Updated at 4:40 p.m.
In his lawsuit against his own city, Palm Coast Mayor Mike Norris contested the legitimacy of the council’s appointment of Charles Gambaro to a vacant seat last summer. Circuit Judge Chris France delivered Norris a crushing defeat today.
France decided against Norris on the merits and on standing, which he had none of, in a hearing that lasted less than an hour and took place in a courtroom with over two dozen of his supporters crammed into the gallery.
The decision is enhanced in the event that it is challenged because France decided on the merits of the case rather than just the standing question. Norris said he will file an appeal all the way to the Supreme Court in an interview with FlaglerLive a few weeks ago.
Through his lawyer, Anthony Sabatini, Norris argued that Gambaro’s appointment was unlawful after the November election night and that his time on the council was fraudulent because Gambaro wasn’t even a council member. That claim is refuted by the French ruling. Instead of sitting beside Sabatini, Norris was in the audience, occupying the first row of the gallery. He primarily used his phone to text during the lawyers’ arguments, only putting it away when France made a decision.
In a statement, Gambaro reiterated his previous remarks regarding the complaint, stating that it was frivolous, and that the decision confirmed the validity of his appointment. In order to divert attention from the grave and well-documented concerns regarding his own deviant behavior in office after taking the oath in November 2024, Gambaro described it as the activity of a toxic and solitary leader. (Read the complete statement at the article’s bottom.)
The magistratequestioned both sides. The city’s representative, Rachael Crews of GrayRobinson, asked over a dozen questions, giving away his position well in advance of the decision by questioning Sabatini with greater skepticism than he did Crews.
Our words are the same as those found in the charter. In reference to the council’s activities, France told Sabatini, “They did what they could do.” Everyone agrees that they had three options and took the best possible action. Right?
Yes, sir, Sabatini made a fatal concession. However, even if he hadn’t, the issue of standing would have struck him an equally devastating blow: France concurred with the city that Norris wouldn’t have had the legal right to sue, only the attorney general or a contender for the Gambaro seat would have.
Crews contended that removing Gambaro would result in a vacancy even if the court disagreed with the city on the merits and the Norris case passed standing. According to the charter, it must be filled by appointment whenever one arises. Except for the mayor or in the event of a recall, you most definitely don’t get a special election, Crews stated.
Crews stated that a special election is not a suitable remedy and that we had every right to make this appointment. They’re asking this court to do something really extreme, I mean. I don’t think that’s the best use of the judicial system. They are asking the court to issue a mandatory injunction against the city, forcing it to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to hold a special election that isn’t permitted by the charter. This is a separation of powers issue, meaning the court is attempting to infiltrate the legislative branch in order to remove a potential political rival.
France concurred that those aspects should not be included in the reasoning, and Sabatini took issue with Crews’ reference to the political context of the matter. However, that point was moot.
The gallery was packed with thirty-three individuals, the most of whom were Norris supporters, three reporters, and a photographer. The majority of the supporters were the same people that frequently occupy public comment sections at council meetings, occasionally noisily, occasionally angrily, and frequently with Norris’s indulgence as they accept his conspiracy beliefs and have repeated his criticism of Gambaro. Before the hearing, bailiffs gave stern warnings to Norris supporters to behave properly, keep quiet the entire time, and put away the signs that several of them had carried that said, “We stand with Norris.” A bailiff informed the supporters, “You hold it up, you’re out.” They acted appropriately.
In what he deemed the most blatant argument, France wanted the attorneys to prove Norris’s right to sue right away.Sabatini maintained that Norris had standing since he had no other option but to sue because there had been a harm, a charter breach had occurred, and charter violations are inherently counter to the public interest. Interestingly, he sounded more like a polemicist than a lawyer and did not quote the law.
According to him, Norris has standing under Florida law as an elected official, a taxpayer, and a citizen. He said that other council members had a direct impact on Norris’ votes, including how ordinances turned out. Once more, though, he did not reference case law.In order to establish standing, France put greater pressure on him about Norris’ injury.
“There would be no remedy under Florida law to remove a person who is unlawfully occupying a seat if he had no standing,” Sabatini said. This is untrue; standing may have been more debatably shown if, for instance, one of the ten applicants for Gambaro’s seat had launched a lawsuit.
When it was her turn, Crews stated right away that the plaintiff lacked standing, using precedent and the law to explain the quo warranto criterion (i.e., by what authority) and limiting the type of complaint Norris filed. She stated that there are no exceptions.
As she described the election schedule under the municipal charter, Crews, who can be tactfully critical, used air quotes when she mentioned the emergency motion Norris filed. She outlined the logistical difficulties of fulfilling certain deadlines and gave a brief lecture on the charter language restricting vacancies.
In a somber moving huddle with his protecting followers, Norris left as soon as he could after the decision. One of them, a regular commentator at City Council meetings who is unlikely to stop appearing there, said that she was relocating to unincorporated Flagler County.
In a social media post on May 15, Norris predicted France’s decision following the court’s scheduling of today’s hearing and stated that Independence Day would be much better this year: This is a huge victory for Palm Coast residents and their ability to choose their own city officials! We are certain that the unelected and illegitimate Gambaro will be expelled from the council on July 4, 2025, based on the judge’s responses!
Given his actions since November, Norris is unlikely to accept Gambaro’s legitimacy or accept the loss amicably.
The case was in Crews’ hands because no other council members or city representatives were present in the courtroom.
Theresa Pontieri, a council member, texted, “I’m looking forward to moving past this and focusing on good policy for the future of our City.” Since Norris has mostly abandoned the position, Pontieri, as vice mayor, has essentially been the mayor for months. I believe that the City Council and staff have been quite professional throughout the course of this lawsuit, and I believe that we all want to move on in a constructive manner.
“I think the law is very clear, so I’m not surprised by the ruling,” Crews remarked afterwards. With so many people in the room, I was a little taken aback that he made the decision from the bench. Perhaps you should take it under advice, I thought. However, the audience obviously had no effect on France.
“Norris can try to appeal,” Crews said. “Obviously, it gets harder and harder to win every time you appeal,” she remarked. I do a lot of appellate law as well, and so I don t think he would even get the appeal resolved in time to make a difference. In any case, the election in November would be almost there. It would be a pointless exercise because it takes around a year to complete the appellate procedure by the time he files an appeal.
Charles Gambaro, a council member, said after the ruling:
As previously mentioned, I joined the Palm Coast local Council through a process that was meticulously planned and unanimously authorized by the previous Council, in complete compliance with all established local and state protocols. According to Florida state law and our City Charter, my appointment complied with all legal requirements and appropriate procedures. Today, the aforementioned facts were confirmed.
Mayor Norris decided to bring a pointless lawsuit against the city he was elected to represent in spite of this legal and open appointment. This is without question the action of a toxic and isolated leader. This unprecedented legal action is clearly a calculated attempt to intimidate and deflect attention from the serious and well-documented concerns about his own derelict conduct in office since taking the oath in November of 2024. Mayor Norris s malicious actions have caused unnecessary stress to our city council, our city staff, and our residents.
Considering that Mayor Norris is a fellow veteran, his personal assaults on me are a huge letdown. Being a member of the armed forces teaches us to act with respect and dignity. Neither is possible for Mike Norris. A horrible leader who has no right to be our mayor has deserved today’s legal setback.
I would like to thank our legal team for professionally and effectively defending our city against Mayor Norris and I would like to thank Judge France for his ruling in support of the citizens of Palm Coast. It is truly going to be a wonderful 4th of July!! With sincere respect and commitment to our shared future,
Charles A. Gambaro, Jr. Palm Coast City Councilman, District 4
