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; ALEXANDER 

CONTRERAS; and STEVEN MIRO. 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

CITY OF MIAMI, 

Defendant. 

/ 

DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF ITS 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 130 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/10/2023 Page 1 of 13
2 

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 and Local Rule 56.1 for the Southern 

District of Florida, Defendant, City of Miami (the “City”), submits the following Statement of 

Undisputed Facts in Support of its Motion for Final Summary Judgment. 

I. BACKGROUND

1. The City has had single member districts for its five commissioners (rather than at large 

elections) since 1997. (DE 23, ¶¶33-39, 59-64). 

2. Since their inception, these districts have had substantially the racial demographic makeup. (DE 24-76, p.12 (2013 demographics prior to 2013 redistricting); DE 24-78, p.6 (2013 

demographics of 2013 redistricting)). 

3. Following the 2020 U.S. Census (the “2020 Census”), the City’s Commission Districts no 

longer had substantial equality of population, and the ideal Commission district size had increased 

to 88,448. (DE 23, ¶¶ 72-74). 

4. District 2, the waterfront district, was substantially overpopulated and had to “shed” 

population to the other four districts to bring the population variance back to constitutionally 

acceptable levels. (Id., ¶ 75; GRACE Dep. 32:7-23; 115:1-6 (attached hereto as Ex. A)). 

5. On June 14, 2023, the City adopted the New Plan, which replaced the Enjoined Plan. (DE 

77). The New Plan was certified on June 29, 2023. (Id.) 

II. GENERAL DEMOGRAPHICS

6. The racial and ethnic composition in the City’s New Plan is as follows: 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 130 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/10/2023 Page 2 of 13
3 

(Dr. Abbot Dep., Ex. 1 at pp. 43-45 of 56 (attached hereto as Ex. B)). 

7. Statistically, all four of Plaintiffs’ Maps are substantially similar to the City’s New Plan: 

(Id.) 

III. PLAINTIFF CLARICE COOPER

8. Plaintiff Clarice Cooper (“Cooper”) lives in the “West Grove,” which is in District 2. 

(Cooper Dep. 12:16–13:4, 15:7–12 (attached hereto as Ex. C)). 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 130 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/10/2023 Page 3 of 13
4 

9. Cooper alleges that the City Commission “artificially stripped” Black residents like her 

from District 2 based on race. (Cooper Dep. 83:4–12). 

10. Cooper acknowledges that, under both the Enjoined Plan and the New Plan, she has 

remained in District 2 and that the New Plan returned Black residents of the West Grove to District 

2. (Cooper Dep. 83:4–85:1, 89:5–13). 

11. Cooper believes that part of Coconut Grove was taken from District 2 and put in Districts 

3 and 4 to decrease Coconut Grove’s influence throughout District 2, not because of race. (Cooper 

Dep. 51:17–52:12, 55:16–56:25, 86:85:20–86:11, 87:2–15). 

12. Cooper preferred that District 2 return to its pre-Enjoined Plan state, and is in support of 

the West Grove being back in District 2 in the New Plan. (Cooper Dep. 21:21–22:2; 49:17-50:12). 

13. Cooper does not believe that either the Enjoined Plan or the New Plan “diluted the voting 

power of Black voters.” (Cooper Dep. 57:21-24). 

IV. PLAINTIFF STEVEN MIRO

14. Plaintiff Steven Miro (“Miro”) is a Hispanic male who has lived in District 3 since 2014. 

(Miro Dep. 5:6–8, 11:19–12:2, 12:13–15, (attached hereto as Ex. D)). 

15. District 3 was predominantly Hispanic when Miro moved there in 2014. (Miro Dep. 69:17–

70:9). 

16. Miro said the City Commissioners “pack[ed] the demographic [] they want[ed] within [] 

District 3” under the New Plan and his “voice wouldn’t be heard” as a result. (Miro Dep. 33:12–

34:19). 

17. Miro’s issue with District 3 in the Enjoined Map was how it crossed US-1 into Coconut 

Grove and did not keep that area together. (Miro Dep. 21:9-16). 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 130 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/10/2023 Page 4 of 13
5 

18. Miro’s objection is not based on race; he believes that District 3’s Commissioner Carollo 

packed his elder “voter base” of “65-plus [residents] living in affordable housing” into District 3 

and, “therefore[,] [] dilute[d] voices like [Miro’s].” (Miro Dep. 38:6–25). 

19. Miro testified that none of Plaintiffs’ Maps would have “made any change to [his] being 

put into a majority Hispanic district.” (Miro Dep. 71:9–12; 80:10–17). 

