The issues to be determined in this proceeding are: (1) whether any of the following alleged agency statements as articulated by Petitioner, Florida Standardbred Breeders and Owners Association, Inc., are unadopted rules, and (2) if so, whether the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering, relied on any of the unadopted rules as a basis for issuing the summer jai alai permit at issue in Case No. 18-6339 to PPI, Inc.2: 2 On January 16, 2019, Petitioner filed the Petition Challenging Agency Statement as an Unadopted Rule and Motion to Consolidate with Pending Case No. 18-6339 ("Rule Challenge Petition") that gave rise to this case. The Rule Challenge Petition was filed pursuant to sections 120.57(1)(e) and 120.56(4), and articulated ten statements that Petitioner alleges constitute unadopted rules on which the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering, relied in issuing the summer jai permit to PPI, Inc. The Rule Challenge Petition had the effect of amending the Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing Involving Disputed Issues of Material Fact that was filed with the agency on November 16, 2018, and referred to DOAH on December 3, 2018, to add a charge that the agency had relied on one or more unadopted rules as the basis of its decision, in violation of section 120.57(1)(e)1. That notwithstanding the provisions of section 550.0745(1)[Florida Statutes], the Division will approve an application for a summer jai alai permit without regard to whether there is an eligible permitholder in an eligible county that has had the smallest play or total pool within one of the applicable counties, Miami-Dade or Broward, for two consecutive state fiscal years; That notwithstanding the provisions of section 550.0745(1), a summer jai alai permit was created in Broward County in association with the consecutive state fiscal years 2006/2007 and 2007/2008 notwithstanding that there was no eligible permitholder in Broward County that had the smallest play or total pool in Broward County for both of said consecutive fiscal years, 2006/2007 and 2007/2008; That notwithstanding the provisions of section 550.0745(1), the Division approved PPI's application for a summer jai alai permit without regard to the fact that there was no eligible permitholder in Broward County that had the smallest play or total pool in Broward County for both of the two consecutive state fiscal years identified in PPI's application, to-wit: 2006/2007 and 2007/2008; That notwithstanding the provisions of section 550.0745(1), a summer jai alai permit was created in Broward County in association with the consecutive state fiscal years 2004/2005 and 2005/2006, notwithstanding that there was no eligible permitholder in Broward County that had the smallest play or total pool for both of said consecutive state fiscal years, 2004/2005 and 2005/2006; That notwithstanding the provisions of section 550.0745(1), the Division approved PPI's application for a summer jai alai permit without regard to the fact that there was no eligible permitholder in Broward County that had the smallest play or total pool in Broward County for both of the two consecutive state fiscal years identified in the Division's calculation chart attached as Exhibit F [to the Rule Challenge Petition], to-wit: 2004/2005 and 2005/20063; That notwithstanding the provisions of section 550.0745(1), the Division, in making the calculations required by section 550.0745(1) for the purposes of determining the availability of a summer jai permit, improperly and erroneously excludes from such calculations the pari-mutuel handle generated by each of the pari-mutuel permitholders in Broward County on the following wagering pools/categories, to-wit: [i]ntertrack wagering handle as a guest; [i]ntertrack wagering as a host on "ITW rebroadcasts;" and "[s]imulcast handle as a guest;" That notwithstanding the provisions of section 550.0745(1), the Division approved PPI's application for a summer permit after improperly and erroneously excluding from the calculations required by section 550.0745 the pari-mutuel handle generated by each of the pari-mutuel permitholders in Broward County on the following wagering pools/categories, to-wit: [i]ntertrack wagering handle as a guest; [i]ntertrack wagering as a host on "ITW rebroadcasts;" and "[s]imulcast handle as a guest;" That notwithstanding the provisions of section 550.0745(1), the Division, in making the calculations required by section 550.0745(1) for the purposes of determining that the Bet Miami permit had the smallest pari- mutuel handle in Broward County for the consecutive fiscal years 2004/2005 and 2005/2006, improperly and erroneously excluded from such calculations all of the pari-mutuel handle generated by the Bet Miami permit during said consecutive state fiscal years, 2004/2005 and 2005/2006, and instead erroneously pro-rated the handle between the two leased locations at which the Bet Miami permit operated during said fiscal years; That notwithstanding the provisions of section 95.11 or any similar statute that imposes a statute of limitation on the taking or initiation 3 Rule Challenge Petition Exhibit F contains the same information as Exhibit B to the parties' Amended Joint Pre-hearing Stipulation, which has been incorporated in Finding of of any particular action, the Division will approve an application for a summer jai alai permit notwithstanding that the application was filed outside either the four-year period described in section 95.11 or outside the applicable limitation period if not section 95.11.Petitioner did not prove that any of the alleged agency statements were unadopted rules. Unadopted rule challenge under section 120.56(4) is dismissed.

