STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

SWIFTLINE TRUCKING, INC., )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 87-3669

) STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT ) OF TRANSPORTATION, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Consistent with the Order Granting Continuance entered by the undersigned on October 23, 1987 a hearing was held in this case before Arnold H. Pollock, a Hearing Officer with the Division of Administrative Hearings in Ft. Myers, Florida, on January 8, 1988. The issue for consideration was whether Petitioner was properly denied certification as a disadvantaged business enterprise by the Respondent, Department of Transportation.

APPEARANCES

Petitioner: Kathleen E. Bente, Esquire

Leiby and Elder

290 Northwest 165th Street, Penthouse 2 Miami, Florida 33169

Respondent: Judy Rice, Esquire

Department of Transportation

605 Suwannee Street, Mail Station 58

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 BACKGROUND INFORMATION

By letter dated July 22, 1987, the Respondent, Florida Department of Transportation, (Department), notified Petitioner, Swiftline Trucking, Inc., (Swiftline), that its application for certification as a disadvantaged business enterprise had been denied. On August 10, 1987, Rose Laquidara, President of the corporation, filed a notice of appeal. The file was forwarded to The Division of Administrative Hearings for the appointment of a Hearing Officer, and on August 27, 1987, the undersigned noticed the case for hearing on October 28, 1987, in Ft. Myers. However, Petitioner moved far a continuance which was granted and the case was rescheduled for January 8, 1988.

At the hearing, Petitioner presented the testimony of Felix Andrew Laquidara, road supervisor for Petitioner; Anthony Laquidara, an employee of Petitioner and husband of Rose Laquidara; and Rose Laquidara, President of Petitioner corporation. Petitioner also presented Petitioner's Exhibits 1 through 3.

Respondent presented the testimony of Tyrone Reddish, Department's District

7 Compliance Officer and an expert in disadvantaged business enterprise certification; and Kenneth L. Sweet, State Compliance Monitor for the Department's Bureau of Minority Programs, also an expert on disadvantaged business enterprise certification. Respondent also introduced Respondent's Exhibits A through M.

Respondent requested the undersigned officially recognize 49 CFR Part 23 and Rule 14-78, F.A.C. These publications have been officially recognized as OR I and II.

The Transcript of Proceedings of this hearing was filed with the undersigned on February 1, 1988. Respondent filed Proposed Findings of Fact on February 8, 1988 and Petitioner filed its proposed Findings of Fact on February 16, 1988. Rulings on each are included in the Appendix attached to this Recommended Order.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Swiftline Trucking, Inc., was incorporated in Florida in 1979 by Rose Laquidara. The Articles of Incorporation filed with the Florida Secretary of State reflect Rose Laquidara as President and Treasurer, Carl Laquidara, her son, as one Vice- President, and Felix Laquidara, her other son, as the other Vice- President and Secretary. These same individuals were also identified as the initial Directors of the corporation. Anthony Laquidara, Rose Laquidara's husband, was neither an officer nor a director. Carl is no longer with the firm.

   
   

2. The corporation originally operated out of the Laquidara home with Anthony Laquidara serving as a truck driver and Rose serving as bookkeeper and general manager. The two sons, Carl and Felix, ages 14 and 15 at the time, acted as mechanics. Ultimately the corporate offices were moved to a commercial site owned by Rose and Anthony Laquidara, personally, which was leased to the corporation.

   
   

3. The Laquidaras moved to Florida sometime prior to 1979 when Anthony retired from his position as a police officer in New York City. When the family moved to the Ft. Myers area, Rose went back to school and Anthony spent his time fishing and driving a truck part time.

   
   

4. In 1978, when the trucking industry was deregulated, Rose got the idea of starting her own trucking company. Swiftline Trucking, Inc., the result of that idea, was started with $5,000.00 that she inherited from her father. This

   $5,000.00 was used to purchase the company's first truck. Later on, during the growing years, additional money was put into the business to cover payroll.

   This money came from Rose's share of the proceeds of the sale of the family home in New York.

   
   

5. The business operated continuously from its inception until the present. On October 10, 1986, as President of the corporation, Rose submitted an application for certification as a disadvantaged business enterprise. Thereafter, the Department sent Tyrone Reddish to Ft. Myers to interview her and to inspect the records of the company.

