classroom assessment - alberta education

of 24

BRS v. FDOT

Complaint for Damages, Declaratory Relief and Temporary and Permanent Injunctive Relief

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

IN AND FOR LEON COUNTY, FLORIDA

THE BROTHERHOOD OF RAILROAD

SIGNALMEN,

Plaintiff, CASE NO.

v.

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Defendant.

_________________________________________/

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, DECLARATORY

RELIEF AND TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Plaintiff, Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen (“BRS”), by undersigned

counsel, sues Defendant Florida Department of Transportation (“FDOT”) and

states:

1. a. This is an action for specific performance, declaratory relief and

temporary and permanent injunctive relief arising from the Defendant’s intentional

and unlawful violation of a contract and forbearance agreement providing for the

signal upgrade work and signal maintenance work for the SunRail commuter rail

operation in Florida to be done by a contractor covered by the Federal Railroad

of 24

BRS v. FDOT


Retirement Act 45 U.S.C. §231.

b. In 2008 and 2009, the Florida legislature considered and

rejected legislation necessary for the State to proceed with contracts with CSX

Transportation for the Florida Department of Transportation to acquire certain

railroad lines of CSXT between Deland and Poinciana, Florida in connection with

a plan to establish the Orlando-area “SunRail” commuter rail service. The

Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen and the Florida AFL-CIO opposed the SunRail

plan because FDOT intended to use non- railroad contractors (contractors not

covered by the Federal Railway Labor Act and Railroad Retirement Act) to

perform signal system construction and signal maintenance work on the lines to be

acquired from CSXT. The BRS and AFL-CIO opposition to FDOT’s plan was a

significant factor in the failure of the enabling legislation.

c. In December of 2009, the Governor called a special session of

the Florida legislature to reconsider the proposed SunRail enabling legislation. As

the close of the special session approached it did not appear that SunRail

supporters would be more successful in the special session than they were in the

two preceding regular legislative sessions. FDOT then made commitments to the

then President of the Senate that caused BRS and the Florida AFL-CIO to

withdraw their opposition to the proposed legislation: FDOT committed that it

would separately bid the “Phase II” signal construction work for the lines and the

of 24

BRS v. FDOT


signal maintenance work for the lines with the requirement that a successful bidder

would have to be a railroad carrier covered by the Railroad Retirement Act. Once

that commitment was made, the proposed legislation passed the special session.

Subsequently that commitment was embodied in an express written contract

between FDOT and BRS. However, FDOT subverted and repudiated the

agreement it entered with BRS to secure passage of the SunRail enabling

legislation. FDOT did so by engaging in sham bid processes which failed to

comply with the agreement it made with BRS, by refusing to award the signal

construction and maintenance work to a Railroad Retirement Act covered

contractor and by continuing to utilize a non-Railroad Retirement Act covered

contractor to perform that work. In this complaint, BRS seeks relief necessary to

secure FDOT’s compliance with its agreement with BRS.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2. The amount in controversy exceeds the sum of $15,000 exclusive of

interest and costs.

3. The venue for this action is properly brought in Leon County, Florida,

where Defendant agency, Florida Department of Transportation maintains its

principal headquarters. This is pursuant to the common law “home venue

privilege” which governs suits against governmental entities in Florida. Bush v.

State, 945 So.2d 1207 (Fla. 2006); Jacksonville Elec. Auth. v. Clay County Util.

of 24

BRS v. FDOT


Auth., 802 So.2d 1190, 1192 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002); Carlile v. Game & Freshwater

Commission, 354 So.2d 362, 363-364 (Fla. 1977).

PARTIES

4. The Brotherhood’s national headquarters is located in Front Royal,

Virginia and is affiliated with the Florida AFL-CIO. BRS is the collective

bargaining representative under the Railway Labor Act of persons employed by

rail carriers in the craft or class of Railroad Signalman, primarily employees who

do maintenance, repair, rehabilitation and construction work on signal systems;

and construction, maintenance and repair of communication systems and

equipment, including employees of CSX Transportation, Inc. (“CSXT”) who

perform such work. BRS and CSXT are parties to a collective bargaining

agreement covering Signalmen employed by CSXT.