Supreme Court of Florida _ No. SC15-774 _ DAN SOWELL, et al., Appellants, vs. PANAMA COMMONS L.P., Appellee. [June 2, 2016] POLSTON, J. In Stranburg v. Panama Commons L.P., 160 So. 3d 160 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015), the First District Court of Appeal held that Panama Commons’ right to due process was violated by applying the 2013 repeal of the ad valorem tax exemption under section 196.1978, Florida Statutes (2012), to the 2013 tax year.1 However, because Panama Commons’ interest in the tax exemption un..

Supreme Court of Florida _ No. SC15-780 _ ADVISORY OPINION TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL RE: LIMITS OR PREVENTS BARRIERS TO LOCAL SOLAR ELECTRICITY SUPPLY. _ No. SC15-890 _ ADVISORY OPINION TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL RE: LIMITS OR PREVENTS BARRIERS TO LOCAL SOLAR ELECTRICITY SUPPLY (FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [October 22, 2015] PER CURIAM. The Attorney General of Florida has petitioned this Court for an advisory opinion as to the validity of a citizen initiative amendment to the Florida Constitution, ti..

Supreme Court of Florida _ No. SC14-1730 _ THE FLORIDA BAR RE: ADVISORY OPINION — SCHARRER v. FUNDAMENTAL ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES. [October 15, 2015] PER CURIAM. Pursuant to rule 10-9.1 of the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar (Bar Rules), and this Court’s decision in Goldberg v. Merrill Lynch Credit Corp., 35 So. 3d 905 (Fla. 2010), Petitioners Beth Ann Scharrer, as the Trustee for the Bankruptcy Estate of Fundamental Long Term Care, Inc., and Trans Health Management, Inc. (THMI) (Petitioners), p..

434 B.R. 660 (2010) In re MAXXIM MEDICAL GROUP, INC., et al., Debtors. Maxxim Medical, Inc., Medline Industries, Inc., Plaintiffs, v. Professional Hospital Supply, Inc. and Karen McCauley, Defendants. Bankruptcy No. 03-10438 (PJW). Adversary No. 8-03-mp-00026-MGW. United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida, Tampa Division. March 31, 2010. *667 Peter James Duhig, Klett Rooney Lieber & Schorling, Wilmington, DE, Jordi Guso, Paul S. Singerman, Berger Singerman P.A., Miami, FL, Henry H. Janssen, Da..

311 B.R. 282 (2004) In re Brenda Joyce Squire BROWN, Debtor. Brenda Joyce Squire Brown, Plaintiff, v. Master Financial, Inc. and UMLIC VP, LLC, Defendants. Bankruptcy No. 03-6145-3F3. Adversary No. 03-268. United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida, Jacksonville Division. February 3, 2004. *283 Bryan K. Mickler, Jacksonville, FL, for Plaintiff. David E. Hicks, Tallahassee, FL, for Master Financial, Inc. ORDER GRANTING MASTER FINANCIAL, INC.'S MOTION TO DISMISS JERRY A. FUNK, Bankruptcy Judge. T..

