Our City's successful defense of Whetstone civil litigation will not result in any order for the Whetstones to reimburse any of City's legal fees and expenses.
Our City's in-house and outside lawyers did not bother to follow through on City Commission's stated intention to seek sanctions and attorney fees for "frivolous" litigation based upon "fraud."
Legal errors mean that the City of St. Augustine's taxpayers will not be reimbursed for legal fees after defeating the WHETSTONE family's "frivolous" dock litigation, falsely claiming to own the City's bottomlands, asserting the right to build a dock across the street from a motel on Avenida Menendez.
No insurance coverage existed. No court-awarded attorney fees were sought, despite the City's belief the case was "frivolous" and based on "fraud."
That's some $219,395.77 in attorney fees and costs down the drain -- including payment for some 681.9 hours of time for fifteen attorneys and paralegals, including one partner who billed $645.83/hour.
The 170-lawyer, 13-location GUNSTER corporate law firm failed to do its job as discussed in a March 10, 2014 "Shade Meeting."
GUNSTER failed research two Florida laws to carry out City Commissioners' express direction to seek a court order for the WHETSTONE family to pay the City of St. Augustine's attorney fees. See below.
City Commissioners met in a March 10, 2014 "Shade Meeting," the transcript of which is now available for viewing in the Clerk's office.
In it, then City Attorney RONALD WAYNE BROWN, his then-Assistant, ISABELLE CHRISTINE LOPEZ, Mayor JOE BOLES and Vice Mayor NANCY SIKES-KLINE all spoke of the frivolous lawsuit, which was based upon a "wild deed" and an attempted "fraud" on the Court.
The expert witness for the WHETSTONES was deeply conflicted St. Augustine Historic Architectural Review Board Vice Chair PAUL M. WEAVER, III (who also betrayed the public interest in being one of two HARB members hired by DAVID BARTON CORNEAL, creating conflicts of interest that led to the 2-1 vote to destroy historic CARPENTER's HOUSE).
Efforts to obtain comments from present and former City officials and from GUNSTER lawyers were unavailing. Our investigation continues.
The WHETSTONE dock case was filed in 2012 by the late louche lawyer GEORGE MORRIS McCLURE, the controversial fired former ROGERS TOWERS partner who founded McCLURE BLOODWORTH (and who videotaped for the FBI then St. Johns County Commissioner THOMAS MANUEL accepting a bribe).
-----Original Message-----
From: easlavin
To: ilopez; dmay ; mcavendish ; lfrancis ; lpowell ; ndyal
Sent: Thu, May 12, 2016 3:23 pm
Subject: Re: Requests No. 2016-166, 167 & 171: Whetstone v. City of St. Augustine -- Shade Meeting transcripts, sanctions and appellate fee research, communications, etc.
Why did GUNSTER never carry out the express wishes of our City leaders, expressed in March 10, 2014 Shade Meeting transcript, to seek sanctions and court-ordered attorney fees? Please respond today. Thank you.
From: easlavin
To: ilopez
Sent: Thu, May 12, 2016 3:23 pm
Subject: Re: Requests No. 2016-166, 167 & 171: Whetstone v. City of St. Augustine -- Shade Meeting transcripts, sanctions and appellate fee research, communications, etc.
Why did GUNSTER never carry out the express wishes of our City leaders, expressed in March 10, 2014 Shade Meeting transcript, to seek sanctions and court-ordered attorney fees? Please respond today. Thank you.
-----Original Message-----
From: easlavin <easlavin@aol.com>
To: ilopez <ilopez@citystaug.com>; dmay <dmay@citystaug.com>; mcavendish <mcavendish@gunster.com>; lfrancis <lfrancis@gunster.com>; lpowell <lpowell@gunster.com>; ndyal <ndyal@gunster.com.>
Sent: Thu, May 5, 2016 11:44 pm
Subject: Re: Requests No. 2016-166, 167 & 171: Whetstone v. City of St. Augustine -- Shade Meeting transcripts, sanctions and appellate fee research, communications, etc.
From: easlavin <easlavin@aol.com>
To: ilopez <ilopez@citystaug.com>; dmay <dmay@citystaug.com>; mcavendish <mcavendish@gunster.com>; lfrancis <lfrancis@gunster.com>; lpowell <lpowell@gunster.com>; ndyal <ndyal@gunster.com.>
Sent: Thu, May 5, 2016 11:44 pm
Subject: Re: Requests No. 2016-166, 167 & 171: Whetstone v. City of St. Augustine -- Shade Meeting transcripts, sanctions and appellate fee research, communications, etc.
Please respond. Gunster is a government contract covered by F.S. 119. Thank you.
