Penrod Brothers Inc v. City of Miami Beach
1:23-cv-23362
| S.D. Fla. | Jun 10, 2025Background
- Penrod Brothers, Inc. ("Penrod") has operated Nikki Beach, a beach club on City of Miami Beach property, for over 30 years under a lease that expires in 2026.
- The City was required to seek competitive bids for a new operator but initially considered awarding the property to Boucher Brothers without such a process.
- After Penrod sued to require a competitive process, the City rescinded its no-bid resolution, eventually issuing an RFP for the site’s operation.
- Penrod alleged the City’s procurement process was procedurally defective and unfair, particularly after technical issues with Penrod’s RFP submission excluded it from consideration.
- The City awarded the contract to Boucher; Penrod brought claims for federal due process violations and state law causes of action challenging both the original no-bid approach and the subsequent RFP process.
- The court previously dismissed an earlier complaint as a shotgun pleading and now rules on the Fifth Amended Complaint.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Procedural Due Process (42 U.S.C. § 1983) | Penrod had a liberty/property interest in fair bidding | No protected interest under Florida law | No protectable interest; claim dismissed |
| Substantive Due Process (42 U.S.C. § 1983) | Legislative act abrogated Penrod’s state-granted rights | Act was executive, not legislative; no claim | Was executive act; claim dismissed |
| Supplemental Jurisdiction (State Law Claims) | Should retain state claims post-federal dismissal | Federal claims gone, state claims should be left | Declined; state claims dismissed without prejudice |
| Standing & Shotgun Pleading | Revised pleading resolved prior procedural flaws | Previous complaints unclear, lacked standing | Shotgun pleading cured; merits now addressed |
Key Cases Cited
- Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 113 (1989) (describes the types of due process protections under the Fourteenth Amendment)
- McKinney v. Pate, 20 F.3d 1550 (11th Cir. 1994) (explains distinction between substantive and procedural due process)
- Board of Regents of State Colls. v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (1972) (property interests are created by state law, not the Constitution)
- United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715 (1966) (sets standards for when courts should retain supplemental jurisdiction)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleadings must state a plausible claim for relief)