Do you need to file a Florida Writ of Mandamus? We can help. By way of example, the following is a sample Writ. Should you need this service, you should contact a Writ of Mandamus lawyer like those at Massey & Duffy:
1. This is an action for damages exceeding $15,000.00.
2. Petitioner, MICHAEL W. SIMPSON, is a resident of Washington County, Florida.
3. At all times pertinent to this action Respondents, OCALA CITY COUNCIL, et al. (hereinafter referred to as OCALA) was a governmental entity responsible for setting policy and overseeing the operations of the City of OCALA.
4. At all times pertinent to this action Petitioner, MICHAEL W. SIMPSON was the Fire chief of City of OCALA.
5. At all times pertinent to this action Petitioner, MICHAEL W. SIMPSON, not in his individual capacity but as Mayor of the City of OCALA (hereinafter referred to as MAYOR or PETITIONER) had the duty of executing the plans and policies of the OCALA CITY COUNCIL.
6. All actions and omissions of employment occurred in Washington County, Florida and all the official records relevant to this action are maintained in Washington County.
7. Respondent’s, OCALA CITY COUNCIL’S and the CITY OF OCALA’S principal place of business is in Washington County, Florida.
8. At all times pertinent to this petition, MICHAEL W. SIMPSON, hereinafter referred to as “Petitioner” was the Mayor of Respondent, CITY OF OCALA.
9. During the period of time that Petitioner has been Mayor, he had exercised all of the rights and privileges as Mayor accordingly to the City Charter and laws and statues of the State of Florida until the June 2010 Special meeting when the City Council prevented Petitioner from being an effective Mayor and constructively prevented Petitioner from running for office again.
10. During his tenure as fire Chief of the City of OCALA, Petitioner had been accorded all of his rights and privileges as the Fire Chief of the City of OCALA as stated under the City Charter until the August 2010 City Council meeting when the City Council prevented Petitioner from being the Fire Chief of the City of OCALA and removed the fire Chief’s vehicle from Petitioner’s use.
11. Petitioner’s duties and obligations were not interfered with until 14 June 2010 when the City Council called a Special Council Meeting without the statutorily required notice.
12. On 13 June 2010, the City Council had the Assistant City Clerk telephone Petitioner at home to tell him about the Special Council meeting that was being called for 3 p.m. the next day.
13. No written notice of the City Council Meeting was provided to Petitioner or the other citizens of the City of OCALA.
14. The actions of the City of OCALA, by and through City Council comprised of John Paul Cook, Jr., Narvel Armstrong, Vivian Brewer , and Cheryl Withrow, are illegal, unconstitutional, against public policy against standard operating procedures. For the following reasons:
a.) No written agenda was produced for the meeting held on 14 June 2010.
b.) There was a violation of fundamental due process by the Respondents’ failure to provide adequate notice of the meeting and the agenda for the meeting.
c.) At the hastily called City Council Meeting on 14 June 2010, the Respondent voted to attempt to impeach the Mayor;
d.) At the 14 August 2010 City Council meeting Respondent voted to remove the Petitioner from his Chief of Firefighter duties and deny Petitioner the use of the Chief Fire Chief’s car; and limit the Mayor’s lawfully delegated authorities.
15. The United States Constitution, and Florida Statues, and the OCALA City Charter imposed a duty on the OCALA CITY COUNCIL and the City of OCALA to give all OCALA elected official and citizens due process, fair notice and an opportunity to be heard prior to removal of official powers.
16. The OCALA CITY COUNCIL owed this duty to Petitioner.
17. Despite these procedural guarantees, thereafter, in August 2010, without prior notice, warning, Petitioner had his rights and privileges as Mayor of the City of OCALA limited and duties as Chief of OCALA’s Fire Department removed.
18. Petitioner has requested relief from the Respondents, OCALA CITY COUNCIL and CITY OF OCALA, in writing on two occasions, but they have refused to provide the relief requested. A copy of Petitioner’s requests for relief is attached and incorporated as composite Exhibit 1.
19. OCALA CITY COUNCIL and CITY OF OCALA has denied that Petitioner is entitled to the requested relief. A copy of their letter denying the requested relief is attached and incorporated herein as Exhibit 2.
20. Petitioner had substantial interests in his employment that were directly affected by The OCALA CITY COUNCIL’s refusal to accord Petitioner all of his rights and privileges as Mayor of OCALA and Chief of the Fire Department.
21. The City of OCALA has also enacted legislation that was not properly brought before the mayor for his review and signing or his veto.
22. The City of OCALA voted to raise the salaries of its Council members without providing the ordinance to the Mayor for his review and consent or veto as provided in the City charter.
23. Such actions on the part of City COUNCIL were illegal and were against the written City charter.
24. Petitioner has no other adequate remedy to enforce these rights.
25. Petitioner has been required to retain an attorney and is obligated to pay his attorneys a reasonable fee along with costs for which Respondents should be liable to pay.