5. Defendant Florida Department of Transportation is a department of

the State of Florida, authorized by Article IV Section 6 of the Florida Constitution.

The agency Florida Department of Transportation is created by Section 20.23,

Florida Statutes and is vested with the power to enter into contracts. Suits may be

brought at law and in equity and maintained against the department on contract

claims. Rabon v. Inn of Lake City, Inc., 693 So.2d 1126 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997);

Hypower v. State DOT, 839 So.2d 856 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003); White Construction

Company, Inc. v. State DOT, 860 So.2d 1064 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). Since the

of 24

BRS v. FDOT


Florida DOT is statutorily empowered by general law to enter into contracts,

declaratory judgment actions and actions for specific performance predicated on

breach of contract are not barred by the defense of sovereign immunity. Kohl v.

Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida, Inc., 988 So.2d 654 (Fla. 4th

DCA 2008);

Pan Am Tobacco Corporation v. Department of Corrections, 471 So.2d 4 (Fla.

1984); Kempher v. St. Johns River Water Management Dist., 475 So.2d 920 (Fla.

5th

DCA 1985).

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

6. In 2006, FDOT entered an agreement in principle with CSXT for

FDOT to acquire 61.5 miles of CSXT rail lines between Deland and Poinciana,

Florida for a planned commuter rail service that would come to be called

“SunRail”.

7. In November of 2007 FDOT and CSXT entered a contract for

CSXT’s sale and FDOT’s purchase of the CSXT lines between Deland and

Poinciana, along with a Transition Agreement and an Operating and Management

Agreement. Under these agreements, CSXT would sell the line to the State, but

CSXT would continue to operate overhead trains on the line, and would still own

rail yards and branch and feeder lines off the conveyed line segment and would

continue to serve and move traffic from shippers on the branch and feeder lines

over the conveyed line through an “operating easement”. All signal, maintenance

of 24

BRS v. FDOT


of way and dispatching work on the conveyed line would become the

responsibility of FDOT and later local governments. As part of the plan, the

Deland-Poinciana line segment would be “double-tracked” and its signal system

would be substantially upgraded. Implementation of these agreements was

contingent on the Florida legislature passing certain enabling legislation dealing

primarily with sovereign immunity, liability and insurances issues.

8. At the time these agreements were entered, CSXT Signalmen

represented by BRS worked on the conveyed line under a BRS-CSXT collective

bargaining agreement that reserved all signal work on that line to BRS-represented

Signalmen.

9. FDOT’s plan for the signal upgrade work, and for the signal

maintenance work for the SunRail commuter rail operation was that FDOT would

not become a rail carrier under Federal laws such as the Railway Labor Act

(“RLA”, 45 U.S.C. §151 et seq.), the Railroad Retirement Act (“RRRA”, 45

U.S.C. §231 et seq.) Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act (“RUIA”, 45 U.S.C.

§351 et seq. ) and Federal Employer’s Liability Act (“FELA”, 45 U.S.C. §51 et

seq.); and that FDOT contractors would also not be rail carriers under those

Federal laws. Under those Federal laws, if the employer responsible for certain

railroad work is not a rail carrier, its employees are not covered by those laws.

10. The agreements between FDOT and CSXT provided that if the United

of 24

BRS v. FDOT


States Surface Transportation Board asserted jurisdiction over the transaction

which would make FDOT a rail carrier under Federal laws (including the RLA,

RRRA, RUIA and FELA) those agreements would be voidable by FDOT.

11. Enabling legislation necessary for the line acquisition was introduced

in the Florida legislature in 2008.

12. BRS responded to the 2008 legislative effort by seeking agreements

with FDOT or amendments to the legislation that would ensure that FDOT and/or

an operator and/or a signal contractor for the acquired line would be rail carriers

covered by the Federal railroad laws including the Railway Labor Act and Railroad

Retirement Act. FDOT opposed all such efforts.