   
   

6. In the course of his review, Mr. Reddish examined the documents, looked at the corporate books, records, and files, and examined contracts and purchase vouchers as well as subcontracts, and financial records. He concluded that

   Swiftline met two of the five standards necessary for certification as a disadvantaged business enterprise. These were: (1) that the applicant was a female and, (2) that the applicant owned 51 percent of the stock issued in the corporation. However, he also concluded that three other standards were not supported by independent evidence. These were: (1) that the applicant failed to exercise substantial control over the operation, (2) that the applicant was responsible for the day to day operation of the company, and (3) that the applicant was, in fact, in charge of company management. Because of this, he could not conclude that the business should be certified and he prepared a report outlining his findings and conclusions which he sent for review by the Department.

   
   

7. Specifically, Mr. Reddish found several discrepancies between stock certificates issued and the stock ledger. Corporate records reflect that from the time of incorporation in 1979 to 1984, Rose Laquidara held 80 percent of the stock. Records for 1984 indicate a directors' meeting at which Rose Laquidara was not present. The minutes of that meeting reflect only that her stock was sold. They are silent as to how much, if any, compensation was received by Rose Laquidara for the sale of her stock.

   
   

8. The minutes of a 1986 meeting reflect that Rose Laquidara reacquired her original 400 shares (80 percent), and an additional 510 shares. However, the minutes did not provide any information regarding the transfer or furnish the background for it.

   
   

9. Additional discrepancies found by Mr. Reddish include the fact that the income tax forms filed in 1986 reflected that Rose Laquidara held 80 percent of the stock and two other individuals, her sons, held 9.8 percent of the stock. The stock record book reflects that 39 percent of the stock was at that time owned by Anthony Laquidara, Rose's husband, 51 percent was owned by Rose Laquidara, and 5 percent each was owned by the sons. This discrepancy and the previous one are explained by Mrs. Laquidara who indicates that in 1984, she and her husband were divorced. As a part of the divorce settlement, she transferred all her stock in Swiftline to her husband who paid her compensation therefor. This compensation came from the proceeds of the corporation. However, Mr. Laquidara was unable to make a go of the business and suffered a nervous breakdown in 1986. He called Mrs. Laquidara from New York and advised her he had walked away from the business and if she didn't want it to fail completely, she had best step in and take over again.

   
   

10. Thereafter, Rose Laquidara accepted transfer of the ownership back from Anthony who indicated he wanted no ownership interest in the corporation. She felt, however, that because he had provided so well for the family for the first years of their marriage, it would be unfair for him to end up without anything and she insisted he be given a 39 percent interest in the corporation. This stock was issued from treasury stock. The sons, who were identified as each owning 9.8 percent of the stock, in reality each own 50 shares representing

    5 percent of the 1,000 shares authorized and issued.

    
    

11. According to the stock record book, 1400 shares of stock have been issued to various members of the Laquidara family. This is incorrect. Only 1,000 shares was authorized by the Articles of Incorporation and have been issued.

    
    

12. Another discrepancy disclosed by Mr. Reddish was in the report of profits for 1986 which showed an 80 percent distribution to Rose Laquidara and

    10 percent to each of her sons. Anthony Laquidara was not represented at all.

    Nonetheless, he later wrote a letter stating he had no claims on profits in 1986 and this constituted a discrepancy in Mr. Reddish's mind for which he could find no explanation. It really is quite clear, however.

    
    

13. Mr. Reddish also concluded there were other discrepancies such as, (1) the By-Laws had some restrictions which impacted on total control resting in Rose Laquidara; (2) a problem with employment of other family members in supervisory positions; (3) several checks were made payable to Tony Laquidara for which there were no supporting documents.

    
    

14. With respect to those three discrepancies, the By-Laws have been amended to remove any impediments to Rose, as majority stockholder, having controlling voice in the operation of the business. There is nothing wrong with other family members exercising supervision over portions of the business operation so long as this supervision is delegated to them by the majority stockholder. The two checks in question were issued to Tony for, in one case, rent for the office building, and in the other for payment of the property taxes. These notations are clearly inscribed on the checks. It is difficult to understand why Mr. Reddish did not see them.

