welcome to elawyers.us
Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change
  1. Home
  2. Find a Lawyer
  8. Megan Demartini
Megan Demartini
Megan Demartini
Visitors: 36
0
Bar #93569(FL)     License for 13 years; Member in Good Standing
Tallahassee FL

Are you Megan Demartini? Claim this page now or Cliam yourself lawyer page

Related Laws :

Florida Laws: 120.569, 120.57, 120.68, 20.165, 201.10, 202.12, 455.227, 475.01, 475.011, 475.25, 475.42, 475.611, 475.624, 509.032, 509.261, 603.11, 721.20, 95.11

Florida Administrative Code: 61C-1.005, 61C-4.023

10-007767  DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, DIVISION OF HOTELS AND RESTAURANTS vs DQ AT 39 AVE AND I-75  (2010)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Aug. 16, 2010
Whether Respondent committed the violations set forth in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what is the appropriate disciplinary action that should be imposed.Respondent committed two critical and three non-critical violations of Food Code and rules. Recommend $2,500 administrative fine.
12-001220PL  DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION vs CRAIG H. BUTTERFIELD  (2012)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Apr. 06, 2012
Whether Respondent violated section 475.624(15), Florida Statutes (2010), as alleged in the Administrative Complaint; and if so, the appropriate penalty.1/Department failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent did not use reasonable diligence in the preparation of an appraisal.
12-001264PL  DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, DIVISION OF REAL ESTATE vs SARAH ELIZABETH HENDRICK  (2012)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Apr. 11, 2012
Whether Respondent violated sections 475.42(1) (b) and (e), and 455.227(1) (j), Florida Statutes (2011), as alleged in the Administrative Complaint; and, if so, the appropriate penalty.1/Respndent violated statutes by acting as a real estate sales associate for an entity that was not registered as her employer, and for assisting an unlicensed entity in selling real estate.
10-010495  DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, DIVISION OF HOTELS AND RESTAURANTS vs OLIVE TREE RESTAURANT  (2010)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Dec. 07, 2010
The issue is whether Respondent violated provisions of the Food Code and, if so, should be penalized for such violations. For the reasons set forth below, Respondent has committed violations for which he should be penalized.Respondent committed three critical violations and three non-critical violations of the Food Code. A fine in the amount of $1,200 is warranted.
10-010496  DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, DIVISION OF HOTELS AND RESTAURANTS vs PITA'S RESTAURANT  (2010)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Dec. 07, 2010
The issues in the case are whether the allegations set forth in an Administrative Complaint filed by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants (Petitioner), against Pita's Restaurant (Respondent) are correct, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.Food Code violations warrant penalty.
10-010925  DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, DIVISION OF HOTELS AND RESTAURANTS vs FALCON CATERING SERVICE, NO. 7  (2010)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Dec. 28, 2010
The issues in these consolidated cases are stated in the counts set forth in the Administrative Complaint for each case: Whether Falcon Catering Service No. 7 (hereinafter "Falcon 7") and Falcon Catering Service No. 8 (hereinafter "Falcon 8") failed to maintain the proper protection and temperature requirements for food sold from their mobile site in violation of the federal Food and Drug Administration Food Code ("Food Code"). In the Prehearing Stipulation filed in this matter, each Respondent generally admitted to the violations in the Administrative Complaints, but suggested that mitigating factors should absolve them of the charges or greatly reduce any administrative fine imposed.Respondents violated provisions of the Food Code, but mitigating factors reduced the fine amounts.
10-010930  DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, DIVISION OF HOTELS AND RESTAURANTS vs FALCON CATERING SERVICE, NO. 8  (2010)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Dec. 29, 2010
The issues in these consolidated cases are stated in the counts set forth in the Administrative Complaint for each case: Whether Falcon Catering Service No. 7 (hereinafter "Falcon 7") and Falcon Catering Service No. 8 (hereinafter "Falcon 8") failed to maintain the proper protection and temperature requirements for food sold from their mobile site in violation of the federal Food and Drug Administration Food Code ("Food Code"). In the Prehearing Stipulation filed in this matter, each Respondent generally admitted to the violations in the Administrative Complaints, but suggested that mitigating factors should absolve them of the charges or greatly reduce any administrative fine imposed.Respondents violated provisions of the Food Code, but mitigating factors reduced the fine amounts.
12-001500PL  DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION vs STEPHEN MARABEL  (2012)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Apr. 20, 2012
13-001996PL  DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION vs PAUL DRAKE  (2013)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: May 29, 2013

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer