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, and STEVEN MIRO, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

CITY OF MIAMI, 

Defendant. 

/ 

DEFENDANT’S REPLY STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS

Pursuant to Southern District of Florida Local Rule 56.1, Defendant, City of Miami (the 

“City”), hereby files its Reply to Plaintiffs’ Statement of Material Facts (DE 134), and state as 

follows:1

DEFENDANT’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS 

7. Disputed. Plaintiff does not point to any “significant” differences between the district 

level demographics of P1, P2, P3, and P4 as compared to the New Plan. Indeed, like the New 

Plan, P1, P2, P3, and P4 all have three supermajority Hispanic districts and a Black VRA district 

in District 5. (DE 130-6 (“Contreras Dep.”) 33:21–35:21, 41:2–42:9; 45:10–13); (DE 130-3 

(“Cooper Dep.”) 65:1–71:8, 106:3–13); (DE 130-6 (“Miro Dep.”) 62:5–63:11, 64:14–16). 

1

 As more fully stated in the Reply, none of these “disputes” rise to the level of creating a genuine 

issue of material fact. 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 136 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/04/2023 Page 1 of 11
2 

11. Disputed. Cooper testified that her objections to District 2 are about “trying to keep 

[Coconut Grove] together “regardless of [] race or where [people] live as part of the Grove.” 

(Cooper Dep. 87:2–15). Cooper’s basis for believing that part of District 2 going to District 4 in 

the Enjoined Plan was “that was taking away population from West Grove and also throwing it 

into another district and enhancing that district’s ability to get more resources[,]” which has 

nothing to do with race. (Cooper Dep. 36:14-23). Cooper further testified the City’s process for 

drawing its Plans was “unfair” because it diminished the West Grove’s ability to “influence [] 

anything that was going to happen for any Coconut Grove property owner[] or resident[]” and to 

“get[] what [it] wanted” in terms of “improvements[,]” which does not relate to race. (Cooper 

Dep. 82:13–19, 85:8–86:6). Cooper agreed that the New Plan returned Black residents to District 

2. (Cooper Dep. 89:5–13). 

13. Disputed. Cooper’s testimony was unequivocal. While she testified being “worried about 

the diluting of influence of Black residents in other parts of the city[,]” which referred to “Black 

residents in District 5” (Cooper Dep. 41:3-15) (emphasis added), she expressly testified that she 

did not feel that either the 2022 or the 2023 plan actually diluted the voting power of Black voters. 

(Cooper 57:21-24). 

17. Disputed. Miro specifically testified that, with respect to the Enjoined Plan, his issue with 

respect to District 3 was that it crossed US-1 into Coconut Grove. (Miro Dep. 21: 9-25). 

18. Disputed. Miro’s testimony is clear: he believes that there were “[c]ertain demographics 

of packing” in District 3. (Miro Dep. 38:6-12). When asked to define what he meant by “certain 

demographics,” Miro testified that “[Commissioner Carollo’s] voter base, which is 65-plus living 

in affordable housing, [] are the ones that he panders to . . . [a]nd therefore it dilutes voices like 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 136 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/04/2023 Page 2 of 11
3 

[Miro’s].” (Miro Dep. 38:13–21). That was Miro’s “opinion as to how they chose their 

constituents,” which has nothing to do with race. (Miro Dep. 38:22-25). 

31. Disputed. Plaintiff fails to respond to the undisputed facts in this paragraph. The 

undisputed fact in this paragraph did not speak to whether the racial composition of District 4 had 

anything to do with Contreras’ decision to move there in August 2022 and, therefore, Plaintiffs 

fail to respond to the undisputed facts contained in this paragraph. Instead, as Plaintiffs’ own 

record citation in response to this paragraph makes clear, it is undisputed that Contreras testified 

she did not object to moving into District 4 because Hispanics were the predominant racial group 

in this district. (Contreras Dep. 12:7-23). 

