Morgan Bentley, the attorney representing both Karen Woodson and John King in their Town Council recall fight, has asked the Circuit Court to consolidate the cases so they can both be heard before the same judge.
Fort Myers Beach town council member Karen Woodson has filed a lawsuit against former Mayor Ray Murphy and council member John King has filed a lawsuit against former council member Bill Veach. Murphy and Veach are co-chairs of the recall committee. They are trying to remove Woodson and King from the council.
When the lawsuits were filed the Woodson/Murphy case was assigned to Judge Kyle Cohen. The King/Veach case was assigned to Judge Michael McHugh. Bentley wants the lawsuits to be consolidated and heard by one judge. The court has not yet ruled on that request. In his filing Bentley writes, “The facts and law of both cases overlap and arise out of the same transaction or relationship and judicial economy would be best served by consolidation.” He goes on to write that “consolidating these matters will accelerate the trial process and eliminate duplicative trials because the two cases involve the same questions of law and have questions of fact in common.”
Woodson and King filed the lawsuits against Murphy and Veach in late June. Murphy and Veach were served on July 9th and have 20 days from July 9th to respond to the lawsuits.
On their recall petition, Murphy and Veach allege King and Woodson violated Florida’s Sunshine Law and accepted meals from developers who had business coming before the council. As they’ve been gathering signatures they’ve been telling voters the recall is about Seagate and other big developments.
While a violation of the sunshine law or accepting gifts outside the rules could be considered acceptable reasons to be recalled under the state statute, voting one way or the other on an issue at a town council meeting is not. That’s why Murphy and Veach did not list the Seagate vote on their recall petition. Veach and Murphy have provided no proof that King and Woodson committed any of the allegations they’ve alleged. In a video posted to his Facebook page Veach said he was about to trickle out proof but decided to hold it when he was slapped with a lawsuit. It’s important to note that Veach trickling out what he thinks is proof is not the same as the Florida Commission on Ethics issuing a ruling that finds Woodson or King in violation. To date, no complaints have been filed against King or Woodson with the Florida Commission on Ethics.
From the beginning of their recall campaign, Veach has said they don’t have to have proof of their allegations. For that reason, King and Woodson filed the lawsuits. And, according to state law, the town’s taxpayers have to pay the legal fees for King and Woodson.
The King and Woodson lawsuits state that a petition does not meet the statutory requirements of the Florida recall statute when “the statement in the petition is nothing more than a conclusion or opinion without any tangible basis in fact.”
The lawsuit filing goes on to say that the Florida statute is “obviously not intended to allow a petitioner to speak only in vague generality. Were we to uphold a recall petition based on the bare allegations before us, it would be tantamount to declaring “open season” on any elected official who did anything, or failed to do something, which happened to displease ten percent of the electorate.”
Consolidating the cases most likely means Murphy and Veach can also be represented by the same attorney. They have not responded to the lawsuit as of today and they have not notified the court that they are being represented by an attorney. Town taxpayers are not on the hook for any attorney’s fees Murphy and Veach rack up.
The second phase of the recall process is underway. Murphy and Veach have about 45 more days to collect 505 signatures (15% of the voters) to take the recall to the voters. Taxpayers must also cover the cost for an election if the recall goes to a vote.
No matter what happens with the recall election, the Town Council seats now occupied by Woodson and King are up for election in November of 2026.
“Slapping a law suit” isn’t in defense, it’s in retribution. Bentley’s filings are just an attorney’s attempts to persuade a judge to dismiss or stop the recall process. It has been stated on BTR the Florida recall requirement doesn’t have to show “proof” for the process to continue gathering signatures.
IMO the Town should only be responsible to pay the attorney’s fees in defending the recall, not in prosecuting the action against Veech and Murphy. Substantially more fees in prosecuting the action vs simply defending the recall.
I understand the town’s (taxpayer) being responsible for the defense of the recall, but not the counter suits against Veach and Murphy
Those suits are their defense against the recall.
Power is an ugly beast !!!
Amen!
Is there a separation of financial responsibility between the two different suits? Are taxpayers on the hook for King’s and Woodson’s counter suit? Never trust the full motives of attorney$.