disputed.5 GRACE alleges in the Supplemental Complaint that the 2023 Plan sent the message 

to its members who are in a district where they are not the predominant racial group, that their 

commissioner’s job is to represent the predominant group, not them. Supp. Compl. ¶ 16. 

During his deposition, GRACE’s corporate representative replied when asked that he did not 

know if the statement would apply to GRACE’s members. Robinson Dep. at 66:9–15.

71. Disputed. After the enactment of the 2023 Plan, GRACE’s initial concerns were addressed. 

Robinson Dep. 103:8–11, :19–22. GRACE’s concerns evolved and GRACE also was 

concerned about how its members were being treated under the 2023 Plan. Id. 103:12–14; see 

also Supp. Compl. ¶¶ 16, 18, 177–180 (evidencing GRACE’s ongoing concerns with 2023 

Plan). GRACE did not only share the concerns of how other organizations and individuals 

were being treated. Robinson Dep. 103:12–18.

XI. Plaintiff Engage Miami

72. Undisputed.

5 As written, this paragraph does not assert a fact. Plaintiffs assume the sentence has typos, 

and should read: “GRACE did not believe that the new Plan sent the message to its members that 

their commissioner’s job is to represent the predominant racial group.”

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 134 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/27/2023 Page 8 of 10
9

73. Undisputed. 

74. Undisputed. 

75. Undisputed. 

76. Undisputed. 

77. Undisputed. 

ADDITIONAL FACTS

78. Plaintiff Cooper is a member of GRACE. ECF No. 130-3 (Cooper Dep.) at 41:16–17.

79. Plaintiff Cooper is a member of one of GRACE’s constituent members, the Coconut Grove 

Village West Homeowners and Tenants Association (HOTA). Id. at 80:12–15, 80:24–81:4.

80. Plaintiff Cooper is a resident of District 2 under both the 2022 and 2023 Plans. Id. at 12:16–

13:1.

81. Plaintiff Engage Miami has members who reside in all five City Commission districts under 

both the 2022 and 2023 Plans. Pelham Dep. 25:7–12, 27:7–17; Ex. 2 (Engage membership list

noting each member’s commission district).

82. me South Dade NAACP and Miami-Dade NAACP objected to the City’s requests for specific 

information about its members protected from disclosure by the associational privilege. Ex. 3 

(Miami-Dade NAACP’s Responses to Def.’s First Request for Production) at 2, 5–6; Ex. 4 

(South Dade NAACP’s Responses to Def.’s First Request for Production) at 2, 5–6.

83. me South Dade NAACP and Miami-Dade NAACP informed the City that they would submit 

declarations and/or provide testimony at the appropriate stage of litigation verifying that they

have members who reside in the relevant Commission districts. Ex. 3 at 5–6; Ex. 4 at 5–6.

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 134 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/27/2023 Page 9 of 10
10

Respectfully submitted this 27th day of November, 2023,

/s/ Nicholas L.V. Warren

Nicholas L.V. Warren (FBN 1019018)

ACLU Foundation of Florida

1809 Art Museum Drive, Suite 203

Jacksonville, FL 32207

(786) 363-1769

nwarren@aclufl.org

Daniel B. Tilley (FBN 102882)

Caroline A. McNamara (FBN 1038312)

Janine M. Lopez (FBN 1038560)

ACLU Foundation of Florida

4343 West Flagler Street, Suite 400

Miami, FL 33134

(786) 363-2714

dtilley@aclufl.org

cmcnamara@aclufl.org

Gregory P. Luib*

Dechert LLP

1900 K Street NW

Washington, DC 20006

(202) 261-3413

gregory.luib@dechert.com

Neil A. Steiner*

Julia Markham-Cameron*

Dechert LLP

mree Bryant Park

1095 Avenue of the Americas

New York, NY 10036

(212) 698-3822

neil.steiner@dechert.com

julia.markham-cameron@dechert.com

Christopher J. Merken*

Dechert LLP

Cira Centre

2929 Arch Street

Philadelphia, PA 19104

(215) 994-2380

christopher.merken@dechert.com

* Admitted pro hac vice

Counsel for Plaintiffs

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 134 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/27/2023 Page 10 of 10