Filing # 235031068 E-Filed 11/03/2025 [Link] PM

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL

CIRCUIT IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA

CASE NO: 2025-019608-CA-01

SECTION: CA04
JUDGE: Mavel Ruiz

Marvin Dunn (Pr)

Plaintiff(s)

vs.

Miami Dade College et al

Defendant(s)

____________________________/

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S EMERGENCY MOTION FOR TEMPORARY

INJUNCTION

THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon the Emergency Motion for Temporary

Injunction (“Motion”) filed by the Plaintiff, Dr. Marvin Dunn (“Dr. Dunn”), seeking an order

temporarily enjoining the Defendant, the District Board of Trustees of Miami Dade College

(“District Board”),[1] from conveying certain land to the State of Florida’s Internal Improvement

Trust Fund.

The issue before the Court is whether Dr. Dunn satisfied his burden to prove entitlement to

the issuance of a temporary injunction under Fla. R. Civ.P. 1.610, upon his allegation that the

District Board failed to provide reasonable notice, as required under Florida’s Government in the

Sunshine Act, Chap. 286, Fla. Stat., of a Special Meeting of the District Board at which a decision

was made to convey 2.63 acres of land owned by the College to the State.

Dr. Dunn bears the burden of satisfying the traditional standard for the issuance of a

temporary injunction. The Court finds he met his burden. It held a two-hour hearing on the Motion

on October 13, 2025, where the Court found that the Plaintiff had failed to establish standing. It

also held a two-plus-hour evidentiary hearing on October 14, 2025, at which the Court heard the

Case No: 2025-019608-CA-01 Page 1 of 7

 testimony of Dr. Dunn (via Zoom, as he was in Europe on vacation at the time), on his status as a

citizen of Florida, as well as the live testimony of the General Counsel of the College, on the

circumstances surrounding the notice provided. The Court, having reviewed the Motion, supporting

papers and exhibits filed by Dr. Dunn, the Opposition brief and exhibits filed by the District Board,

and having heard the witnesses, considered the admitted exhibits and the argument of counsel, finds

as follows:

A. FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Dr. Dunn is a citizen of the State of Florida.
2. Miami Dade College (the “College”) is a public post-secondary educational institution.
It is part of the Florida College System. §§ 1000.21(5)(o), 1001.60(2), Fla. Stat.
3. The College is governed by its District Board, whose members are appointed by the
Governor, subject to confirmation by the Florida Senate. §§ 1001.60-1001.64, Fla.
Stat.
4. On September 16, 2025, Miami Dade College gave written notice (the “Notice”) of a
Special Meeting of the District Board (the “Special Meeting”) to be held on September
23, 2025. Cplt. ¶29, Def. Ex. A.
5. The Notice, in substantial part, stated:
The District Board of Trustees of Miami Dade College will hold a
Special Board Meeting beginning at 8a.m. on Tuesday, September 23,
2025. The meeting will be held at 1780 W 49th Street, Hialeah, Florida
33012 in Conference Room 5101.

At this Special Board Meeting, the District Board of Trustees will

discuss potential real estate transactions. If a person decides to appeal
any decision made at this meeting, he or she will need to ensure that a
verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which includes the
testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be heard.

Individuals with disabilities as defined under the American with

Disabilities Act who wish to attend the meeting and need special
accommodations can request them by calling 305-237-2577 or 711
(Relay Service) not later than 3 business days prior to the meeting.

Dated this 16th day of September 2025

Madeline Pumariega,

College President

Case No: 2025-019608-CA-01 Page 2 of 7

 Def. Ex. A (emphasis added).