20. Miro testified that “it’s physically impossible” to draw District 4 to not be predominantly 

Hispanic, and that it would be “very hard” to draw Districts 1 and 3 in a way that would not be 

predominantly Hispanic, as it would require crossing US-1 and reaching into Brickell. (Miro Dep. 

53:25–18). 

V. PLAINTIFF JARED JOHNSON

21. Plaintiff Jared Johnson (“Johnson”) moved to District 3 in July 2021. (Johnson Dep. 7:12-

14; 60:13-19 (attached hereto as Ex. E)). 

22. Johnson remains in District 3 in the New Plan. (Johnson Dep. 7:5-7; 17:23-18:4; 60:13-

19). 

23. Johnson would prefer to be in District 2, but acknowledges that buying or renting a 

residence, as he did in 2021, is the only way for an individual to choose the district in which they 

reside. (Johnson Dep. 58:21-59:9). 

24. Johnson felt that Black residents were categorized and stripped from his district on the 

basis of race. (Johnson Dep. 58:9-17). 

25. Johnson acknowledges that, with respect to the Brickell area where he lives, Hispanics and 

whites make up the vast majority of residents in that area, and he is a minority living in Brickell. 

(Johnson Dep. 61:2-22). 

26. Johnson remained in District 3 in all but one of Plaintiffs’ Maps. (Johnson Dep. 29:21-25). 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 130 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/10/2023 Page 5 of 13
6 

27. Johnson could not identify any statements by the City Commission regarding the creation 

of the New Plan that were “racially motivated.” (Johnson Dep. 83:10-25). 

28. Johnson agrees that District 2 in Plaintiffs’ Map 4 is generally the same as it was in the 

2013 Plan. (Johnson Dep. 22:19-22, 80:17-81:21). 

VI. PLAINTIFF ALEXANDRA CONTRERAS

29. Plaintiff Alexandra Contreras (“Contreras”) identifies as Hispanic and White. (Contreras 

Dep. 8:4-16 (attached hereto as Ex. F)). 

30. Contreras moved into District 4 after the enactment of the Enjoined Map, but no longer 

lives in District 4. (Contreras Dep. 4:12–22, 7:18–20, 9:13–25, 11:3–14, 22:4–10). 

31. Contreras did not have any issue with the fact that District 4 was predominantly Hispanic 

when she moved there in August 2022. (Contreras Dep. 11:19–12:23, 68:12–19). 

32. While Contreras alleged her injury was being “packed” by the Enjoined Plan, she admitted 

having no issue with the percentage of Hispanic population when she moved into District 4, and 

she admitted it became less packed by redistricting. (Contreras Dep. 61:7-62:2). 

33. Contreras does not have any plans to move back into the City. (Contreras Dep. 8:17–21). 

34. Contreras has never voted in a City of Miami election, and will not vote in the City’s next 

election. (Contreras Dep. 9:7–9, 10:9–11). 

35. Contreras admits that she “want[s] to be a plaintiff . . . [and] to be involved, . . . love[s] 

Miami[,] . . . [and] plan[s] on living in the City of Miami in the future,” but has “no specific plan” 

to do so. (Contreras Dep. 14:3–22). 

36. Contreras’s grievance with the Enjoined Plan was that (a) the shapes of the Districts were 

“atypical”; and (b) the Districts were drawn “based on race.” (Contreras Dep. 15:4–22). 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 130 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/10/2023 Page 6 of 13
7 

37. Hispanic voting-age population predominates District 4 in all four of Plaintiffs’ Maps, 

despite Contreras’s concern that the Enjoined Plan placed her in a district where she was the 

predominant racial group. (Contreras Dep. 59:3–60:21). 

38. Contreras does not dispute that District 4 has a higher Hispanic voting-age population in 

Plaintiffs’ Maps 1 through 3 than it does in the Enjoined Plan. (Contreras Dep. 43:24–44:23). 

39. Contreras admits that, in all of Plaintiffs’ Maps, District 4 has a Hispanic voting-age 

population of at least 95%. (Contreras Dep. 69:9–13). 

40. Contreras could not articulate what her issue was with the shape of District 4. (Contreras 

Dep. 22:11–23:7). 

41. Contreras did not have any issues with how District 4 was drawn in the New Plan, and 

instead only takes issue with how certain parts of other districts were drawn. (Contreras Dep. 

54:18–55:19, 56:16–21). 

VII. PLAINTIFF YANELIS VALDES

42. Plaintiff Yanelis Valdes (“Valdes”) identifies as a Latina Cuban-American. (Valdes Dep. 

15:5–16:1 (attached hereto as Ex. G)). 

