Jeffrey Soffer's Fontainebleau Miami Beach is asking a judge to throw out a resident's lawsuit challenging the resort's planned 99-foot waterslide tower, arguing the plaintiff lacks legal standing and sued the wrong parties.

The 1,593-room resort at 4441 Collins Ave. filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit in Miami-Dade Circuit Court, The Real Deal reported. The motion targets a June complaint by La Gorce Drive resident Richard Simring, who alleges that House Bill 399, a state law signed in March 2026, unconstitutionally strips the Miami Beach Historic Preservation Board of its authority to review the project.

The Fontainebleau wants to add cabanas and a steel-and-aluminum waterslide tower to its rear pool deck. The tower was originally proposed at 131 feet but was reduced to 99 feet, and the cabana structure's height was cut 30% after community opposition.

Fontainebleau challenges resident's standing

Attorney Sean Burstyn, representing Soffer's Aventura-based Fontainebleau Development, called the motion "conclusive." It makes three arguments: Simring lacks standing because he hasn't shown harm different from that faced by the general public; he should have sued the state over the legislation rather than the resort; and the case isn't ripe because the city hasn't issued a building permit.

The motion disputes Simring's claim that he lives "across the street" from the Fontainebleau, noting his La Gorce Drive home is about a mile away on a different island, "separated by multiple bodies of water and countless structures."

Simring, who has lived on La Gorce Drive since 1999, told The Real Deal he plans to file an amended complaint regardless of the ruling.

"I think I do," he said of his standing. "My life, my children, my dog and my house will be affected by this. You can't say the only people who can sue over a water park are the people who can see it with their eyeballs. … If I don't have standing, no one does."

State law bypasses preservation board review

HB 399 is a broader land-use law that requires local governments to administratively approve certain minor special exceptions or variances sought by "large destination resorts." The law defines those resorts as public lodging establishments covering at least 5 contiguous acres, containing at least 500 guest rooms and maintaining an average occupancy rate of at least 70% during the previous three years. A qualifying "minor" exception or variance can apply to no more than 20% of the parcel.

Though the law does not name the Fontainebleau, Simring's complaint alleges the provision effectively applies only to the Miami Beach resort.

State Rep. David Borrero of Doral sponsored an amendment adding the large-destination-resort provision to HB 399. The Miami Herald reported that a Fontainebleau lobbyist helped draft the language.

In March 2026, Mayor Steven Meiner and other elected officials held a news conference outside the hotel urging state lawmakers to change course. The Legislature ultimately approved the bill, and Gov. Ron DeSantis signed it March 27.

Attorney general sides with Fontainebleau

The Florida Attorney General's Office followed with a May 11 opinion stating that the city cannot impose additional requirements before issuing a building permit.

On June 29, Miami Beach's city manager and city attorney confirmed in a letter to the City Commission that the Fontainebleau's application would be reviewed administratively without a public hearing.

The Miami Design Preservation League formally opposed the project ahead of the Feb. 10 Historic Preservation Board meeting, calling the waterslide tower "fundamentally incompatible with the architectural integrity of this individually designated landmark."

Lawsuit remains pending

The court has not scheduled a hearing on the motion to dismiss. Simring said that if the judge directs him to sue the state or wait for a permit to be issued, he will.

The Fontainebleau's building permit application remains pending after city staff provided initial comments earlier this year.