6. The Notice of the Special Meeting was published on the College’s public website on
September 16, 2025. Cplt. ¶ 29. The College also advertised the Notice in the Miami
Herald’s print and online editions. Def. Exs. B & C.
7. On September 23, 2025, at the Special Meeting, the District Board approved the
conveyance of a 2.63-
acre parcel of land the College owned, at 500 Biscayne Boulevard, Miami, Florida (the
“Land”) to the State of Florida’s Internal Improvement Trust Fund (the “Fund”). No
information has been made public concerning the consideration, if any, the Fund would
pay the College for the Land were the transaction approved by the District Board at the
Special Meeting to be effected.
8. Sec. 90.202(12), Fla. Stat., authorizes the Court to “take judicial notice [of ] . . . facts
that are not subject to dispute because they are capable of accurate and ready
determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot be questioned.” Pursuant to
this provision, the Court takes judicial notice of the following facts: (1) that the
purpose of the transaction approved by the District Board at the Special Meeting was
to enable the Fund to transfer the Land to the Donald J. Trump Presidential Library
Foundation, Inc., which would have five years to begin construction of components of
a Presidential library, museum, and/or center; and (2) that, following the decision of
the District Board, the Board of Trustees of the Fund, at that Board’s meeting on
September 30, 2025, approved the transfer to the Trump Foundation.[2]
9. As of the time of the issuance of this Order, the Land has not been conveyed to anyone
and remains the property of the College through its District Board.
10. Dr. Dunn filed his Verified Complaint on October 6, 2025 and his Motion on October
9, 2025.
11. The Florida Government in the Sunshine Act covers “any board or commission of any
state agency or authority or of any agency or authority of any county, municipal
corporation, or political subdivision, except as otherwise provided in the Constitution.”
§ 286.011(1), Fla. Stat.
12. The Sunshine Act provides that “all meetings” of an organization or individual covered
by the Act “at which official acts are to be taken are declared to be public meetings
open to the public at all times, and no resolution, rule, or formal action shall be
considered binding except as taken or made at such meeting.” §286.011(1), Fla. Stat.
13. The Sunshine Act further provides that “[t]he board or commission must provide
reasonable notice of all such meetings.” Id. “Reasonable notice” is not defined in the
Sunshine Act. The reasonableness of notice is thus a fact-specific inquiry. “[T]he type
of notice given depends on the purpose for the notice, the character of the event about
which the notice is given, and the nature of the rights to be affected.” Parris v. State,
359 So. 3d 1178, 1185 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023); Transparency for Fla. v. City of Port St.

Case No: 2025-019608-CA-01 Page 3 of 7

 Lucie, 240 So. 3d 780, 787 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018). These cases quote from Att’y General
Opinion 73-170, 1973 Fla. AG LEXIS 200 *4-5 (May 17, 1973), which, while notice
was not specifically required under the Sunshine Act as it then read, opined that “any
meeting which is subject to the provisions of the Sunshine Law must be preceded by . .
. a reasonable and ample period of notice . . . [to] the public and representatives of the
press so that they may attend . . . [the] meeting if they wish,” (citing AGO 071-32).
14. The Court also relies on Sapp v. City of Quincy, No.: 2021 CA 824, 2022 Fla. Cir.
LEXIS 7885 (Fla. 2d Jud. Cir., June 6, 2022), which held that notice was reasonable
concerning a meeting of a City Council at which the City Manager was fired, when the
notice disclosed that the meeting would discuss the “City Manager’s Contract,” the
notice ‘reasonably’ ‘convey[ed]’ that [the manager’s] contract would either be
renewed, terminated, or somehow modified,’” “[t]hose are the only reasonable
inferences that the public can draw from the notice,” and “[t]the notice contained more
than just the date and time of the special meeting - it provided the general subject
matter and apprised the public of what might happen at the end of the meeting.”
15. “Because section 286.011‘was enacted in the public interest to protect the public from
“closed door” politics . . . the law must be broadly construed to effect its remedial and
protective purpose.’” Sarasota Citizens for Responsible Gov't v. City of Sarasota, 48
So. 3d 755, 762 (Fla. 2010) (quoting Wood v. Marston, 442 So. 2d 934, 938 (Fla.
1983). In other words, “[t]he statute should be construed so as to frustrate all evasive
devices.” Sarasota Cit., 48 So.3d at 762 (quoting Town of Palm Beach v. Gradison,
296 So. 2d 473, 477 (Fla. 1974).
16. Thus, “[m]ere showing that the government in the sunshine law has been violated
constitutes an irreparable public injury,” and “where officials have violated section
286.011, the official action is void ab initio.” Sarasota Cit., id. (quoting Gradison, 296
So.2d at 477).
17. “Generally, a movant seeking a temporary injunction must establish the following
elements: (i) likelihood of irreparable harm and unavailability of an adequate remedy
at law; (ii) substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (iii) injury to the movant that
outweighs the harm to the opponent; and (iv) that an injunction will not disserve the
public interest.” Data Payment Sys., Inc. v. Caso, 253 So. 3d 53, 57 (Fla. 3d DCA
2018). The issuance of an injunction also requires this Court to consider the totality of
the circumstances in the present case, including whether there has been any
unreasonable delay by Dr. Dunn in bringing this action. David v. Joyner, 409 So.2d
1193, 1195 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). See also Baumel v. Wood, 2020 Fla. Cir. LEXIS
20152 (Fla. 11th Jud. Cir., July 15, 2020).
18. Section 286.011(2), [Link]., provides that “[t]he circuit courts of this state shall have
jurisdiction to issue injunctions to enforce the purposes of this section upon application
by any citizen of this state.” “The Sunshine Law ‘on its face[ ] gives the appellant
standing without regard to whether he suffered a special injury.’” Godheim v. City of
Tampa, 426 So. 2d 1084, 1088 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). See Silver Exp. Co. v. District Bd.
of Lower Tribunal Trustees of Miami-Dade Community College, 691 So.2d 1099 (Fla.
3d DCA 1997) (“Sunshine Law . . . was enacted so as to permit any citizen to vindicate
the public’s interest in open government”). As a citizen of Florida, Dr. Dunn has
standing to seek injunctive relief in this action.