43. Valdes resides in District 5 under the Enjoined Plan and District 2 under the New Plan. 

(Valdes Dep. 20:22–21:5). 

44. Valdes’ grievance was redressed by the New Plan, where she was put back in the 

predominantly Hispanic District 2. (Valdes Dep. 20:14–21:5, 24:3–12, 59:16–21). 

45. Valdes has no problem being in District 2 or represented by the currently-sitting Hispanic 

Commissioner. (Valdes Dep. 24:13–17, 60:5–10, 60:5–7, 67:9–20, 69:15–19). 

46. Additionally, Valdes has no race-based objection to the New Plan and only takes issue with 

the City “split[ting] up” the Coconut Grove area in District 2 wherein Commissioner Carrollo’s 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 130 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/10/2023 Page 7 of 13
8 

home is in Natoma Manors, which she admits not knowing whether it was based on race. (Valdes 

Dep. 29:4–30:23, 31:14–17). 

47. Valdes testified she does not have a problem with having been placed in a plurality District 

2 under the New Plan, and “do[es]n’t think [she] ha[s] an issue” with her representation anymore. 

(Valdes Dep. 67:9–20, 69:15–19). 

48. Valdes did not recall if she ever examined Engage’s membership to assess whether they 

had members in each district. (Valdes Dep. 12:2-8) 

VIII. PLAINTIFF MIAMI-DADE NAACP 

49. The President of Plaintiff Miami-Dade Branch of the NAACP (“Miami-Dade NAACP”) 

lives in unincorporated Dade County, FL, and not in the City of Miami. (MD NAACP Dep. 5:15-

23 (attached hereto as Ex. H)). 

50. Miami-Dade NAACP maintains a membership list, but members are not required to update 

their address information. (MD NAACP Dep. 14:10-16; 17:2-17). 

51. The Miami-Dade NAACP has not checked whether it has members in any districts within 

the City of Miami, and does not have any factual support for that proposition with respect to 

Districts 1, 2, 3, and 5, but it assumes that it does because they “have members and volunteers,” 

generally. (MD NAACP Dep. 18:2-19, 19:11-17, 20:3-11, 20:12-15, 41:25-43:1). 

52. While Miami-Dade’s corporate representative claimed to know members that lived in 

every District in the City, she refused to identify any during her deposition. (MD NAACP Dep. 

71:21-73:7; 91:5-8). 

53. Miami-Dade NAACP’s issue was specifically with West Grove getting separated from the 

rest of the Grove. (MD NAACP Dep. 23:17-24:14; 24:11-14; 26:14-22). Yet, Coconut Grove is 

not within the Miami-Dade NAACP’s jurisdictional limits. (MD NAACP Dep. 70:6-10.). 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 130 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/10/2023 Page 8 of 13
9 

54. The Miami-Dade NAACP did not have any objection to the Enjoined Plan or the New Plan. 

(MD NAACP Dep. 30:23-31:16, 31:24-32:1). 

IX. PLAINTIFF SOUTH DADE NAACP 

55. Plaintiff South Dade Branch of the NAACP (“South Dade NAACP”) does not keep a list 

of its members and, no one from South Dade NAACP has done an analysis to determine where 

members live, only at the national level. (South NAACP Dep. 16:14-24, 23:15-18 (attached hereto 

as Ex. I)). 

56. The South Dade NAACP does not keep a roster. (South NAACP Dep. 81:21-25). There is 

no way to verify where members live, unless someone knows them personally. (South NAACP 

Dep. 24:2-6). 

57. All of South Dade NAACP’s board members reside in District 2. (South NAACP Dep. 

80:21-81:9). 

58. South Dade NAACP’s corporate representative knows people in District 2, and may know 

“a couple of people” in District 4. (South NAACP Dep. 24:2-10). However, she does not know 

anyone living in District 3 for certain. (South NAACP Dep. 24:11-18). South Dade NAACP does 

not have members in District 5. (South NAACP Dep. 17:6-8). 

59. South Dade NAACP’s concern with the Enjoined Plan was that the West Grove would be 

split into fractions, particularly how part of District 4 broke into District 2. (South NAACP Dep. 

35:12-17, 37:8-19; 42:23-43:4; 52:18-23). 

