404 B.R. 571 (2009) In re Samuel Charles MOHORNE, a/k/a Samuel C. Mohorne-El, Debtor. No. 02-27505-BKC-JKO. United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Florida, Fort Lauderdale Division. May 6, 2009. *573 Edward J. Chandler, Ft. Lauderdale, FL, for Debtor. ORDER DENYING DEBTOR'S EMERGENCY MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND RECUSAL JOHN K. OLSON, District Judge. This case is before me on the Debtor's Emergency Motion [DE 29] (the "Reconsideration Motion") seeking reconsideration of my Order [DE 27] (the "Ord..
721 F. Supp. 1259 (1989) Bernard CITRON and Sylvia Citron, his wife, Plaintiffs, v. ARMSTRONG WORLD INDUSTRIES, INC., et al., Defendants. No. 89-1375-Civ. United States District Court, S.D. Florida. October 4, 1989. *1260 David M. Lipman, Miami, Fla., for plaintiffs. Joel R. Wolpe, Miami, Fla., for Carey Canada. Dan B. Guernsey, Coral Gables, Fla., for Crown, Cork & Seal. Susan Cole, Coral Gables, Fla., for Eagle Picher. Luis Bustamonte, Miami, Fla., Robert A. Hannah, Orlando, Fla., for Fibreboar..
Whether the Broward County School Board (School Board) has an unwritten policy excluding all charter schools, including the City's charter schools, from consideration in the distribution of funds under Section 1011.71(2), Florida Statutes1 (Challenged Statement) and, if so, whether that unwritten policy constitutes a "rule," within the meaning of Section 120.52(16), Florida Statutes, that violates Section 120.54(1)(a), Florida Statutes, as alleged by the City of Pembroke Pines (City).Petition challenging as an unadopted rule alleged policy statement of school board is dismissed because Petitioner failed to establish the existence of the alleged policy statement and, even if policy did exist, it would not constitute a rule.
The issue is whether Respondent's policy relative to the applicability of the maximum class-size statute to charter schools is a rule as defined in Section 120.52(16), Florida Statutes, which has not been adopted as required by Section 120.54, Florida Statutes.1/Petitioners met their burden of proving that Respondent`s policy is a rule that has not been promulgated.
The ultimate issue for determination in this proceeding is whether Respondent's proposed determination that Petitioner's bid is non-responsive and Respondent's proposed rejection of all bids is arbitrary, capricious, or beyond Respondent's scope of discretion as a state agency.School Board determines that low bid was not responsive and rejecection of all bids was arbitrary and capricious. Bid included required bond of 5% of base bid, not alternate.