Case No: 2025-019608-CA-01 Page 4 of 7

 19. Dr. Dunn acted reasonably promptly in bringing this action within 13 days of the
Special Meeting, by which time the testimony of the College’s General Counsel
establishes the College, through no fault of anyone, was not ready to effect the
transferal of the Land to the State, and as of October 14, 2025, was still not ready,
again through no fault of anyone.
20. The District Board is subject to the requirements of the Sunshine Act.
21. Given the circumstances, and, in particular, the purpose of the Special Meeting and the
decision to be considered at that Meeting, the notice given on September 16, 2025, of
the Special Meeting to be held on September 23, 2025, was unreasonable, in violation
of sec. 286.011(1), Fla. Stat. The statement in the Notice concerning “possible real
estate transactions” did not identify which real estate would be discussed or what
transaction would be considered. Thus, the Notice did not apprise members of the
public about the pendency of the matters that might affect their rights.[3]
22. In fact, the possibilities of what this phrase means is unlimited: potential (completely
unqualified) real estate (any real estate owned by the College) transactions (Florida
Statutes, Section 689.28 defines the transfer of real estate as the "sale, gift,
conveyance, assignment, inheritance, or other transfer of ownership interest in real
property ...").
23. Notwithstanding the unreasonableness of the notice provided, the Notice did inform
the public of the date, time and location of the Special Meeting and was timely made
public.
24. Violation of the Sunshine Act constitutes an irreparable public injury, which outweighs
any possible injury to the District Board by the issuance of a temporary injunction.
25. An adequate remedy at law is unavailable. By its nature, the claim cannot be redressed
by any remedy at law, such as money damages.
26. There is a substantial likelihood of success on the merits as shown by the above-recited
facts.
27. Entry of the temporary injunction will serve the public interest because it will preserve
the status quo pending a final decision in this action on the merits. In addition, the
requirement of open meetings of government bodies, such as the District Board of
Miami Dade College, is a bedrock principle of Florida law, both as established in
Chapter 286 of the Florida Statutes but also the Constitution of the State of Florida.[4]
28. The Court notes that, although news articles were attached to the complaint, the Court
gave them no weight. Furthermore, the Court did not accept other facts which were
argued but not proven, such as: Miami Dade College owns 500 acres; the meeting took
five minutes or less, the Governor requested that the property be gifted to the State of
Florida...none of these facts were relied on by this Court.
29. The Court relied on the stipulated language contained in the advertised notice and
nothing more.
B. THE SUNSHINE ACT
C. STANDARD OF REVIEW TO OBTAIN TEMPORARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case No: 2025-019608-CA-01 Page 5 of 7

 D. LEGAL CONCLUSIONS
E. BOND

1. The Court, on the basis of the testimony of the General Counsel of the College, orders a bond
of $150,000. Counsel for the District Board testified that, including the need to have certain
documents updated, he estimated the cost would be $200,000 to $300,000. Because the
District Board could cure the defective notice by simply re-noticing the meeting (the meeting
itself could be had in less than two weeks), the Court finds that estimate as a worst case
scenario and fixes the bond at $150,000 which is remains, in this Court's estimate, well
beyond the expected expenses.