    
    

15. Mr. Reddish was also concerned about he fact that even though Swiftline had done in excess of one million dollars worth of work with the Department, he could find only one or two purchase orders from the Department to back this up. When questioned, Mrs. Laquidara was unable to provide answers to satisfy him. This area of inquiry, however, is not pertinent to a determination of minority or disadvantaged business status.

    
    

16. In the course of his visit with Swiftline, Mr. Reddish did not speak with any employees or customers because, he claims, the Department's method of certification is to talk only with the owner. This was not, he states, a compliance review and though he found several things as described above with which he was dissatisfied, he asked no one other than Mrs. Laquidara for an explanation. He claims it is the Department policy to talk only with the majority owner in a validation review and that validation is accomplished by an examination primarily of documentation. He claims he does not know who hires, who fires, within whom the decision making authority rests, or who is responsible for personnel actions. When he asked who performed these functions, he was told Mrs. Laquidara did some and others did other things. He does not know who delegated this authority to these other people but he asked only Mrs. Laquidara and, apparently, he did not ask her either enough questions or the right questions. The interview was taped but a copy of the tape was not forwarded for review with his report.

    
    

17. Had Mr. Reddish's interview been more inclusive, he would have found, for example that Felix Laquidara, Rose's son and a road supervisor for the company, monitors its operation, seeks out jobs for the fleet to perform, and reports to Mrs. Laquidara. He makes no decisions as to the business without consulting with Mrs. Laquidara, nor can he commit the company to new work without her approval. He cannot hire or fire employees without consulting her nor does he take any part in determining employee salaries. That is done by Mrs. Laquidara who also determines how many employees the company should have.

    
    

18. Felix is not permitted to extend credit to customers based on his own determination of creditworthiness, nor does he make any decisions about collecting outstanding fees. Mrs. Laquidara does both. In the event of any problem with customers, they are referred to Mrs. Laquidara for the resolution of their complaints. Felix has no idea how much income the company grossed

    during the last business year, (or, for that matter, in any business year), nor does he know how much profit was earned by the company. Though he is given a portion of the year-end profit as a bonus, the amount of bonus is determined by Mrs. Laquidara and it may take a form other than cash.

    
    

19. Felix works between 14 and 16 hours per day and is paid a flat salary not based on the number of hours worked. Each week, he and the other road supervisors meet with Mrs. Laquidara to decide what business will be taken on for the next week. There is no question in his mind that Mrs. Laquidara runs the business. He is on the books as corporate secretary, and has attended corporate meetings but has had no input.

    
    

20. Had he checked deeper, Mr. Reddish would also have found that when Rose Laquidara started Swiftline in 1979, her husband had little to do with it. He had no input as to the form of the business nor did he sign or file any of the paperwork involved. When the company was first started, with the first truck bought with Rose's money, their original business was the hauling of sand, stone and dirt, and he drove the truck part time. Now, he helps out with estimates, assists with collections, checks job sites and the like, but has no specific duties nor does he make any decisions regarding the operation. He works from 10 to 30 hours per week and draws no salary.

    
    

21. Mr. Laquidara has no part in deciding how many jobs the company can handle at one time; he has no part in deciding which jobs to take on; he does not grant credit; nor does he decide how many employees should be kept on the payroll or who should be hired or fired. The individual with ultimate authority in all aspects of Swiftline's operation is Rose Laquidara who makes her decision after input from her employees. By the same token, she is the source from whom all authority flows. That which is not specifically delegated by her to her underlings is retained by her.

    
    

22. Though Anthony Laquidara is an authorized signatory on company checks, along with Mrs. Laquidara, he was made so because he was also a signatory on some of the outstanding business loans of the corporation. The lender wanted a personal guarantee from him, as well as Mrs. Laquidara. He rarely signs corporate checks, however. As a shareholder in the corporation, he receives a portion of the business profits distributed at year end. The amount of distribution is determined by Mrs. Laquidara.

