UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

CASE NO. 1:22-cv-24066-KMM 

GRACE, INC.; ENGAGE MIAMI, INC.; 

SOUTH DADE BRANCH OF THE NAACP; 

MIAMI-DADE BRACH OF THE NAACP; 

CLARICE COOPER; YANELIS VALDES; 

JARED JOHNSON; and ALEXANDER 

CONTRERAS, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

CITY OF MIAMI, 

Defendant. 

/ 

DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ PROPOSED 

INTERIM REMEDIAL SCHEDULE

 e City of Miami, Defendant, in response to the Plaintiffs’ Proposed Interim Remedial

Schedule, submits the below response and proposed schedule for the interim remedial process. 

 is Court has preliminarily enjoined the City from using the district plan adopted in City

of Miami Resolution 22-131 in its next election to be held in November, 2023. (ECF No. 60.) e

Court has not yet ruled on the merits of Plaintiffs’ claims. Defendant’s chief objection to the

Plaintiffs’ proposed schedule is that it impermissibly shifts the burden of proof to the City and

turns the presumption of good faith that attaches to any legislatively-enacted remedial redistricting 

plan on its ear. As the Supreme Court has explained: 

Whenever a challenger claims that a state law was enacted 

with discriminatory intent, the burden of proof lies with 

the challenger, not the State. This rule takes on special 

significance in districting cases. Redistricting is primarily 

the duty and responsibility of the State, and federal-court 

review of districting legislation represents a serious 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 132-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/17/2023 Page 1 of 5
2 

intrusion on the most vital of local functions. In assessing 

the sufficiency of a challenge to a districting plan, a court 

must be sensitive to the complex interplay of forces that 

enter a legislature's redistricting calculus. And the good 

faith of the state legislature must be presumed. The 

allocation of the burden of proof and the presumption of 

legislative good faith are not changed by a finding of past 

discrimination. Past discrimination cannot, in the manner 

of original sin, condemn governmental action that is not 

itself unlawful. 

Abbott v. Perez, 138 S. Ct. 2305, 2324–25 (2018) (cleaned up). 

Both Perez and Covington v. North Carolina, 283 F. Supp. 3d 410, 424 

(M.D.N.C. 2018), aff’d in part, rev’d in part, 138 S.Ct. 2548 (2018), cited by Plaintiffs, 

involved a remedial phase implemented after a district court’s ruling on the merits of 

the challengers’ claims. At this time, no meaningful discovery has occurred1, let alone 

a ruling on the merits of Plaintiffs’ claims. To require the City to come back to this 

Court and request approval of its redistricting plan, as Plaintiffs request in bullet 3 

of their proposal, flips the burden of proof and disregards the presumption of 

legislative good faith, and does so well before a merits finding of discriminatory 

intent. If Perez concluded that a challenger still bears the burden of proof and the 

legislative body still enjoys the presumption of good faith for its plans after a finding 

of discriminatory intent in a prior enacted plan, such burden and presumption most 

assuredly apply here. “[A] legislature's ‘freedom of choice to devise substitutes for an 

apportionment plan found unconstitutional, either as a whole or in part, should not 

be restricted beyond the clear commands’ of federal law.” North Carolina v. 

 

1 Indeed, Plaintiffs have filed a motion seeking to stay discovery on the merits. See

ECF No. 64. 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 132-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/17/2023 Page 2 of 5
3 

Covington, 138 S.Ct. 2548, 2554 (2018) (quoting Burns v. Richardson, 384 U.S. 73, 85 

(1966)). 

Against that background, the City proposes the following schedule and process: 

1. Mediation is set for 6/13. The parties must notify the Court by June 23 

if an agreement is reached, or the status of such discussions. 

2. The City must apprise the Court by June 30 if the City has passed or 

anticipates that it will pass a new redistricting plan and the status of such efforts. 

3. If and when the City adopts a new redistricting plan, Plaintiffs may 

amend their complaint to challenge the new redistricting plan. Upon amending their 

complaint, Plaintiffs may also seek an injunction, or both, as permitted under the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. If Plaintiffs seek such relief and if the Court wishes 

to set a schedule, Plaintiffs should have 7 days after the passage of a new redistricting 

plan to file seek such motions. Defendants may respond to any such motions within 

7 days. And Plaintiffs may file a reply within 3 days. 

4. If the City fails to adopt a map by June 30, and the Court is unwilling 

to stay its injunction, the Court should commence its process for filling the vacuum 

and imposing a map. Defendants are amenable to the Plaintiffs’ proposed schedule 

for this scenario, but first request the Court to indicate whether the Court would 

prefer to use a special master or consider proposals from the parties in lieu of 

engaging a special master. 

 Respectfully submitted, 

GRAYROBINSON, P.A.

333 S.E. 2nd Avenue, Suite 3200 

Miami, Florida 33131 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 132-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/17/2023 Page 3 of 5
4 

Telephone: (305) 416-6880 

Facsimile: (305) 416-6887 

By: s/ Christopher N. Johnson 

Christopher N. Johnson 

Florida Bar No. 69329 

Email: Christopher.Johnson@gray-robinson.com

Marlene Quintana, B.C.S. 

Florida Bar No. 88358 

Email: Marlene.Quintana@gray-robinson.com

GRAYROBINSON, P.A. 

Jason L. Unger, Esquire 

Florida Bar No. 991562 

George T. Levesque 

Florida Bar No. 55551 

Andy Bardos 

Florida Bar No. 822671 

301 S. Bronough Street 

Suite 600 

Tallahassee, Florida 32301 

Telephone: (850) 577-9090 

Facsimile: (850) 577-3311 

CITY OF MIAMI 

Kevin Jones, Esquire 

Florida Bar No. 119067 

Bryan Capdevila, Esquire 

Florida Bar No. 119286 

Eric Eves, Esquire 

Florida Bar No. 91053 

Office of the City Attorney 

444 S.W. 2nd Avenue 

Miami, FL 33130 

Telephone: (305) 416-1800 

Facsimile: (305) 416-1801 

Attorneys for Defendant 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 132-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/17/2023 Page 4 of 5
5 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on June 2, 2023, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the 

Court by using the CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this day on all 

counsel of record or pro se parties either via transmission of Notice of Electronic Filing generated by 

CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for those counsel or parties who are not authorized to 

receive electronically Notices of Electronic Filing. 

By: s/ Christopher N. Johnson 

Christopher N. Johnson 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 132-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/17/2023 Page 5 of 5