-----Original Message-----
From: easlavin <easlavin@aol.com>
To: ilopez <ilopez@citystaug.com>; dmay <dmay@citystaug.com>; mcavendish <mcavendish@gunster.com>; lfrancis <lfrancis@gunster.com>; lpowell <lpowell@gunster.com>; ndyal <ndyal@gunster.com.>
Sent: Sat, Apr 30, 2016 7:25 pm
Subject: Re: Requests No. 2016-166, 167 & 171: Whetstone v. City of St. Augustine -- Shade Meeting transcripts, sanctions and appellate fee research, communications, etc.
From: easlavin <easlavin@aol.com>
To: ilopez <ilopez@citystaug.com>; dmay <dmay@citystaug.com>; mcavendish <mcavendish@gunster.com>; lfrancis <lfrancis@gunster.com>; lpowell <lpowell@gunster.com>; ndyal <ndyal@gunster.com.>
Sent: Sat, Apr 30, 2016 7:25 pm
Subject: Re: Requests No. 2016-166, 167 & 171: Whetstone v. City of St. Augustine -- Shade Meeting transcripts, sanctions and appellate fee research, communications, etc.
Good evening:
A. Please send any written or electronic evidence of any research, discussions, suggestions or instructions, including but not limited from CIty Commission or staff to the Gunster law firm on whether or not to:
1. File motion for sanctions with trial court. F.S. 57.105
2. File motion for attorney fees in appellate court. F.R.App.P. Rules 9.400(b), 9.410
B. Please e-mail me the PDFs of all Shade Meeting transcripts, previously requested in Request No. 2016-167.
C. Please call me to discuss the etiology of the City's and counsel's failure to seek sanctions or appellate fees for the $216,000 spent in defense of this frivolous litigation.
Thank you.
With kindest regards, I am,
Sincerely yours,
Ed Slavin
904-377-4998
-----Original Message-----
From: easlavin <easlavin@aol.com>
To: ilopez <ilopez@citystaug.com>; dmay <dmay@citystaug.com>
Cc: nshaver <nshaver@citystaug.com>; jregan <jregan@citystaug.com>
Sent: Sat, Apr 30, 2016 10:45 am
Subject: Request No. 2016-171: Whetstone attorney fee petition draft, research, communications,
From: easlavin <easlavin@aol.com>
To: ilopez <ilopez@citystaug.com>; dmay <dmay@citystaug.com>
Cc: nshaver <nshaver@citystaug.com>; jregan <jregan@citystaug.com>
Sent: Sat, Apr 30, 2016 10:45 am
Subject: Request No. 2016-171: Whetstone attorney fee petition draft, research, communications,
Please send. Thank you.
From: easlavin <easlavin@aol.com>
To: recordsrequest <recordsrequest@citystaug.com>; nshaver <nshaver@citystaug.com>; dgalambos <dgalambos@citystaug.com>; jregan <jregan@citystaug.com>; ilopez <ilopez@citystaug.com>
Sent: Thu, Apr 28, 2016 6:52 pm
Subject: Re: Request No. 2016-168: 7-Eleven v. City of St. Augustine Shade Meeting transcripts
To: recordsrequest <recordsrequest@citystaug.com>; nshaver <nshaver@citystaug.com>; dgalambos <dgalambos@citystaug.com>; jregan <jregan@citystaug.com>; ilopez <ilopez@citystaug.com>
Sent: Thu, Apr 28, 2016 6:52 pm
Subject: Re: Request No. 2016-168: 7-Eleven v. City of St. Augustine Shade Meeting transcripts
Court reporters provide disks, as a matter of course. I do not believe you, whoever you are, "records requests@citystaug.com." Please send electronic copy, and copy of invoices for transcripts. Thank you.
-----Original Message-----
From: St. Augustine Public Records <recordsrequest@citystaug.com>
To: easlavin <easlavin@aol.com>
Sent: Thu, Apr 28, 2016 3:37 pm
Subject: RE: Request No. 2016-168: 7-Eleven v. City of St. Augustine Shade Meeting transcripts
From: St. Augustine Public Records <recordsrequest@citystaug.com>
To: easlavin <easlavin@aol.com>
Sent: Thu, Apr 28, 2016 3:37 pm
Subject: RE: Request No. 2016-168: 7-Eleven v. City of St. Augustine Shade Meeting transcripts
Request No. 2016-168: 7-Eleven v. City of St. Augustine Shade Meeting transcripts
Request No. 2016-167: Whetstone v. City of St. Augustine Shade Meeting transcripts
The documents responsive to the aforementioned public records request are unavailable in electronic format; however, are available for review in the City Clerk’s office located at 75 King Street, Lobby B, 2nd Floor, Monday through Friday during regular business hours.
