Leon FL Administrative law, Antitrust and trade law and Gove -- eLawyers

19-004688RP WALMART INC. AND WAL-MART STORES EAST, L.P. vs DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, DIVISION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES AND TOBACCO (2019)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Sep. 05, 2019

Does Petitioner, Target, have standing to challenge proposed rule 61A-3.055, Items Customarily Sold in a Restaurant (proposed rule or proposed restaurant rule), (Case No. 19- 4913RP)? Does Petitioner, Walmart, have standing to challenge the proposed restaurant rule (Case No. 19-4688RP)? Does Intervenor, ABC, have standing to participate in these challenges to the proposed rule? Does Intervenor, FISA, have standing to participate in these challenges to the proposed rule? Does Intervenor, Publix, have standing to participate in these challenges to the proposed rule? Is the proposed restaurant rule an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority as defined in section 120.52(8), Florida Statutes (2019)?1/Evidence didn't prove proposed rule 61A-3.055 valid. It was arbitrary & capricious & contravened statute. Must show meaning of restaurant to prove what is customarily sold in a restaurant. Assoc. didn't prove standing (Assoc. purpose or injury).

17-006655RU DACCO BEHAVORIAL HEALTH, INC.; OPERATION PAR, INC.; AND ASPIRE PARTNERS, INC. vs DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES (2017)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Dec. 11, 2017

The issue in this case is whether Florida Administrative Code Emergency Rule 65DER17-2 (the “Emergency Rule”) constitutes an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority as defined in section 120.52(8), Florida Statutes. (Unless specifically stated otherwise herein, all references to Florida Statutes will be to the 2017 version.) More specifically, on September 19, 2017, the Florida Department of Children and Families (the “Department”), published the Emergency Rule, which dealt with the need for and licensing of new methadone medication-assisted treatment centers for persons dealing with opioid addiction. Pursuant to the Emergency Rule, the Department decided which providers would receive approval notices to submit licensure applications in certain counties based on the order in which complete and responsive applications were received by the Department. A number of parties are challenging the validity of the Emergency Rule.The Emergency Rule constitutes an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.

18-000613BID GEO REENTRY SERVICES, LLC vs DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS (2018)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Feb. 06, 2018

Whether Respondent, Department of Corrections' ("Department") intended decision to award contracts to Intervenors, Gateway Foundation, Inc. ("Gateway"), and The Unlimited Path, Inc. ("UPI"), for licensed in-prison substance abuse treatment services pursuant to Invitation to Negotiate FDC ITN 17-112 ("the ITN"), is contrary to the Department's governing statutes, rules, or the ITN specifications, and contrary to competition, clearly erroneous, arbitrary, or capricious.DOC's decision to award contracts to intervenors for in-prison substance abuse treatment pursuant to ITN is not contrary to statutes, rules, ITN specifications, contrary to competition, clearly erroneous, arbitrary, or capricious.

16-001934 MCCRORY'S SUNNY HILL NURSERY, LLC vs DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH (2016)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Apr. 08, 2016

In 2015, pursuant to section 381.986, Florida Statutes (2014) (the Compassionate Use of Low-THC Cannabis Act), and implementing rules, McCrory’s was one of several applicants seeking approval to become the single dispensing organization (DO) of low-THC cannabis in the central Florida region. The Department evaluated the central region applications, which were assigned scores pursuant to the Department’s process set forth in its rules. The Department determined that another applicant, Knox Nursery, Inc. (Knox), achieved the highest aggregate score, and therefore, should be approved as the single DO for the central region. Other central region applicants, including McCrory’s, were notified that their applications were not approved because they did not achieve the highest aggregate score in the central region, and therefore, were not determined to be the best for that region. Several initially denied applicants, including McCrory’s, timely filed petitions for administrative hearings to contest the Department’s initial decisions to approve Knox’s application and deny their applications.Pet. cannot allege it rec'd highest score or that DOH determined Pet. did not meet a statutory requirement. Ch. 2016-123 s. 3(1) doesn't apply; claim that Pet. would have gotten highest score but for DOH clear errors can be pursued (and is) under s. 3(2).