13. During the course of debate on enabling legislation for the line

acquisition, BRS learned that FDOT was not merely resistant to efforts to insure

that railroad work on the line would be done by railroad workers, FDOT was

planning to avoid unionized workers and railroad workers and sought instead to

use non-rail/non-union contractors. BRS obtained notes of the FDOT Secretary’s

meeting with CSXT regarding plans for this transaction which stated: “Ideally, the

FDOT proposal would provide the freedom to undertake the operations and

maintenance of the corridor using non-union contract labor, which would be the

most cost effective and efficient approach”.

14. BRS and others opposed the enabling legislation for the FDOT-CSXT

of 24

BRS v. FDOT


transaction that was presented to the Florida legislature in 2008. The proposed

enabling legislation failed in 2008.

15. Proponents of the FDOT-CSXT transaction renewed their efforts to

obtain enabling legislation for that transaction and the SunRail commuter rail

operation in the 2009 legislative session. BRS, and the Florida AFL-CIO, again

sought amendments that would ensure that FDOT and/or an operator and/or a

signal contractor for the line segment would be rail carriers covered by the Railway

Labor Act and Railroad Retirement Act. FDOT and proponents of the FDOT-

CSXT transaction in the Florida legislature again rejected the amendments sought

by BRS and Florida AFL-CIO. The enabling legislation for the FDOT-CSXT

transaction failed again in the Spring of 2009.

16. On April 2, 2009 FDOT filed with the United States Surface

Transportation Board a notice invoking a class exemption from STB approval for

FDOT’s acquisition of the CSXT line, but also filed a motion to dismiss the notice

petition for lack of STB jurisdiction so FDOT would not be a carrier.

17. FDOT asked the STB to hold its proceedings in abeyance after the

Florida legislature did not pass enabling legislation for the FDOT -CSXT

transaction/SunRail project. The STB granted multiple FDOT’s requests that STB

proceedings be held in abeyance.

of 24

BRS v. FDOT


18. The Florida legislature was called into a special session to consider

new enabling legislation with modified terms in December of 2009 (see Exhibit 6

attached hereto).

19. BRS, and the Florida AFL-CIO, once again sought amendments that

would ensure that FDOT and/or an operator and/or a signal contractor for the line

segment would be rail carriers covered by the Railway Labor Act and Railroad

Retirement Act.

20. During the 2009 Special Session, the then Florida Senate President

proposed an amendment that would have addressed BRS’s concerns, but FDOT

and its allies opposed that proposal. The Florida House also rejected any possible

amendment in the Special Session to require that signal work on the line be

performed by rail carriers and railroad workers covered by the Federal railroad

laws (See Exhibit 6 attached hereto).

21. As part of the effort to break the stalemate on the SunRail project and

to address the objections of BRS and the Florida AFL-CIO, the Florida Senate

President met with the Florida Secretary of Transportation. As a result of that

meeting, The Florida Secretary of Transportation wrote to the then President of the

Florida Senate on December 8, 2009, stating that FDOT would separately bid

Signal maintenance work and Phase II Signal construction work with the

requirement that a successful bidder would have to be a rail carrier subject to the

of 24

BRS v. FDOT


RRRA. BRS and the Florida AFL-CIO then withdrew their opposition to the

enabling legislation for the CSXT-FDOT transaction/SunRail project.

22. The 2009 Special Session of the Florida legislature then passed

enabling legislation that would allow the proposed CSXT-FDOT transaction to go

forward. That legislation was signed by Governor Crist on December 16, 2009.

23. On March 31, 2010, FDOT requested that the STB resume

consideration of FDOT’s notice of exemption and motion to dismiss the notice for

lack of jurisdiction and provided the STB with a new contract for the acquisition of

the CSXT line, an amended transition agreement and amended operating

agreement.

24. BRS opposed the motion for dismissal, but did not oppose the

exemption.

25. FDOT responded to the BRS opposition to dismissal by urging the

STB to grant FDOT’s motion. Among other things, FDOT cited its commitment to

BRS in the December 8, 2009 letter to the then President of the Florida Senate.

