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’ MOTION TO STRIKE 

Defendant, City of Miami (the “City”), hereby responds to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike (DE 

124) and states as follows in support thereof: 

On October 13, 2023, Plaintiffs filed their Motion to Strike, wherein they moved the Court 

to strike the City’s Reply (DE 123) because it violates the Court’s December 16, 2022 Paperless 

Pretrial Order (DE 7). Local Rule 7.1(c)(2) provides that, “[a]bsent prior permission of the Court 

. . . a reply memorandum shall not exceed (10) pages.” 

The City does not deny that, in its Reply, it respected the font and spacing requirements 

under Local Rule 5.1(a)(4), but unintentionally failed to take into account the spacing requirement 

under the Court’s December 16, 2022 Paperless Pretrial Order (DE 7). The City did not intend to 

disregard the Court’s order or rules, and respectfully asks the Court to consider the substance of 

the City’s Reply on the merits, or accept the attached version of the Reply – which does not alter 

the substance of the Reply the City already filed, but does comply with the Court’s font and spacing 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 128 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/27/2023 Page 1 of 4
2

requirements. (Exhibit 1). Notwithstanding the foregoing, Plaintiffs’ Motion should be denied 

because their counsel failed to make a reasonable, good faith effort to resolve the dispute raised in 

their Motion prior to filing it, as required. 

Local rules have “the force of law” and should be followed. Cheshire v. Bank of Am., NA, 

351 Fed.Appx. 386, 387 (11th Cir. 2009). Local Rule 7.1(a)(3) requires counsel to “cooperate and 

act in good faith in attempting to resolve the dispute.” Royal Bahamian Ass'n, Inc. v. QBE Ins. 

Corp., 744 F. Supp. 2d 1297, 1298 (S.D. Fla. 2010). “The local rule permits the Court to deny all 

[ ] motions[,]” based upon a violation of Local Rule 7.1(a)(3). 

Here, Plaintiffs failed to comply with Local Rule 7.1(a)(3) because, when Plaintiffs’ 

counsel contacted the City’s counsel on October 13, 2023, Plaintiffs’ counsel never stated that the 

basis for their Motion was the font and spacing requirements found in the Court’s December 16, 

2022 Paperless Pretrial Order. As stated above, the City unintentionally failed to take into account 

the spacing requirements found in that Order and was under the impression that Plaintiffs’ Motion 

would be based upon an alleged violation Rule 5.1(a)(4)’s font and spacing requirements. During 

the call, the City’s counsel expressly stated that he opposed Plaintiffs’ Motion because he did not 

believe the Reply violated Local Rule 5.1(a)(4)’s font and spacing requirements. Yet, Plaintiffs’ 

counsel never clarified that the Motion to Strike was not based on the Court’s Local Rules, but 

rather the Court’s December 16, 2022 Paperless Order. Thus, Plaintiffs’ Local Rule 7.1(a)(3) 

conferral statement, in which they state that their counsel “conferred with counsel for the City, 

which opposes the relief requested by the motion[,]” incorrectly conveys that a meaningful 

conferral occurred. (DE 124 at pg. 2). 

Had Plaintiffs’ counsel complied with Local Rule 7.1(a)(3) by making a good faith effort 

to confer, it would have learned that the City did not, for all practical purposes, object to the relief 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 128 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/27/2023 Page 2 of 4
3

being sought. Instead, a good faith conferral would have avoided the necessity for a Motion to 

Strike altogether, because the City would have moved for leave to file an amended Reply that 

complied with DE 7, while taking other steps to resolve this issue without Court intervention. That 

difference is not insignificant because, although Plaintiffs’ counsel would have presumably 

opposed a motion for leave to amend the Reply, the Court would be dealing with one Motion to 

resolve the City’s admitted oversight, as opposed to several. 

Accordingly, while the City does not deny that it unintentionally failed to take into account 

the spacing requirements found in the Court’s December 16, 2022 Paperless Order, the City 

nevertheless requests that the Court deny Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike for failure to comply with 

Local Rule 7.1(a)(3). 

 Respectfully submitted, 

GRAYROBINSON, P.A.

333 S.E. 2nd Avenue, Suite 3200 

Miami, Florida 33131 

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 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 128 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/27/2023 Page 3 of 4
4

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 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

 I hereby certify that on October 27, 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 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 128 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/27/2023 Page 4 of 4