14-003960 PLASTIC TUBING INDUSTRIES, INC. vs ADVANCED DRAINAGE SYSTEMS, INC., AND DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH (2014)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Aug. 21, 2014

The issues are whether Petitioner's substantial interests are determined by the issuance of the subject variance to Respondent Advanced Drainage Systems, Inc. (ADS) for the sale of an alternative drainfield system in Florida and whether, pursuant to section 120.542, Florida Statutes, on the grounds of substantial hardship or unfairness, ADS is entitled to this variance from three provisions of Florida Administrative Code Rule 64E-6.009(7) that, as to onsite sewage treatment and disposal systems (OSTDSs), require innovative system testing and prohibit an alternative drainfield system with an area smaller than the area required for a mineral-aggregate drainfield.No variance for rules that do not apply to variance applicant. Variance on fairness ground for rule setting minimum area of drainfields. BOP on variance applicant to prove entitlement by preponderance. Economic injury OK for standing.

14-004744BID BRIDGES OF AMERICA, INC. vs DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS (2014)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Oct. 13, 2014

The issue in this case is whether in deciding to award a contract for comprehensive re-entry services to be provided at the Everglades Re-Entry Center (”Everglades”), Respondent, Department of Corrections (the “Department” or “DOC”), acted contrary to one or more governing statutes, rules, policies, or procurement specifications, or any combination thereof; and if so, for each such instance, whether the misstep was clearly erroneous, arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to competition.There is no legal basis for withdrawing or re-issuing the Department's intended award of the contract.

14-000985BID KEEFE COMMISSARY NETWORK, L.L.C. vs DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS (2014)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Mar. 04, 2014

Whether the Florida Department of Corrections’ (Department) intended decision to award Trinity Services Group, Inc. (Trinity) with a contract for Statewide Canteen Operations under Invitation to Bid, DOC ITB-13-015 (ITB), is contrary to the agency’s governing statutes, rules or policies, or the bid specifications.Petitioner failed to prove that Respondent acted contraty to its governing statutes, rules or policies, or the bid specifications.

13-000706BID LITTLE HAVANA ACTIVITIES AND NUTRITION CENTERS OF DADE COUNTY, INC. vs AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION (2013)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Feb. 22, 2013

The issues in the case are (1) whether the decision of the Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) to not select Little Havana Activities and Nutrition Centers of Dade County, Inc. (Little Havana), for the award of a contract for the provision of long-term care managed care services pursuant to AHCA Invitation to Negotiation Solicitation No. AHCA ITN 011- 12/13, entitled "Statewide Medicaid Managed Care--Long Term Care, Region 11" (ITN) was contrary to the AHCA's governing statutes, rules, polices or any applicable ITN specification, and, if so, whether such selection decision was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious; whether Little Havana's response to the ITN was responsive; whether Little Havana was a responsible vendor; and (4) whether Little Havana's protest is barred for failure to submit the required protest bond.Protestor did not have standing to protest contract awards because it was neither responsive nor responsible.

11-000257BID OPTIMUM TECHNOLOGY, INC. vs DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH (2011)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jan. 19, 2011

The issue is whether Respondent's notice of intent to award a contract for a Prescription Drug Monitoring System (PDMS) to Intervenor is, under section 120.57(3)(f), Florida Statutes, contrary to governing statutes, rules, policies, or solicitation specifications due to the nonresponsiveness of Intervenor's proposal or flaws in the scoring.Failure of winning proposer to itemize its costs is a minor irregularity due to lack of competitive advantage and scoring of protestor's proposal is not clearly erroneous.

09-006384BID MAXIMUS HEALTH SERVICES, INC. vs AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION (2009)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Nov. 19, 2009

Pursuant to Section 120.57(3)(f), Florida Statutes (2009), the issue is whether Respondent Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) properly determined that Petitioner Maximus Health Services, Inc.'s (Maximus) reply to Invitation to Negotiate 0904 (ITN 0904) was non-responsive for failure to meet mandatory criteria.Respondent properly determined that Petitioner's reply to an invitation to negotiate was non-responsive for failure to meet mandatory requirements of the specifications.

David Clifford Ashburn