Judge dismisses ‘shakedown’ lawsuit allegations against Alex Díaz de la Portilla
A judge has dismissed allegations in a lawsuit against former Miami City Commissioner Alex Díaz de la Portilla accusing him of attempting to “shake down” the longtime operator of the Rickenbacker Marina by pressuring him to take on one of the commissioner’s associates as a business partner.
In a June 27 order, Miami-Dade Circuit Court Judge Mavel Ruiz ruled that, as an elected official, Díaz de la Portilla was protected by “legislative immunity” from claims leveled against him by former state representative and lobbyist Manuel Prieguez.
In September, Prieguez filed a lawsuit accusing Díaz de la Portilla and two associates of squeezing Prieguez’s client, Rickenbacker Marina operator Aabad Melwani, in order to secure the commissioner’s vote during an intense battle in 2020 over who would redesign and run the aging city-owned marina.
In his lawsuit, Prieguez accuses Díaz de la Portilla of working through surrogates, including former city commissioner and convicted felon Humberto “Bert” Hernandez and real estate agent and attorney Anibal Duarte-Viera, in an attempt to “shake down an upstanding member of the community” — Melwani.
Hernandez and Duarte-Viera are still defendants in the case. Earlier this year, the judge denied a motion from Hernandez to dismiss him from the case. Duarte-Viera also asked for dismissal, but the judge has yet to rule on that motion.
Díaz de la Portilla was suspended from office in September after he was arrested in an unrelated matter and charged with money laundering, bribery and official misconduct. Those charges are being prosecuted by the Broward State Attorney’s Office because of a conflict of interest involving Miami-Dade State Attorney Katherine Fernandez Rundle.
Díaz de la Portilla celebrated his dismissal from the Rickenbacker Marina lawsuit in a text message this weekend, taking aim at Prieguez and the prosecutors who are handling his criminal case.
“This is the beginning of the road toward total vindication,” Díaz de la Portilla said. “The next victory is dismissing the weaponized, politically motivated and baseless case filed against me by the Broward State Attorney. I’ve done nothing wrong and the evidence will prove it.”
Díaz de la Portilla added: “To quote Dr. Martin Luther King- ‘the arc of the moral universe is long but it bends toward justice.’”
Prieguez has 20 days to file an amended complaint, leaving the door open for Díaz de la Portilla to be pulled back into the litigation.
“Stay tuned,” Prieguez said when reached by phone Monday. He declined to comment further.
Hernandez told the Herald in a text message that his attorney had advised him not to comment on pending litigation, “unlike Mr Prieguez and his lawyers, who desperately seek the attention of the media to abuse the judicial process.”
Duarte-Viera acknowledged an email from the Herald but did not go into further detail about the case.
East hotel meeting
Melwani was one of two bidding teams hoping to redevelop the city-owned Rickenbacker Marina, but he “could not prevail” without Díaz de la Portilla’s vote on the City Commission, according to Prieguez’s lawsuit.
“They used this information to attempt to threaten Prieguez to participate in their criminal scheme. When Prieguez would not be corrupted, they then set out to harm Prieguez,” the lawsuit states. Prieguez further alleged that Duarte-Viera at one point told him: “The ONLY way to get the votes is to have me be a partner in this deal. Period, end of story,” according to the lawsuit.
On the day that the City Commission was slated to discuss the proposed marina redevelopment in October 2020, Díaz de la Portilla allegedly texted Melwani to go to the East Miami hotel during the commission’s lunch break. Díaz de la Portilla “specifically asked Melwani to go alone,” according to the complaint, and Melwani agreed, feeling like he had no other choice. When he arrived, Melwani was met in the hotel lobby not by the commissioner, but by three of Díaz de la Portilla’s associates, including Hernandez and Duarte-Viera, according to the lawsuit.
According to the complaint, the parties “exchanged pleasantries and then went on to discuss the marina issue and what the possibilities were moving forward,” the complaint alleged, but Melwani rejected the overtures. Díaz de la Portilla ultimately voted for the competitor’s proposal “knowing that it would result in a tie, and he could then steer the City Commission towards deferring the item and ultimately throwing out all bids as Duarte-Viera had threatened,” the lawsuit alleged.
Prieguez alleged in his complaint that he “lost significant income due to Portilla’s scheme,” missing out on at least $95,000 in income and losing his position as Melwani’s lobbyist “because he was no longer able to lobby Portilla.” Prieguez further alleged that he “suffered substantial emotional distress and loss of business” as a result of Díaz de la Portilla, Hernandez and Duarte-Viera’s alleged actions.
Melwani, who is not involved in the lawsuit, declined to comment on Díaz de la Portilla’s dismissal.
In the judge’s order last week, Ruiz wrote that Prieguez’s complaint lays out just two actions that Díaz de la Portilla allegedly undertook himself: sending a text message and voting on the marina proposal. The other accusations involved the alleged associates.
“Portilla has legislative immunity as to his act of voting and of sending the text message,” Ruiz wrote. She said that voting is a “core legislative function” and that sending a text message to arrange a meeting, “even if in secret,” is also an aspect of legislative function and is therefore protected by legislative immunity.
Ruiz further added that Prieguez’s claim of intentional inflection of emotional distress is “weak at best.”
Duarte-Viera and Hernandez are accused in the civil suit of participating in a criminal conspiracy with Díaz de la Portilla and of “attempted bribery of an elected official.”
In denying Hernandez’s motion to dismiss the allegations against him in March, Ruiz wrote that “based on the facts alleged, it is reasonable to conclude that the Defendants’ actions constitute, at a minimum, attempted bribery.”