60. South Dade NAACP was also concerned with a piece of District 3 that covered Coconut 

Grove, but could not dispute that it was drawn that way to capture Commissioner Carrollo’s house 

and did not consider the capturing of that piece of the Coconut Grove to have been done for racially 

motivated reasons. (South NAACP Dep. 38:1-17, 39:18-23). 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 130 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/10/2023 Page 9 of 13
10 

61. In the New Plan, the “West Grove” and its historically Black residents, remained in District 

2. (South NAACP Dep. 46:17-47:11). 

62. South Does NAACP could not articulate any objection to the New Plan. (South NAACP 

Dep. 48:2-11, 54:23-55-23; 82:13-24; 102:9-20). 

X. PLAINTIFF GRACE 

63. Plaintiff GRACE Inc. (“GRACE”) “is an organization made up of churches, civic groups, 

nonprofits, residents [sic] homeowners, small business owners in West Coconut Grove.” (GRACE 

Dep. 8:5-8 (attached hereto as Ex. A)). 

64. GRACE does not have individual members. (South NAACP Dep. 82:1-9). GRACE only 

has organizational members. (Id.). 

65. Organizations have to fill out an application to become members of GRACE. (GRACE 

Dep. 13:18-14:20). GRACE does not require individuals to fill out an application or pay a fee in 

order to participate in meetings. (Id.). 

66. GRACE has not identified the districts where its members live and does not know whether 

it has residents in all of the Districts of the City. (GRACE Dep. 61:9-17, 62:17-63:24). 

67. GRACE’s concern with the Enjoined Plan was that “West Grove” was being taken out of 

District 2. (GRACE Dep. 24:12-23, 28:12:). 

68. Prior to the enactment of the Enjoined Plan, GRACE felt that it was included in District 2 

not because of the race of its members, but “because that’s where the boundaries of District 2 

were” and had been for a long time. (GRACE Dep. 26:21-27:10). 

69. GRACE does not dispute that its members would not be the predominant racial group in 

any district, regardless of who draws the map. (GRACE Dep. 54:18-25). 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 130 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/10/2023 Page 10 of 13
11 

70. GRACE did believe that the New Plan sent the message to that their commissioner’s job is 

to represent the predominant racial group. (GRACE Dep. 64:1-66:19). 

71. After the enactment of the New Plan, GRACE’s concerns regarding the West Grove were 

addressed, and they only shared the concerns of how other organizations and individuals were 

being treated. (GRACE Dep. 103:3-22; 117:6-8). 

XI. PLAINTIFF ENGAGE MIAMI

72. Engage’s Executive Director, and corporate representative, lives in Miami Beach, FL, and 

not in the City of Miami. (Engage Dep. 6:8-10 (attached hereto as Ex. J)). 

73. Engage Miami has members that reside outside of the City. (Engage Dep. 49:9-20). 

74. Engage Miami maintains a membership list that includes residential addresses, but it does 

not verify residential addresses after members are on-boarded and fill out a membership form with 

their address. (Engage Dep. 25:4-6, 27:7-17, 27:24-28:8). 

75. Engage testified that it believes its members will be harmed under the New Plan because 

“race played an outsized factor in how the districts were drawn rather than [race] neutral 

redistricting criteria and using race . . . only as necessary to comply.” (Engage Dep. 58:3-9). 

76. Engage’s corporate representative testified that she thought had seen a workbook that had 

been compiled by Valdes that indicated it had members in all five districts (Engage Dep., 25:7-

26:13), but could not testify to whether anyone reviewed their race to verify whether they had 

members in each district that were or were not members of the predominant racial group. (Engage 

Dep, 66:9-72:5). 

77. Other than individuals that became Plaintiffs in this lawsuit, Engage did not verify what its 

members’ races or ethnicities are, or whether they are predominant or not predominant in a 

particular district. (Engage Dep. 71:22-72:5). 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 130 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/10/2023 Page 11 of 13
12 

Respectfully submitted, 

GRAYROBINSON, P.A.

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 

333 S.E. 2nd Avenue, Suite 3200 

Miami, Florida 33131 

Telephone: (305) 416-6880 

Facsimile: (305) 416-6887 

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 

VICTORIA MÉNDEZ, City Attorney 

Florida Bar No. 194931 

JOHN A. GRECO, Chief Deputy City Attorney 

Florida Bar No. 991236 

KEVIN R. JONES, Deputy City Attorney 

Florida Bar No. 119067 

KERRI L. MCNULTY, 

Litigation & Appeals Division Chief 

Florida Bar No. 16171 

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 130 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/10/2023 Page 12 of 13
13 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on November 10, 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. 

/s/ Christopher N. Johnson 

Counsel for City of Miami 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 130 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/10/2023 Page 13 of 13