From: easlavin@aol.com [mailto:easlavin@aol.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2016 5:32 AM
To: Isabelle Lopez
Cc: Nancy Shaver; jim.sutton@staugustine.com; Leanna Freeman; Roxanne Horvath; NancySikesKline@aol.com; Todd Neville; St. Augustine Public Records
Subject: Re: Request No. 2016-168: 7-Eleven v. City of St. Augustine Shade Meeting transcripts
Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2016 5:32 AM
To: Isabelle Lopez
Cc: Nancy Shaver; jim.sutton@staugustine.com; Leanna Freeman; Roxanne Horvath; NancySikesKline@aol.com; Todd Neville; St. Augustine Public Records
Subject: Re: Request No. 2016-168: 7-Eleven v. City of St. Augustine Shade Meeting transcripts
Please send. Thank you.
-----Original Message-----
From: easlavin <easlavin@aol.com>
To: recordsrequest <recordsrequest@citystaug.com>; jregan <jregan@citystaug.com>; nshaver <nshaver@citystaug.com>; ilopez <ilopez@citystaug.com>; dmay <dmay@citystaug.com>
Sent: Thu, Apr 28, 2016 1:00 pm
Subject: Re: Request No. 2016-166: Whetstone v. City of St. Augustine -- attorney fee petition by City
To: recordsrequest <recordsrequest@citystaug.com>; jregan <jregan@citystaug.com>; nshaver <nshaver@citystaug.com>; ilopez <ilopez@citystaug.com>; dmay <dmay@citystaug.com>
Sent: Thu, Apr 28, 2016 1:00 pm
Subject: Re: Request No. 2016-166: Whetstone v. City of St. Augustine -- attorney fee petition by City
Robotic response not signed by a living, breathing person with a name. Are we filing an attorney fee petition? Yes or no? Thank you.
-----Original Message-----
From: St. Augustine Public Records <recordsrequest@citystaug.com>
To: easlavin <easlavin@aol.com>
Sent: Thu, Apr 28, 2016 12:20 pm
Subject: RE: Request No. 2016-166: Whetstone v. City of St. Augustine -- attorney fee petition by City
From: St. Augustine Public Records <recordsrequest@citystaug.com>
To: easlavin <easlavin@aol.com>
Sent: Thu, Apr 28, 2016 12:20 pm
Subject: RE: Request No. 2016-166: Whetstone v. City of St. Augustine -- attorney fee petition by City
After inquiry and search, the City of St. Augustine, through its public officials and employees, does not possess public records responsive to your request.
From: easlavin@aol.com [mailto:easlavin@aol.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2016 5:35 AM
To: Nancy Shaver; John Regan; ilopez@citystaug.org; Denise May
Cc: St. Augustine Public Records
Subject: Fwd: Request No. 2016-166: Whetstone v. City of St. Augustine -- attorney fee petition by City
Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2016 5:35 AM
To: Nancy Shaver; John Regan; ilopez@citystaug.org; Denise May
Cc: St. Augustine Public Records
Subject: Fwd: Request No. 2016-166: Whetstone v. City of St. Augustine -- attorney fee petition by City
Please make sure the Whetstone attorney fee petition is filed ASAP. Thank you.
-----Original Message-----
From: easlavin <easlavin@aol.com>
To: ilopez <ilopez@citystaug.com>; jregan <jregan@citystaug.com>
Sent: Thu, Apr 28, 2016 5:27 am
Subject: Request No. 2016-166: Whetstone v. City of St. Augustine -- attorney fee petition by City
From: easlavin <easlavin@aol.com>
To: ilopez <ilopez@citystaug.com>; jregan <jregan@citystaug.com>
Sent: Thu, Apr 28, 2016 5:27 am
Subject: Request No. 2016-166: Whetstone v. City of St. Augustine -- attorney fee petition by City
Please send when filed. Thank you.
Simple - sue for legal malpractice! If the law firm failed to follow the client's instructions and if it can be proven that the City likely would have prevailed on obtaining an award of attorneys fees - let the law firm that messed up pay!
ReplyDeleteThe question boils down to whether the Whetstones had a valid legal question or basis to sue.( It seems pretty obvious that their lawyer should have known that the City vs. the State owned all the submerged lands in question).
However, if their lawsuit survived at least one motion for summary judgment then the likelyhood of prevailing on attorney fees seems remote. If however, the case was resolved through summary judgment then the City may just be entitled to attorney fees...which should be paid by the retained attorneys IF it is to late to seek such an award in court.