Case Name: Peter B. SOBEL, Appellant, v. CITY OF MIAMI, A Municipal Corporation of the State of Florida; Miami River Park Associates, Ltd., a Florida Limited Partnership; Gatehouse Development Corp., a Massachusetts Corporation; GHG Miami River, LLC., a Massachusetts Limited Liability Company; Bame Development Corporation Of South Florida, Inc., a Florida Non-Profit Corporation, and Janet Matthews, Florida State Historic Preservation Officer, Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2001-08-15
Citations: 826 So. 2d 1027
Docket Number: No. 3D01-593
Parties: Peter B. SOBEL, Appellant, v. CITY OF MIAMI, A Municipal Corporation of the State of Florida; Miami River Park Associates, Ltd., a Florida Limited Partnership; Gatehouse Development Corp., a Massachusetts Corporation; GHG Miami River, LLC., a Massachusetts Limited Liability Company; Bame Development Corporation Of South Florida, Inc., a Florida Non-Profit Corporation, and Janet Matthews, Florida State Historic Preservation Officer, Appellees.
Judges: Before JORGENSON, GODERICH and SHEVIN, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 826
Pages: 1027–1028

Head Matter:
Peter B. SOBEL, Appellant, v. CITY OF MIAMI, A Municipal Corporation of the State of Florida; Miami River Park Associates, Ltd., a Florida Limited Partnership; Gatehouse Development Corp., a Massachusetts Corporation; GHG Miami River, LLC., a Massachusetts Limited Liability Company; Bame Development Corporation Of South Florida, Inc., a Florida Non-Profit Corporation, and Janet Matthews, Florida State Historic Preservation Officer, Appellees.
No. 3D01-593.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Aug. 15, 2001.
Peter Sobel; Stephen Cahen, Miami, for appellant.
Stearns Weaver Miller Weissler Alha-deff & Sitterson and Mark D. Solov, Miami, and Christopher L. Barnett; Deborah Kearney, Tallahassee, and Gerard T. York; and Yamile M. Trehy, for appellees.
Before JORGENSON, GODERICH and SHEVIN, JJ.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
We affirm the order dismissing appellant's complaint. This affirmance is without prejudice to appellant raising any objections or challenges he may have in any future proceedings to establish a historic district.