    
    

23. This information, given by Felix and Anthony as to business and organizational arrangements and responsibilities, was confirmed by Mrs. Laquidara. In the early years of the business she did the dispatching herself, assigning jobs to individual truckers who signed on with her. Now she spends the majority of her time in management, settling problems within the operation and talking with customers. She opened the east coast office on her own, putting one of her former drivers in as manager, and he reports to her, alone. There are presently approximately 100 independent contractor drivers working for her who are paid about 89 to 90 percent of what the job brings in. She has arranged a line of credit with a financing institution, but Anthony was required to join her in personally guaranteeing the loans.

    
    

24. As to the share breakdown, prior to her divorce, she held 90 percent of the corporate stock. Pursuant to the settlement agreement, she signed her shares over to Anthony and received a cash settlement in return. When he subsequently had a nervous breakdown and she had to step in and take back control of the business, she chose to take only a 51 percent share instead of the 90 percent share she previously held. She felt it was only equitable that

    Anthony keep a 38 percent share of the company stock because during the early years of their marriage, he supported them all. The stock decision was hers alone, however, and had nothing to do with the disadvantaged business certification.

    
    

25. She now runs the corporation taking care of all financial, legal, and personnel matters. She employs an office manager and 7 office personnel. She discharged her son, Carl, because he could not take orders.

    
    

26. Swiftline was certified as a minority business enterprise by Lee County for several years, renewed each year until the last year when it was turned down since the Lee County application is based on undefined federal guidelines which, apparently, were not met. When Swiftline was turned down by Lee County, Mrs. Laquidara applied for state minority certification. This application resulted in the visit by Mr. Reddish which ultimately culminated in the denial of this application as well. Without certification as a minority business enterprise, Swiftline is precluded from preforming many jobs for state, city, or county governments which require such certification and which, up until the present, have made up a substantival portion of Swiftline's business.

    
    

27. Mr. Reddish's validation review was not sufficiently comprehensive. It was insufficient to generate adequate information upon which to base an informed conclusion and recommendation. It appears to be more an attempt to support denial of certification than a bona fide attempt to determine if the applicant qualified for certification.

    
    

28. When Mr. Reddish completed his validation review, he forwarded his report to the validation committee which unanimously voted, based on the record, to deny Swiftline its certification. This decision was based on what the committee had before it which included only the documentation submitted with the application and Mr. Reddish's report.

    
    

29. Mr. Sweet and the committee identified several problems with the file which included: (1) that Swiftline was a family business which could not demonstrate that control rested within one person. It appeared that everything was within the control of various family members with responsibility equally shared, and that, therefore, non-disadvantaged business people had more than one-half the control even though Mrs. Laquidara admittedly owned 51 percent of the stock. (2) The corporate By-Laws were not followed and there was no documentation to show compliance. (3) Last year the corporation did $4.6 million in gross business and this does not appear to be a small business so as to justify operating without formal procedures as was done here.

    
    

30. Mr. Sweet indicated there were several deficiencies in the By-Laws. For example, 3/4 of the stockholders are required to appoint the Board of Directors. Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution provides that 4/5 of the voting stockholders are required to validate. This is far more than 51 percent and if applied, would divest Mrs. Laquidara of control. Directors are required to conduct certain specific types of business and only two are required to do others. As a result, the Board can operate and conduct corporate affairs without participation of the 51 percent owner. The committee's conclusions, however, can be no more valid than those of Mr. Reddish since it's deliberations were based solely upon the information he provided.

    CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

    
    

31. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter in this case. Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.

    
    

32. Respondent has denied Petitioner certification as a disadvantaged business enterprise on the basis that it does not meet the requirements of Rule 14-78.002(3), F.A.C, which defines a disadvantaged business enterprise as:

    
    

    ... a small business concern which is at least 51 percent owned by one or more of the socially or economically disadvantaged individuals who own it.

    
    

33. Women are considered disadvantaged individuals for the purposes of this statute.

    
    

34. The standards for certification of disadvantaged business enterprises are established in Rule 14-78.005(3) F.A.C., and include:

    
    

    (c) To be certified under this rule chapter, a DBE shall be an independent business entity. The ownership and control exercised by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals shall be real, substantial and continuing and shall go beyond mere pro forma ownership of the firm, as reflected in its ownership documents. The socially and economically disadvantaged owners shall enjoy the customary incidence of ownership and shall share in the risks and profits, as demonstrated by an examination of the substance rather than form of financial and managerial arrangements.