26. On December 15, 2010, the STB granted FDOT’s motion for

dismissal stating that FDOT did not require STB authorization for acquisition of

the line to be used for SunRail. The STB relied in part on FDOT commitment to

separately bid Signal maintenance work and Phase II Signal construction work

with the requirement that a successful bidder would have to be a rail carrier subject

of 24

BRS v. FDOT


to the RRRA. BRS appealed the STB’s decision to the United States Court of

Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

27. On July 28, 2011, FDOT and BRS entered an agreement whereby

FDOT expressly committed to separately bid the Signal maintenance work and

Phase II Signal construction work with the requirement that bidders be covered by

the RRRA, and BRS agreed to drop its appeal of the STB’s decision and to

relinquish all claims arising out of the FDOT-CSXT transaction.

28. In October of 2011, FDOT put the Signal Maintenance work up for

bid by issuing a request for proposals (“RFP”). A rail carrier that satisfied the

requirement of RRRA coverage, United Signal, bid for the work.

29. In April of 2012, the United Signal bid was rejected. FDOT offered

inconsistent reasons for the rejection of United Signal. FDOT dismissed bid saying

the United Signal bid was non-responsive with no additional explanation. FDOT’s

rating of the United Signal bid showed that it responded to all elements of the RFP.

30. BRS objected to FDOT’s refusal to award the bid to a rail carrier as

required by the July 28, 2011 agreement. FDOT responded to BRS by letter dated

May 16, 2012 stating that Untied Signal did not meet a minimum requirement in

the RFP, not that the bid was non-responsive. FDOT’s letter to BRS stated that

United Signal did not have a minimum 5 years of experience (a requirement that

was not part of FDOT’s agreement with BRS), but United Signal did in fact have

of 24

BRS v. FDOT


the experience demanded by FDOT as its founder and CEO had many more than

five years of relevant experience.

31. BRS met with FDOT after the May 16, 2012 letter and FDOT agreed

to put the Signal Maintenance work out for bid again; which it did in the Fall of

2012.

32. The new RFP required that the bidders certify that they are covered by

the RRRA. United Signal again submitted a bid. There were two other bidders,

Balfour Beatty and RailWorks. Balfour Beatty submitted a certification that it was

covered by the RRRA, but it then wrote to FDOT stating that it is not RRRA

covered. RailWorks (which is currently doing the Signal Maintenance work as a

subcontractor to the construction contractor) submitted a certification that it was

RRRA covered, but it appended to the certification a statement that while it

believed it was a railroad covered by the RRRA, it could not actually show that to

be true and that RailWorks realized it might be disqualified from the bidding.

33. Despite Balfour Beatty’s recanting of its certification and RailWorks’

inability to actually show RRRA coverage and its own recognition that it was

subject to disqualification, the FDOT technical review panel for the RFP scored all

three bidders, even the ones who were obviously unqualified because they could

not satisfy requirement of a certificate showing coverage by the RRRA. United

Signal ranked lowest of the three bidders but not was not disqualified

of 24

BRS v. FDOT


34. On March 11, 2013, the FDOT selection panel rejected all bidders

including United Signal, even though it was the only bidder that had submitted a

valid RRRA certification and had satisfied all other requirements of the RFP. The

selection committee rejected all the bids and provided no rationale for its decision.

35. After two RFPs for the Signal work on the line from Deland to

Poinciana, no rail carrier has been selected to do the Signal work despite the

commitment FDOT made to the former President of the Florida Senate, FDOT’s

reliance on that commitment in its filings with the STB and FDOT’s July 28, 2011

contract with BRS.

36. At present, the Signal maintenance work on the line from Deland to

Poinciana is still being done by RailWorks as a subcontractor, even though it was

rejected as a contract bidder.

37. The July 28, 2011 agreement between FDOT and BRS was a contract

containing commitments made by each party, with consideration given by BRS for

the commitments made by FDOT and BRS relinquishment of certain rights and

potential actions in reliance on the commitments made by FDOT.

