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’ MOTION FOR LEAVE

TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs move for leave to file a supplemental complaint in this matter, pursuant to FRCP

15(d) and this Court’s Scheduling Order (ECF 32). Te proposed supplemental complaint (attached 

as Exhibit 1) alleges that the five Miami City Commission districts continue to be racially 

gerrymandered in violation of the Equal Protection Clause, and includes supplemental facts 

supporting that allegation regarding the enactment of Resolution 23-271 following the Magistrate 

Judge’s Report & Recommendation and this Court’s preliminary injunction.

Plaintiffs have conferred with counsel for City, who stated that the City will not oppose 

this motion if a continuance of the trial and stay is granted. See ECF 104 at 1. As noted in the 

City’s Motion to Stay Case Pending Appeal and to Continue Trial and Pretrial Deadlines (ECF

104), Plaintiffs oppose a continuance and stay. Id. at 7.

MEMORANDUM

I. Procedural History

Plaintiffs filed this action on December 15, 2022, alleging that the five Miami City 

Commission districts are racially gerrymandered in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s 

Equal Protection Clause. ECF 1. On February 10, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 105 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2023 Page 1 of 5
2

to add an additional plaintiff, among other changes, and moved for a preliminary injunction. ECF 

23, 26. The Court granted that preliminary injunction, finding that Plaintiffs are substantially likely 

to prevail on their claim. ECF 60. The City abandoned its appeal of that injunction, ECF 88, so all 

parties agree the specific plan discussed in the First Amended Complaint (the “2022 Plan”) will 

not be used in the upcoming November 2023 elections.

Responding to the Court’s injunction, the City adopted another plan (the “2023 Plan”), 

which this Court found did not remedy the likely constitutional violations identified in its 

injunction order and remained an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. ECF 94. The Court issued 

an order directing the City to implement a court-ordered plan originally submitted by Plaintiffs. 

Id. A divided motions panel of the Eleventh Circuit issued a stay of this Court’s order pending 

appeal, solely on the grounds that this Court’s order was imposed too close to the November 

elections. GRACE, Inc. v. City of Miami, No. 23-12472 (11th Cir. Aug. 4, 2023), Doc. 25. The 

motions panel did not reach the merits of the City’s appeal or whether the 2023 Plan is a “new 

map” that moots Plaintiffs’ current claims. Id. That appeal is now proceeding on a normal schedule. 

Docket, 11th Cir. Case No. 23-12472.

This matter is set for a bench trial to begin January 29, 2024. ECF 32. Discovery closes on 

October 21, 2023. Id. The deadline for the parties to amend the pleadings has not yet passed. Id.

II. Argument

Under Rule 15(d), “the [C]ourt may, on just terms, permit a party to serve a supplemental 

pleading setting out any transaction, occurrence, or event that happened after the date of the 

pleading to be supplemented.” “A supplemental pleading is an appropriate vehicle by which to ‘set 

forth new facts in order to update the earlier pleading . . . .’ ” Lussier v. Dugger, 904 F. 2d 661, 

670 (11th Cir. 1990) (quoting 6A C. Wright, A. Miller & M.K. Kane, Federal Practice and 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 105 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2023 Page 2 of 5
3

Procedure § 1504, at 177.) “Te purpose of Rule 15(d) is to promote judicial economy and 

convenience by allowing a party to bring in claims related to its original claims that occurred after 

the party filed its last complaint.” Iwanicki v. Pa. Dep’t of Corrs., 2013 WL 2296878, at *1 (W.D. 

Pa. May 24, 2013). Te standard applicable to a Rule 15(d) motion is the same as that applied to a 

motion for leave to amend under Rule 15(a). Reef Azul, LLC v. Potter, 2022 WL 17656077, at *1 

(S.D. Fla. Aug. 26, 2022). Under Rule 15(a)(2), leave should “be freely given when justice so 

requires.”

Consistent with this lenient standard, the Court should grant Plaintiffs leave to file their

supplemental complaint because it would avoid piecemeal litigation and allow a prompt and 

efficient resolution of the entire controversy between the Parties, without prejudice to the City.

Plaintiffs’ supplemental claims relate to their original claims—they both concern the City’s 

racially gerrymandered Commission districts. But the supplemental allegations concern events that 

happened after their First Amended Complaint: the enactment of the 2023 Plan. Te supplemental 

complaint is therefore appropriate to update the earlier pleading.

The evidence will be largely the same or substantially overlapping whether the 2023 Plan 

is viewed as “remedial” or as a “new map” that must be challenged entirely anew. Thus, judicial 

economy and efficiency counsel in favor of supplementing Plaintiffs’ claims so that the entire 

dispute can be resolved through a single action and trial. Further, Plaintiffs have pled—and intend 

to seek at trial—special elections so that they and all Miami residents can live and vote in 

constitutional, non-gerrymandered districts as soon as practicable after trial. Supplementation and 

the resolution of all Plaintiffs’ claims in a single trial will permit the Court to order special elections 

concurrent with the regular general election in November 2024. Denying supplementation and 

forcing the piecemeal litigation that would result may deprive the Court of the ability to fashion 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 105 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2023 Page 3 of 5
4

an effective remedy should Plaintiffs prevail on the merits.

Furthermore, under the Scheduling Order entered on February 24, 2023 (ECF 32), 

Plaintiffs’ requested supplementation is well within this Court’s deadline for amending the 

pleadings (45 days after Defendant’s first responsive pleading, which is yet to be filed). 

Accordingly, supplementation will not delay the parties’ ongoing discovery efforts and their 

preparation for the January 29, 2024 trial.

III. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court grant them leave to 

file the attached proposed supplemental complaint.

LOCAL RULE 7.1(a)(3) CERTIFICATE OF CONFERRAL

Counsel for Plaintiffs conferred with counsel for the City in a good-faith effort to resolve 

the issues raised in this motion. Counsel for the City stated that the City will not oppose this motion 

if a continuance of the trial and stay is granted. See ECF 104 at 1. As noted in the City’s Motion 

to Stay Case Pending Appeal and to Continue Trial and Pretrial Deadlines (ECF 104), Plaintiffs 

oppose a continuance and stay. Id. at 7.

Respectfully submitted this 28th day of August, 2023,

/s/ Nicholas L.V. Warren

Nicholas L.V. Warren (FBN 1019018)

ACLU Foundation of Florida, Inc.

336 East College Avenue, Suite 203

Tallahassee, FL 32301

(786) 363-1769

nwarren@aclufl.org

Daniel B. Tilley (FBN 102882)

Caroline A. McNamara (FBN 1038312)

ACLU Foundation of Florida, Inc.

Neil A. Steiner*

Dechert LLP

Tree Bryant Park

1095 Avenue of the Americas

New York, NY 10036

(212) 698-3822

neil.steiner@dechert.com

Christopher J. Merken*

Dechert LLP

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 105 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2023 Page 4 of 5
5

4343 West Flagler Street, Suite 400

Miami, FL 33134

(786) 363-2714

dtilley@aclufl.org

cmcnamara@aclufl.org

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 105 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2023 Page 5 of 5