Leon FL Lawyers | Michael Bryan Golen -- eLawyers

Michael Bryan Golen

Visitors: 51

850-245-7124

Bar #719821(FL) License for 21 years

Tallahassee FL

Are you Michael Bryan Golen? Claim this page now or Cliam yourself lawyer page

Related Laws :

USC: 6 U.S.C 1341

Florida Laws: 120.52, 120.536, 120.54, 120.56, 120.569, 120.57, 120.68, 186.901, 20.165, 210.011, 215.26, 455.227, 455.2273, 489.105, 489.115, 489.119, 489.1195, 489.129, 489.1425, 497.380, 509.092, 561.02, 561.11, 561.17, 561.20, 561.23, 561.29, 561.32, 561.422, 561.50, 562.02, 562.11, 562.45, 565.02, 57.111, 72.011, 721.19, 760.01, 760.10, 760.11, 775.082, 775.083, 817.34, 90.404, 90.606, 946.41

Florida Administrative Code: 61A-2.022, 61A-3.0141, 61A-4.063, 61G4-17.001, 61G4-17.002, 61G4-17.003

10-009281 DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, DIVISION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES AND TOBACCO vs DISCOUNT ZONE, INC., D/B/A LAKELAND DISCOUNT BEVERAGE, INC. (2010)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Sep. 23, 2010

The issue in this case is whether Respondent failed to pay tax surcharges, penalties, and interest owed on the sale of cigarettes, and, if so, the amount that is currently due and owing.The Department did not provide clear and convincing evidence to support the cigarette surcharge imposed on Respondent. A lesser amount is owed.

09-001461 DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, DIVISION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES AND TOBACCO vs SAUREL TALES, D/B/A MIAMI SHOP NO. 4 (2009)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Mar. 18, 2009

Whether Petitioner proved by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent is guilty of the offense alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated November 19, 2008, and, if so, the penalty that should be imposed.Respondent should be fined $1,000 for possessing on the licensed premises beverages that he was not licensed to sell.

09-001121 DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, DIVISION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES AND TOBACCO vs FOX MARIANNE GUNN, D/B/A STARDUST LOUNGE (2009)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Mar. 02, 2009

The issue in this case is whether Respondent failed to comply with the requirements of its license under the beverage law. Specifically, Respondent purportedly violated the actions set forth in two counts, as follows: Count I--Respondent failed to "provide the required service area, seating and equipment to serve 200 persons full course meals at tables at one time as required by its license. [S]ections 561.20(2)(A)(4), within Section 561.29(1)(A), Florida Statutes"; and Count II--Respondent failed to "provide at least 4,000 square feet of area dedicated to the operation of the restaurant as required by its license. [S]ections 561.20(2)(A)(4), within Section 561.29(1)(A), Florida Statutes." Respondent has also raised the issue of whether Petitioner should be estopped from enforcement actions concerning the alleged violations.The Division proved by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent's license should be revoked.

13-001642 GEORGIE BREVILLE vs FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY (2013)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: May 03, 2013

Whether Respondent, Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO or Department), discriminated against Petitioner, Georgie Breville, in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992 (the Act), sections 760.01–760.11 and 509.092, Florida Statutes, based upon her national origin, age, disability, or in retaliation.Petitioner's claim of employment discrimination was untimely. Petitioner did not present competent, substantial evidence of any act of discrimination which occurred within 365 days of filing her Complaint of Discrimination.

12-000540 STEPHANIE RICHARDSON vs DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS (2012)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Feb. 10, 2012

The issue is whether the Respondent committed an unlawful employment practice under section 760.10, Florida Statutes, (2010), by discriminating against Petitioner on the basis of sex through the creation of a hostile work environment or through constructive discharge, and if so, what remedy should be ordered.Petitioner failed to prove that sexual harassement was sufficiently severe or pervasive to create discriminating abusive working environment.

09-006512 DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, DIVISION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES AND TOBACCO vs HUB BAR, INC., D/B/A THE HUB (2009)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Nov. 25, 2009

The issue in this case is whether Respondent failed to pay tax surcharges, penalties and interest owed on the sale of alcoholic beverages, and, if so, the amount that is currently due and owing.Respondent must pay liquor tax surcharge and penalty.