38. FDOT has breached its July 28, 2011 agreement with BRS by

rejecting United Signal’s bid in response to the first RFP, without any valid basis

for doing so; by scoring Balfour Beatty and RailWorks on the second RFP when

they were clearly not qualified to submit bids under the terms of the second RFP;

of 24

BRS v. FDOT


and by rejecting all bidders on the second RFP, including United Signal although

there was no basis for United Signal to be disqualified.

39. BRS seeks an order compelling specific performance of

FDOT’s commitments in its July 28, 2011 agreement with BRS.

CAUSES OF ACTION

COUNT I: CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANT FOR

DECLARATORY RELIEF

40. This is a cause of action for declaratory relief pursuant to Chapter 86,

Florida Statutes.

41. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1 through 39 inclusive as if fully set

forth herein verbatim and further alleges:

42. Pursuant to the Florida Rail Enterprise Act (Section 341.8201 et seq.

Florida Statutes) the Defendant Florida Department of Transportation is authorized

through the Florida Rail Enterprise to enter into joint project agreements with

public and private entities for the planning, financing, building, managing and

operation of a high-speed rail system for transporting people and goods.

43. By virtue of the agreement entered into by the Plaintiff and Defendant

on July 28, 2011, the parties exchanged mutual obligations and consideration

including forbearance obligations.

44. The parties are currently in doubt and confusion as to their rights and

of 24

BRS v. FDOT


responsibilities regarding the said agreement.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that the Court will:

a. Take Jurisdiction of the parties and subject matter of this action.

b. Conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine disputed issues of material

fact.

c. Enter a declaratory judgment declaring the rights and responsibilities of

the respective parties, pursuant to the contract between the parties as

follows:

1. United Signal was the only qualified bidder who met the requirements

of the agreement and the RFP

2. Railworks was not a qualified RRRA bidder who met the

requirements of the agreement and the RFP

3. FDOT wrongfully breached the parties’ agreement and violated the

terms of the RFP by selecting Railworks to perform signal

maintenance work on the rail line from Deland to Poinciana even

though:

a. Railworks did not go through the RFP process

b. Railworks was not a RRRA qualified bidder

c. Railworks was not selected as a RRRA qualified bidder under the

RFP process

of 24

BRS v. FDOT


d. Railworks was previously rejected by FDOT from participating as

a contract bidder

4. FDOT wrongfully failed to award the signal maintenance work to

United Signal as the sole RRRA qualified bidder who met the

requirements of the agreement and the RFP

5. FDOT breached the terms of the agreement with the Plaintiff

6. FDOT breached the terms of the RFP

d. Enter such other and further relief as the court deems just in the premises.

COUNT II: CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANT FDOT FOR

SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF THE BRS CONTRACT

45. This is a cause of action against Defendants FDOT for specific

performance of the BRS contract arising from breach of the contract by FDOT.

46. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1 through 39 inclusive as if fully set

forth herein verbatim and further alleges:

47. On July 28, 2011, Plaintiff BRS and Defendant FDOT entered into an

agreement which provided for exchange of promises and consideration including

the following:

a. FDOT expressly committed to separately bid the signal

maintenance work and phase II signal construction work provided that bidders be

qualified as “rail carriers” under the RRRA.

of 24

BRS v. FDOT


b. FDOT expressly agreed that bids from “rail carriers” under the

RRRA would not be rejected and/or disqualified from being awarded the signal

maintenance work and phase II signal construction work.

c. FDOT expressly agreed to forbear from rejecting and/or

dismissing bids from “rail carriers” under the RRRA for specious reasons,

including failure of the bid proposal to meet requirements that FDOT included in

RFP, failure of the bid proposal to be responsive to the RFP, failure of the bid

proposal to have minimum five years relevant work experience, and other specious

reasons.

d. FDOT expressly agreed to disqualify any RFP bid submitted by

any entity not covered by RRRA.

e. FDOT expressly agreed to screen RFP bids to ensure that all

bids were submitted by entities covered by the RRRA.

f. Plaintiff BRS agreed in exchange to dismiss its pending appeal

in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit of the

STB decision.

g. Plaintiff BRS agreed in exchange to forbear from filing its

claims in court arising from damages caused by the FDOT-CSXT transaction.