32. Disputed. Plaintiff fails to respond to the undisputed facts in this paragraph. The City 

acknowledged in this paragraph that Contreras “alleged her injury was being ‘packed’ by the 

Enjoined Plan” and, therefore, Plaintiffs cannot dispute that point by agreeing with it. This 

paragraph did not speak to whether the racial composition of District 4 had anything to do with 

Contreras’ decision to move there in August 2022, and Plaintiffs’ argument on that point is of no 

moment. Importantly, Plaintiffs’ response does not address (and does not dispute) that Contreras 

testified that redistricting made District 4 less packed in the Enjoined Plan and the New Plan. 

(Contreras Dep. 61:19-62:2). 

40. Disputed. While Contreras described why she believes District 4 was atypical in shape, 

she did not articulate what issue she had with those allegedly atypical shapes. (Contreras Dep. 

22:11-23:7). Contreras had an issue with “[t]he Shenandoah area,” which is in District 3, but 

believes that its “up to legal experts of redistricting” what district Shenandoah should be in, and 

does not have an opinion on Shenandoah because she was not a resident of Shenandoah or District 

3. (Contreras Dep. 22:19-23:7). Yet, Contreras “recognize[s] that sometimes redistricting 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 136 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/04/2023 Page 3 of 11
4 

boundaries can be strange because you need to keep the population equal between the districts[.]” 

(Contreras Dep. 53:25-54:5). 

41. Disputed. Contreras was specifically asked about her issues with the New Plan and, despite 

testifying to having issues with the way other districts were drawn, she did not have any issues 

with how District 4 was drawn. (Contreras 54:18-56:21, 59:1-2). Plaintiffs’ attempt to claim that 

“Contreras objects to the City of Miami using race[,]” generally, is not a response to the specific 

testimony the City cited to in support of this paragraph, and it is therefore undisputed. 

44. Disputed. Valdes testified objecting to the Enjoined Plan putting her in the majority Black 

District 5 because it “could dilute the representation” that she might have in that District since she 

is not the predominant racial group. (DE 130-7 (“Valdes Dep.”) 16:2–24). That grievance was 

redressed by the New Plan, where Valdes was put back in the predominantly Hispanic District 2. 

(Valdes Dep. 20:22–21:5, 24:3–12, 59:16–21). Valdes testified that she did not have a problem 

being in District 2 or being represented by the currently-sitting Hispanic Commissioner. (Valdes 

Dep. 24:13–17, 60:5–10). Additionally, Valdes has no race-based objection to the New Plan and 

only takes issue with Commissioner Carrollo’s Coconut Grove house being included in District 3. 

(Valdes Dep. 28:20–30:23, 31:14–17). Given that Valdes (1) is in the predominately Hispanic 

District 2 under the New Plan; and (2) has no issue being placed in the predominantly Black 

District 5 under Plaintiffs’ Maps or represented by a Black commissioner, she testified that she 

“do[es]n’t think [she] ha[s] an issue” with her representation anymore. (Valdes Dep. 67:9–20, 

69:15–19). 

46. Disputed. Valdes clarified the testimony to which Plaintiffs cite in response to this 

paragraph, and confirmed that she could not point to anything relating to her or her district that 

indicated that she was placed in her district because of her race. (Valdes Dep. 68:24-69:11). Valdes 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 136 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/04/2023 Page 4 of 11
5 

further clarified that she did not have any issue being a “Latina” in a plurality Hispanic district in 

the New Plan. (Valdes Dep. 69:15-19). 

47. Disputed. Plaintiffs’ response parrots, rather than disputes, the fact contained in this this 

paragraph. It is undisputed that 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). With respect to Valdes 

“continu[ing] to be concerned that the City’s Commission’s maps are ‘based on people’s race . . 

.” Valdes clarified that testimony and confirmed that she could not point to anything relating to 

her or her district that indicated that she was placed in her district because of her race. (Valdes 

Dep. 68:24-69:11). 

51. Disputed. While the Miami-Dade NAACP’s corporate representative claimed to know 

members that lived in every District in the City, she refused to identify any during her deposition. 

(DE 130-8 (“MD NAACP Dep.”) 71:21-73:7; 91:5-8). Indeed, Plaintiffs did not dispute this fact 

in response to paragraph 52. 