26. Petitioner has the right to have his due process rights accorded to him by Respondents. Petitioner has sought a judicial remedy for the Respondent’s refusal to provide a no-judicial remedy.
27. The acts complained of were ministerial acts, that of providing adequate and appropriate notice of all City COUNCIL Meetings and of failing to comply with the City of OCALA’s procedures as set forth in the Charter.
28. The failure of City COUNCIL to provide adequate and appropriate notice and to adhere to the charter invalidates all official decisions and ordinances made by the City COUNCIL on 14 June 2010 and 14 August 2010.
29. Petitioner has fully complied with the requirements of Fla.R.C.P. Petitioner has no other adequate remedy to enforce these rights.
WHEREFORE, Petitioner prays this Court will enter an Order to Show Cause ordering the Respondent’s to show cause why the Writ of Mandamus should not be issued. Petitioner prays that the Court will enter a writ of mandamus requiring OCALA CITY COUNCIL and CITY OF OCALA to comply with the due process procedural requirements of Florida Statute and the United States Constitution in order to avoid injustice and alleged wrongs and requests this Honorable Court to provide the relief requested.
Subsequent to the Show Cause hearing, Petitioner requests the court enter a Writ of Mandamus directing the OCALA CITY COUNCIL and CITY OF OCALA to provide:
a) The reinstatement of Petitioner’s title and duties as Chief of the Fire Department for the City of OCALA;
b) Return of the use of the Chief of Fire Department motor vehicle ;
c.) Compensatory damages for pain and suffering;
d.) Repeal of the legislation authorizing the increase in City Council’s salaries as provided by the Fla. Statute and the OCALA City Charter;.
e.) Attorneys fees, and costs and other relief deemed appropriate.
TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH A BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP
30. Petitioner realleges the allegations of Count I paragraphs 1- 28 as if fully set forth herein.
31. Petitioner had a business relationship with the City of OCALA and the City of OCALA Fire Department.
32. Respondent intentionally and wrongfully and unjustifiedly interfered with Petitioner’s Business Relationship with the City of OCALA and the City of OCALA ‘s Fire Department when it:
a.) removed the Petitioner from his position as Chief of the Fire Department without notice.
b.) accused the Petitioner of malfeasance in hiring a new city maintenance man.
33. Petitioner was harmed by Respondent’s actions and suffered financially and emotionally.
34. The Petitioner lost the use of the Fire chief’s vehicle and suffered the emotional harm of being humiliated publically, and was essentially left out of all future OCALA City matters and issues.
35. Absent the tortious interference of the City Council members, the normal positive productive relationship between the City of OCALA and the Petitioner and the City of OCALA Fire Department would have remained intact and all activities continued without interruption.
Wherefore, the Petitioner asks for damages and reasonable compensation and attorneys fees and costs for the harms suffered.
COUNT III- SLANDER
36. Petitioner realleges the allegations of Count I paragraphs 1- 28 as if fully set forth herein.
37. Respondents placed Petitioner in a false light and slandered him when they knowingly and publicly made false statements that the Petitioner was guilty of malfeasance in June and August 2010.
38. The Respondents knew that the Petitioner had only complied with COUNCIL’s directive to obtain a new maintenance worker in June- July 2010, therefore there was no bases for an impeachment.
39. Respondents knowingly and maliciously sought to harm Petitioner’s reputation and public standing with their publication of allegations against Petitioner.
40. The statements made about Petitioner in public by the City COUNCIL were false and tended to degrade and injure Petitioner in his good name, credit, and reputation and exposed Petitioner to distrust, hatred, contempt, and obloquy.
41. As a result, Petitioner was injured and prejudiced in his good name, credit, and reputation and was brought into public scandal and disgrace, has been shunned by many persons with whom he previously had social or business relations, has suffered mental anguish and has been injured in his business relationships and office as Mayor of the City of OCALA and, now, the removed Chief of OCALA Fire Department.
ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
Petitioner, MICHAEL W. SIMPSON was publicly humiliated and removed from the position with the OCALA FIRE DEPARTMENT in August 2010 without prior notice or warning. In fact, Petitioner was never provided with fundamental due process as no written notice was given for the August 2010 Council Meeting.
In order for a court to issue a writ of mandamus, a petitioner must show that he has a clear legal right to the performance of a clear, legal duty by a public officer and that he has no other legal remedies available to him. See Hatten v. State, 561 So 2d 562, 563 (Fla.1990) Petitioner maintains that he has made allegations of factual circumstances and provided supporting documentation to allow this Honorable Court to enter a writ of mandamus. When a petitioner files a petition for mandamus, the Court has the initial task of assessing the legal sufficiency of the allegations. “ If the petition is facially sufficient, the court must issue an alternative writ, i.e. an order directed to the respondent to show cause why the requested relief should not be granted.” Holcomb v. Department of Corrections, 609 So 2d 751 (1st DCA 1992).