It is therefore hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Dr. Dunn’s Emergency Motion

for Temporary Injunction is hereby GRANTED. Pending further order of this Court, the District’s
decision at the September 23, 2025 Special Meeting to transfer the Land to the State is declared

void, and the District Board is hereby enjoined, pending further order of this Court, from conveying

the Land to the State, provided that Dr. Dunn must posting a bond of $150,000 within ten days of

this Order for this injunction to become effective.

[1] Dr. Dunn has voluntarily dismissed Miami Dade College with prejudice and the individual
members of the District Board of Trustees without prejudice as defendants in this action.

[2] The accuracy and ready determination of these facts is determined by resort to two documents:
(1) the Agenda, Board of Trustees of Internal Improvement Trust Fund, Sept. 30, 2025, Agenda
Item 1, which is available at [Link] BOT%20
Agenda_2.pdf; and (2) News Release, Governor Ron Desantis and Cabinet Deed Land for The
Donald J. Trump Presidential Library, Sept. 30, 2025 (“Today, Governor Ron DeSantis, along with
unanimous support of the Florida Cabinet, passed an agenda item to convey a 2.63-acre parcel in
Miami Dade County adjacent to the Freedom Tower for the Donald J. Trump Presidential
Library”), which is available at [Link] governor-ron-
desantis-and-cabinet-deed-land-donald-j-trump-presidential-library. See also Cplt. ¶ 29 and Atts. 3
& 4.

[3] To the extent that this conclusion of law could also be considered a finding of fact, it should be
interpreted as such.

[4] Article I, section 24(b) of the Constitution of the provides:

All meetings of any collegial public body of the executive branch of state government or of
any collegial public body of a county, municipality, school district, or special district, at
which official acts are to be taken or at which public business of such body is to be
transacted or discussed, shall be open and noticed to the public and meetings of the
legislature shall be open and noticed as provided in Article III, Section 4(e), except with
respect to meetings exempted pursuant to this section or specifically closed by this

Case No: 2025-019608-CA-01 Page 6 of 7

 Constitution.

DONE and ORDERED in Chambers at Miami-Dade County, Florida on this 3rd day of November,
2025.

2025-019608-CA-01 11-03-2025 4:55 PM

2025-019608-CA-01 11-03-2025 4:55 PM

Hon. Mavel Ruiz
CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE
Electronically Signed

No Further Judicial Action Required on THIS MOTION

CLERK TO RECLOSE CASE IF POST JUDGMENT

Electronically Served:
• Andres Rivero: arivero@[Link]
• Andres Rivero: paralegals@[Link]
• Andres Rivero: receptionist@[Link]
• Daniela Tenjido-Eljaiek: dtenjido@[Link]
• Jorge A. Mestre: jmestre@[Link]
• Richard E. Brodsky: rbrodsky@[Link]
• Carmen Manrara Cartaya: CCartaya@[Link]
• Carmen Manrara Cartaya: Ndelaosa@[Link]
• Darrick William Monson: [Link]@[Link]
• Darrick William Monson: [Link]@[Link]
• Francis Albert Carbone II: [Link]@[Link]
• Jeffrey Paul Desousa: [Link]@[Link]
• Jeffrey Paul Desousa: [Link]@[Link]
• Jason Muehlhoff: [Link]@[Link]
• Jason Muehlhoff: [Link]@[Link]
• Jesus M. Suarez: jsuarez@[Link]
• Jesus M. Suarez: ndelaosa@[Link]
• Javier Alejandro Ley-Soto: jleysoto@[Link]
• Javier Alejandro Ley-Soto: legal@[Link]
• Richard E Brodsky: rbrodsky@[Link]
• Richard E Brodsky: rebrodsky@[Link]

Case No: 2025-019608-CA-01 Page 7 of 7