53. Disputed. Plaintiffs’ response is not supported by their citation to the record. The MiamiDade NAACP’s corporate representative testified that District 5 in all the maps is generally the 

same area. (MD NAACP Dep. 46:8-16). The Miami-Dade NAACP did not have any specific 

objection about how either the Enjoined Plan or the New Plan was configured. (MD NAACP Dep. 

30:23-32:1). 

54. Disputed. Plaintiffs improperly cite to factual allegations in the Supplemental Complaint 

an attempt to create a dispute of material fact. The Miami-Dade NAACP was specifically asked 

whether it had “any specific objection to how” the Enjoined Plan and/or the New Plan were 

configured, and it did not have any. (MD NAACP Dep. 30:23-32:1). 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 136 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/04/2023 Page 5 of 11
6 

55. Disputed. Plaintiffs’ response does not dispute that the South Dade Branch of the NAACP 

does not keep a list of its members. Plaintiffs’ record citation in response to this paragraph only 

furthers this point: “The information is not available to us. It’s only at a national level.” (DE 130-

9 (“South NAACP Dep.”) 23:15-18). Undisputed that South Dade NAACP’s corporate 

representative testified that she knows people in District 2 and “possibly of a couple of people” in 

District 4. (South NAACP Dep. 24:2-10). 

56. Disputed. Plaintiffs’ response does not dispute that the South Dade Branch of the NAACP 

does not keep a roster, and that the only way to verify where members live is if someone knows 

them personally. Plaintiffs’ claim that the information is “available at the national level” is belied 

by the fact that national level information is not available to South Dade NAACP. (South NAACP 

Dep. 23:15-18) (“The information is not available to us. It’s only at a national level.”) (emphasis 

added). 

57. Undisputed that the cited testimony appears to discuss GRACE board members, and not 

South Dade NAACP. Immaterial to the Motion. 

59. Disputed. South Dade NAACP’s statement is not in dispute with the material facts in this 

paragraph. 

60. Disputed. South Dade NAACP’s statement is not in dispute with the material facts in this 

paragraph. South Dade NAACP was specifically asked whether it believed that the piece of District 

3 in Coconut Grove that captured Commissioner Carrollo’s house had been done for racially 

motivated reasons, and South Dade NAACP testified that it “wouldn’t know that” and did not 

“have an opinion one way or the other.” (South NAACP Dep. 39:2-14). 

62. Disputed. Plaintiffs’ reference to the Supplemental Complaint is not “record material” 

under Local Rule 56.1(b)(1)(B) and cannot create issues of fact. It is undisputed that South Dade 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 136 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/04/2023 Page 6 of 11
7 

NAACP could not articulate any objection to the New Plan. (South NAACP Dep. 48:3-11, 54:23-

55-23; 82:13-24). 

64. Disputed. GRACE’s Vice Chair, Carolyn Donaldson, testified that individuals cannot 

become members of GRACE. (South NAACP Dep. 82:1-9). GRACE’s corporate representative 

testified that, in order to become a member of GRACE, an organization would have to fill out an 

application “and the board of directs [sic] would vote to allow an organization in.” (DE 130-1 

(“GRACE Dep.”) 13:21-14:1). GRACE’s corporate representative testified that there are no 

applications for individuals, and that participation in a meeting is enough for membership as an 

individual in GRACE. (GRACE Dep. 14:2-20). 

66. Disputed. GRACE’s statement is not in dispute with the material facts in this paragraph. 

GRACE’s corporate representative was asked whether he knew if GRACE “ha[s] residents in all 

the district of the city[,]” and GRACE did not know. (GRACE Dep. 63:11-13). When asked what 

other districts GRACE members reside in outside of District 2, GRACE did not know. (GRACE 

Dep. 61:2-6). GRACE’s corporate representative did not know whether GRACE identified which 

districts its members live in. (GRACE Dep. 61:9-13). 