48. Defendant FDOT had a duty of good faith to comply with the terms of

the express agreement entered into with BRS.

of 24

BRS v. FDOT


49. On or about March 11, 2013, Defendant FDOT breached its duty of

good faith to comply with the terms of the express agreement entered into with

BRS in the following particulars:

a. Defendant FDOT, in bad faith, rejected the bid of United

Signal, who was the only valid qualified RRRA bidder.

b. Defendant FDOT announced a blanket rejection all bidders in

bad faith with no expressly stated rationale for its decision and for the ostensible

reason to reject United Signal’s bid for the substantial motivating reason the

United Signal was the only valid qualified RRRA bidder.

c. Defendant FDOT announced the blanket rejection of all bidders

in bad faith for the substantial motivating reason to preclude any valid qualified

bidder under the RRRA from being awarded the RFP work.

d. Defendant FDOT in bad faith permitted Balfour Beatty and Rail

Works to submit bid proposals, despite the fact that neither was a qualified RRRA

bidder.

e. Defendant FDOT promised the Former President of the Florida

Senate that FDOT would award the RFP work to the valid qualified RRRA bidder,

although FDOT did not intend to do so at the time the promise was made.

f. Defendant FDOT has allowed non RRRA qualified Rail Works

to perform the signal maintenance work on the rail line from Deland to Poinciana:

of 24

BRS v. FDOT


(1) without going through the normal RFP process; (2) without being a qualified

RRRA bidder; (3) without being selected as bidder under the normal RFP process;

and (4) after being rejected as a contract bidder by FDOT.

50. As a direct and proximate cause of the breach of the contract by

Defendant FDOT, Plaintiff BRS has suffered damages.


a. Take Jurisdiction of the parties and subject matter of this action

b. Conduct an evidentiary final hearing and determine the substantial

material facts.

c. Enter a Final Judgment which will:

1. Order that FDOT forthwith award the RFP signal maintenance

work to United Signal, the only qualified bidder who met the

requirements of the agreement and RFP

2. Order Defendant FDOT to comply with the terms of the contract

between the parties.

3. Enjoin Defendant FDOT from rejecting in bad faith RRRA

qualified bidders from the RFP bidding process.

4. Enjoin Defendant FDOT from disqualifying in bad faith RRRA


5. Enjoin Defendant FDOT from permitting in bad faith nonqualified

of 24

BRS v. FDOT


entities who have not been selected bidders in the RFP bidding

process to perform signal maintenance work


qualified RFP bidders on specious, non meritorious grounds.

7. Enjoin Defendant FDOT from rejecting all RFP bids in bad faith

with no stated rationale for its decision

8. Enjoin Defendant FDOT from permitting rejected contract bidders

to perform signal maintenance work

d. Enter a Final Judgment for such other and further specific

performance relief as is just under the premises.

COUNT III: CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANT FDOT FOR

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, ARISING FROM THE BREACH OF CONTRACT

BY DEFENDANT FDOT

51. This is a cause of action against Defendant FDOT for injunctive relief,

arising from the breach of contract by Defendant FDOT.

52. Plaintiff realleges the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 39 inclusive

as if fully set forth herein verbatim and further alleges:

53. The subject matter of the contract between FDOT and BRS for the

Signal Maintenance Work and Phase II signal construction work is of such a

special nature, and such peculiar value that damages would not be a just and

reasonable substitute/compensation for a breach of the contract. An award of

of 24

BRS v. FDOT


damages would be inadequate to compensate for the breach of contract.

Accordingly, there is no adequate remedy at law.

54. It is not possible to arrive at a proper legal measure of damages, with

any degree of certainty because of the special and unique features and incidents of

the contract inherent in its subject matter.

55. This court is vested with original jurisdiction to issue injunctions,

pursuant to Article V Section 5 of the Florida Constitution and Rule 1.610 Florida

Rules of Civil Procedure. Jacksonville v. Naegele Outdoor Advertising Co., 634

So. 2d 750 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994), approved Naegele Outdoor Advertising Co, Inc v.

