Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida
Filed: Sep. 16, 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).