Whether Florida Administrative Code Emergency Rules 58AER17-1 and 59AER17-1 (collectively referred to as “the Emergency Rules”) are invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority and whether an immediate danger justified issuance of the Emergency Rules.Respondents failed to demonstrate the existence of an immediate danger. Also, Petitioners demonstrated that the Emergency Rules are invalid.

Did Respondent, TALF, Inc., d/b/a The Inn at University Village (University Inn), violate requirements to demonstrate the financial ability to operate in accordance with statutes and rules? If so, what penalty should be imposed?TALF, Inc., d/b/a The Inn at University Village did not provide proof of financial ability as required by law or in a timely manner. Revocation recommended.

Does Petitioner, AHF MCO of Florida, Inc., d/b/a PHC Florida HIV/AIDS Specialty Plan (Positive), have standing to contest the intended award to Simply for Regions 10 and 11 or to seek rejection of all proposals? (Case No. 18-3507 and 18-3508) Should the intended decision of Respondent, Agency for Health Care Administration (Agency), to contract with Simply Healthcare Plans, Inc. (Simply), for Medicaid managed care plans for HIV/AIDS patients in Regions 10 (Broward County) and Region 11 (Miami-Dade and Collier Counties) be invalidated and all proposals rejected? (Case Nos. 18-3507 and 18-3508) Must the Agency negotiate with Petitioner, South Florida Community Care Network, LLC, d/b/a Community Care Plan (Community), about a plan to provide HIV/AIDS Medicaid managed care services in Region 10 because it was the only responsive proposer of services that was a Provider Service Network (PSN)? (Case No. 18-3512) Must the Agency negotiate with Community to provide Medicaid managed care services in Region 10 for people with Serious Mental Illnesses because Community is a PSN? (Case No. 18-3511) Must the Agency contract with Community to provide Medicaid managed care services for Children with Special Needs in Region 10 because Community is a PSN? (Case No. 18-3513) Must the Agency negotiate with Community to provide Medicaid managed care services for Child Welfare patients in Region 10 because Community is a PSN? (Case No. 18-3514)AHCA did not follow ITN ranking process. Required to reject all responses. AHCA did not follow requirement to negotiate with responsive Provider Service Network offering specialty Medicaid managed care plans. AHCA must negotiate. Evaluators qualified.

Does Petitioner, AHF MCO of Florida, Inc., d/b/a PHC Florida HIV/AIDS Specialty Plan (Positive), have standing to contest the intended award to Simply for Regions 10 and 11 or to seek rejection of all proposals? (Case No. 18-3507 and 18-3508) Should the intended decision of Respondent, Agency for Health Care Administration (Agency), to contract with Simply Healthcare Plans, Inc. (Simply), for Medicaid managed care plans for HIV/AIDS patients in Regions 10 (Broward County) and Region 11 (Miami-Dade and Collier Counties) be invalidated and all proposals rejected? (Case Nos. 18-3507 and 18-3508) Must the Agency negotiate with Petitioner, South Florida Community Care Network, LLC, d/b/a Community Care Plan (Community), about a plan to provide HIV/AIDS Medicaid managed care services in Region 10 because it was the only responsive proposer of services that was a Provider Service Network (PSN)? (Case No. 18-3512) Must the Agency negotiate with Community to provide Medicaid managed care services in Region 10 for people with Serious Mental Illnesses because Community is a PSN? (Case No. 18-3511) Must the Agency contract with Community to provide Medicaid managed care services for Children with Special Needs in Region 10 because Community is a PSN? (Case No. 18-3513) Must the Agency negotiate with Community to provide Medicaid managed care services for Child Welfare patients in Region 10 because Community is a PSN? (Case No. 18-3514)AHCA did not follow ITN ranking process. Required to reject all responses. AHCA did not follow requirement to negotiate with responsive Provider Service Network offering specialty Medicaid managed care plans. AHCA must negotiate. Evaluators qualified.