67. Disputed. GRACE’s initial concern was keeping the West Grove in District 2. (GRACE 

Dep. 103:8-11). Regardless, all of GRACE’s “core concerns” with respect to the Enjoined Plan 

were addressed with the passage of the New Plan. (GRACE Dep. 103:12-22) (“Grace’s initial 

concerns were addressed.”). 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 136 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/04/2023 Page 7 of 11
8 

70. Disputed.2 Plaintiffs’ reference to the Supplemental Complaint is not “record material” 

under Local Rule 56.1(b)(1)(B), and cannot create issues of fact. Undisputed that GRACE’s 

corporate representative testified that he did not know whether GRACE would say that statement 

applies to its members. (GRACE Dep. 66:9-13). 

71. Disputed. Plaintiffs’ reference to the Supplemental Complaint is not “record material” 

under Local Rule 56.1(b)(1)(B), and cannot create issues of fact. Nowhere in Plaintiffs’ citation 

to page 103 of the GRACE corporate representative transcript does the testimony stand for the 

proposition that GRACE’s concerns regarding the New Plan were anything other than GRACE’s 

concerns of how other organizations and individuals were being treated, and not GRACE’s 

concerns for itself or its members. When GRACE stated that its concerns had “evolved,” its 

corporate representative was specifically asked whether GRACE “shared concerns of the way 

other organizations and other individuals were being treated[,]” to which GRACE answered in the 

affirmative. (GRACE 103:12-18). GRACE’s corporate representative was also asked whether it 

was fair to characterize GRACE’s “core concerns [having been] addressed” and GRACE “just 

shared the concerns of others[,]” to which GRACE answered that its “initial concerns were 

addressed.” (GRACE Dep. 103:19-22). 

DEFENDANT’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ ADDITIONAL FACTS 

78. Disputed. GRACE has a process for organizations to become members of GRACE, but 

not for individuals. (GRACE Dep. 13:21-14:20); however GRACE’s Corporate Representative 

2

 Paragraph 70 in Defendant’s Statement of Facts should read: “GRACE did not believe that the 

New Plan sent the message to its members that their commissioners job is to represent the 

predominant racial group.” 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 136 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/04/2023 Page 8 of 11
9 

testified that he did not know if anyone verified whether they had members living in each district. 

Undisputed that Cooper testified being a member of GRACE. 

79. Undisputed.

80. Undisputed.

81. Disputed. Plaintiffs’ reference to Exhibit 2 (Engage’s purported membership list noting 

each member’s commission district) is unauthenticated, submitted without testimonial explanation 

of what it is or what is being presented, is not “record material” under Local Rule 56.1(b)(1)(B), 

and cannot create issues of fact. Engage Miami’s corporate representative testified that Engage 

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

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

their address. ((DE 130-10 (“Engage Dep.”) 25:4-6, 27:7-17, 27:24-28:8). 

82. Disputed. Immaterial to the City’s Motion. Plaintiffs South Dade NAACP and Miami 

NAACP objected to the City’s request for “[d]ocuments demonstrating that [their] members reside 

in all five districts of the Enacted Plan,” arguing that “specific information about Plaintiff[s’] 

members . . . is protected from disclosure by the First Amendment absent a compelling need for 

the information.” Plaintiffs South Dade NAACP and Miami NAACP never produced any such 

information during the course of discovery, including at the depositions of their Corporate 

Representatives. 

83. Disputed. Immaterial to the City’s Motion. Plaintiffs South Dade NAACP and Miami 

NAACP stated that they would submit a declaration and/or provide testimony at the appropriate 

stage of this litigation verifying they have “members who reside in all five districts of the Enacted 

Plan,” as opposed to “in the relevant Commission districts” as Plaintiffs include in their statement 

in response. Plaintiffs South Dade NAACP and Miami NAACP refused or were unable to provide 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 136 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/04/2023 Page 9 of 11
10 

any such testimony during their corporate representative depositions. (MD NAACP Dep. 76:16-

78:20; 91:5-21); (South NAACP Dep. 16:19-24, 23:15-24, 24:2-21). 

Respectfully submitted, 

GRAYROBINSON, P.A.

By: s/ George T. Levesque 

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 

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 

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 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 136 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/04/2023 Page 10 of 11
11 

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 December 4, 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/ George T. Levesque 

Counsel for City of Miami 

#52286873 v1 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 136 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/04/2023 Page 11 of 11