City of Jacksonville, 659 So. 2d (Fla. 1995).

56. Plaintiff BRS is suffering and will continue to suffer irreparable harm

if injunctive relief is not granted.

57. Plaintiff BRS is likely to succeed on the merits of his claims.

58. Any threatened injury to defendant FDOT is negligible from the

issuance of injunctive relief, and is outweighed by the substantial ongoing harm to

Plaintiff BRS.

59. The public interest is being damaged by the actions of Defendant

FDOT and the issuance of injunctive relief will stop the ongoing damage to the

public interest being caused by the actions of defendant FDOT.

of 24

BRS v. FDOT


60. The primary purpose of entering a temporary injunction is to preserve

the status quo pending the final outcome of a cause. Yardley v. Albu, 826 So.2d

467, 470 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002), quoting Florida Land Co. v. Albu, 418 So.2d 370,

372 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982) (citing Adoption Hotline, Inc. v. Department of Health

and Rehabilitative Services, ex.rel. Rothman, 385 So.2d 682 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980).

61. “The status quo which will be preserved by a preliminary injunction is

the last, actual, peaceable, uncontested condition which preceded the pending

controversy.” Chicago Title Insurance Agency of Lee County, Inc. v. Chicago Title

Insurance Company, 560 So.2d 296, 297 (Fla. 2 DCA 1990)(citing Lieberman v.

Marshall, 236 So.2d 120, 125 (Fla. 1970).

62. Rule 1.610 Florida Rules of Civil Procedure requires a court’s

injunctive order to “specify the reasons for entry” of the injunction and “clear,

definite, and unequivocally sufficient factual findings must support each of the

four conclusions necessary to justify the entry of a preliminary injunction.”

Spradley v. Old Harmony Baptist Church, 721 So.2d 735, 737 (Fla. 1st DCA

1998)(citing Naegele, supra 634 So.2d at 754).


a. Take Jurisdiction of the parties and subject matter of this action

b. Conduct an evidentiary final hearing and determine the substantial

material facts.

of 24

BRS v. FDOT


c. Enter a Final Judgment which will:

1. Order that FDOT forthwith award the RFP signal maintenance

work to United Signal, the only qualified bidder who met the

requirements of the agreement and RFP

2. Order Defendant FDOT to comply with the terms of the contract

between the parties.

3. Enjoin Defendant FDOT from rejecting in bad faith RRRA




5. Enjoin Defendant FDOT from permitting in bad faith nonqualified

entities who have not been selected bidders in the RFP bidding

process to perform signal maintenance work


qualified RFP bidders on specious, non meritorious grounds.

7. Enjoin Defendant FDOT from rejecting all RFP bids in bad faith

with no stated rationale for its decision

8. Enjoin Defendant FDOT from permitting rejected contract bidders

to perform signal maintenance work

D. Enter a Final Judgment for such other and further specific

of 24

BRS v. FDOT


performance relief as is just under the premises.

Respectfully submitted on this 22nd

of July 2013

_________________________ ________________________

SIDNEY L. MATTHEW RICHARD S. EDELMAN (DC #416348)

Florida Bar ID No. 193496 O’DONNELL, SCHWARTZ &

SIDNEY L. MATTHEW, P.A. ANDERSON, P.C.

Post Office Box 1754 1300 L. Street, N.W., Suite 1200

Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Washington, D.C. 20005

Telephone (850) 224-7887 Telephone (202) 898-1707

Facsimile (850) 681-3122 Facsimile (202) 628-9276

Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected]

Attorney for Plaintiff Attorney for Plaintiff

________________________

WILLIAM L. PHILLIPS

General Counsel

BROTHERHOOD OF RAILROAD SIGNALMEN

33N. LaSalle St. #2100

Chicago, IL 60602

Telephone (847) 644-1901

Email: [email protected]

Attorney for Plaintiff

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

classroom assessment - alberta education

Documents