Miami-Dade FL Lawyers | Miguel A De Grandy -- eLawyers

16-005719F WHITE ROCK QUARRIES vs DOROTHY BROWN-ALFARO AND AMILCAR ALFARO (2016)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Sep. 30, 2016

Whether Petitioner, White Rock Quarries (“White Rock”), is entitled to an award of attorney’s fees to be paid by Respondents, Dorothy Brown-Alfaro and Amilcar Alfaro (“Respondents” or “Ms. Alfaro”), pursuant to section 57.105, Florida Statutes, and an award of attorney’s fees and taxable costs to be paid by Respondents pursuant to section 552.40(9), Florida Statutes; and, if so, the amount of attorney’s fees and taxable costs to which White Rock is entitled.Petitioner is not entitled to attorneys' fees under sections 57.105 and 552.40, Fla. Stat. Competent, substantial evidence supported Respondents' claims. Petitioner is entitled to costs under section 552.40, totaling $9,287.00.

15-005548CM CECILIA C. MEDINA vs VECELLIO AND GROGAN, INC., A SUBSIDIARY AND WHOLLY OWNED COMPANY OF VECELLIO GROUP, INC., DOING BUSINESS AS WHITE ROCK QUARRIES (2015)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Oct. 02, 2015

The issues presented are whether damages resulted to Petitioner's home as a result of Respondent's use of explosives in connection with construction materials mining activities, and, if so, what is the appropriate remedy.Petitioner failed to appear for the final hearing, thereby failing to offer any evidence, and thereby failing to meet her burden of proof to show that Respondent's use of explosives caused damage to her residence.

3D00-247 Crapp v. CRIMINAL JUSTICE STANDARDS AND TRAINING COM'N (2000)

District Court of Appeal of Florida Filed: Mar. 29, 2000 Citations: 753 So. 2d 787

753 So. 2d 787 (2000) Walter CRAPP, Appellant, v. CRIMINAL JUSTICE STANDARDS AND TRAINING COMMISSION, Appellee. No. 3D00-247. District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District. March 29, 2000. Aaron R. Sobel, Miami Beach, for appellant. Richard D. Courtemanche, Jr., Tallahassee, for appellee. Before JORGENSON, GODERICH, and RAMIREZ, JJ. RAMIREZ, J. On Motion to Dismiss The appellee, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission, has raised the timeliness of this appeal. For the reasons tha..

2D02-5773 Wilson v. Salamon (2003)

District Court of Appeal of Florida Filed: Dec. 31, 2003

864 So. 2d 1122 (2003) Pamela WILSON, Individually and as Parent and next friend of Gloriann Wilson, minor child, Appellant, v. Eva J. SALAMON, M.D., and Bond Clinic, P.A., Appellees. No. 2D02-5773. District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District. December 31, 2003. *1123 Wayne Johnson of DeCiccio & Johnson, Winter Park, for Appellants. Robert A. Hannah and Robin D. Black of Hannah, Estes & Ingram, P.A., Orlando, for Appellees. ALTENBERND, Chief Judge. Pamela Wilson, individually and as pare..

15-006014CM DOROTHY BROWN-ALFARO AND AMILCAR ALFARO vs WHITE ROCK QUARRIES (2015)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Oct. 23, 2015

Whether Respondent’s use of explosives in connection with construction materials mining activities caused damages to Petitioners’ home, and, if so, the amount of damages to which Petitioners are entitled.Petitioners failed to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Respondent's use of explosives in connection with construction materials mining activities caused damages to Petitioners' home.

15-006955BID GILLY VENDING, INC. vs BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF MIAMI-DADE COLLEGE (2015)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Dec. 08, 2015

Whether Respondent's intended decision to award a vending services contract to Compass Group USA, Inc., d/b/a Canteen Vending Services, is clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious. Also at issue is whether Respondent's intended decision is void or must be set aside due to alleged violations of Florida's Sunshine Law during the procurement process.Petitioner failed to prove that the procurement process for vending services utilized by the Respondent violated the law, and likewise failed to prove that there was a Sunshine Law violation which would have warranted setting aside the award.

04-004481F SUNSHINE TOWING, INC vs ANCHOR TOWING, INC., AND DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (2004)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: May 29, 2009

The issues are: 1) Whether Sunshine is entitled to an award of attorney's fees against Anchor pursuant to Section 57.105, Florida Statutes (2007),1 with respect to certain of Anchor's claims in the first Anchor Protest; and 2) whether Anchor is entitled to an award of attorney's fees against Sunshine pursuant to Section 57.105, Florida Statutes, with respect to certain of Sunshine's claims in the second Sunshine Protest.Sunshine Towing, Inc., is entitled to an award of attorney`s fees pursuant to Subsection 57.105(1), Florida Statutes, in the amount of $69,158.75, for defending against three of the claims raised by Anchor Towing, Inc.

06-002451BID SUNSHINE TOWING, INC vs DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (2006)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jul. 13, 2006

The issue is whether the Department of Transportation's (the "Department") intended award of RFP-DOT-04/05-6063DS to Anchor Towing, Inc. ("Anchor Towing"), after the re-evaluation of the proposals pursuant to the Department's Final Order on Motion to Remand is contrary to the agency's governing statutes, rules, or policies, or the bid or proposal specifications.Petitioner failed to demonstrate that its proposal should be awarded the contract for "Road Ranger" services from Respondent. The solicitation process conformed with applicable statutes, rules and specifications of the Request for Proposals.

10-000134BID SUNSHINE TOWING AT BROWARD, INC. vs DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (2010)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jan. 12, 2010

The issues in this bid protest are, first, whether, as Petitioner alleges, Intervenor's failure to attach copies of "occupational licenses" to its proposal was a deviation from the requirements of the Request for Proposal; second, whether any such deviation was material; and third, whether Respondent's preliminary decision to award Intervenor the contract at issue was clearly erroneous, arbitrary or capricious, or contrary to competition.Respondent's intended decision to award contract for towing and emergency roadside services to a corporation whose proposal suffered from a minor irregularity was not clearly erroneous, arbitary or capricious, or contrary to competion.

04-001447BID ANCHOR TOWING, INC. vs DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (2004)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Apr. 22, 2004

The issue is whether the Department of Transportation's intended award of RFP-DOT-04/05-6063DS to Sunshine Towing, Inc., is contrary to the Agency's governing statutes, rules, or policies, or the bid proposal specifications.Respondent`s intended award of RFP-DOT-05/05-6063DS to Sunshine Towning, Inc., followed Respondent`s governing statutes rules, policies, and the bid proposal specifications. Petitioner`s claim for relief is denied.

Miguel A De Grandy