    
    

    (e) To be certified under this rule chapter, the DBE shall be one in which the socially and economically disadvantaged owner shall also possess the power to direct or cause the direction of the management, policies, and operations of the firm and to make day to day as well as major business decisions concerning the firm's management, policy and operation. The discretion of the socially and economically disadvantaged owners shall not be subject to any formal or informal restrictions ... which would vary managerial discretion customary in the industry.

    
    

35. In determining whether the owners meet the criteria set forth in the rule, the Department may look to several factors such as:

    1. whether non-disadvantaged owners exercise a disproportionate responsibility for the operation;

       
       

    2. whether disadvantaged owners are prevented from making business decisions without a non-disadvantaged owner; or

       
       

    3. whether actual management of the enterprise is contracted out to individuals other than the owner.

       
       

36. Further, under the rule, in order to be certified under the rule, the disadvantaged business enterprise must be one in which the contributions of capital or expertise invested by the disadvantaged owner is real and substantial.

    
    

37. In the instant case, Respondent claims that the ownership of the business is, in reality, jointly held by Rose and Anthony along with Carl and Felix. This is based on Mr. Reddish's examination of the corporate papers and documentation only. He spoke only with Mrs. Laquidara and not at all with Mr. Laquidara or the two sons. Uncontroverted evidence from Rose, Anthony, and Felix clearly establishes that the business was started with money which came from Mrs. Laquidara's inheritance from her father which was supplemented with her share of the proceeds of the family home up north. There is no evidence that Anthony put any money into the business except that which he paid to Rose at the divorce and which he forfeited when he walked away from the business several years later. His current ownership is more of a gift in recognition of the parties' good years together than an investment in the firm. Admittedly, he has personally signed, along with Rose, as a guarantor of business loans, but there was no evidence to show if, or to what extent he has ever had to honor those guarantees. In this case, it is clear that Rose Laquidara owns the majority of the business and Respondent admits her ownership is at least 51 percent.

    
    

38. The mere fact that Anthony must co-guarantee all loans does not strip Rose of her authority to run the business. Respondent here relies on a potential for future control and there was no evidence Rose has ever been thwarted in an effort to borrow money by Anthony's refusal to co-sign.

    
    

39. Respondent also states that by virtue of the terms of the corporate By-Laws, Rose cannot control and direct the business. The By-Laws are guidelines for the operation of the business. There was no evidence at all introduced by the Respondent that any action proposed or suggested by Rose has ever been modified, controlled, or stopped by any interference by any other

    shareholder under the terms of the By-Laws To the contrary, the evidence is very clear that Rose makes all the major decisions as to business, credit, complaints, personnel - in short, all the facets of the organization's operation and Respondent produced nothing to counter this evidence. Clearly, Rose Laquidara, a competent and effective business woman, controls the day to day operation of Swiftline Trucking, Inc., and Respondent has failed to show any concrete evidence that she does not. Reliance on the potential as evidenced in the corporate papers does not overcome the reality of what is happening now.

    
    

40. While there is no question that the Department is constrained to examine each DBE applicant carefully for adherence to the statutory requirements for certification, this examination must be more than a review of corporate

books and records to see what might happen. That was not done here and the realities of the situation clearly indicate compliance in both deed and intent.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore:

RECOMMENDED that Swiftline Trucking, Inc.'s application for certification as a disadvantaged business enterprise be granted.

RECOMMENDED this 7th day of March, 1988, at Tallahassee, Florida.

ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building

2009 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550

(904) 488-9675

Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of March, 1988.

Appendix to Recommended Order

The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statute, on all of the proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case.

10.-13. Accepted and incorporated herein.

1. Accepted and incorporated herein.

2. Accepted and incorporated herein. 16.-19. Accepted and incorporated herein.

20. Accepted and incorporated herein. 21.-22. Accepted and incorporated herein.

1. This is not a completely true statement. His authority to sign checks is not conditioned upon something happening to Mrs. Laquidara but was required because

   he is a co-signer in lending arrangements.

2. Accepted and incorporated herein.

3. Mr. Reddish also talked with Mrs. Laquidara.

4. Accepted and incorporated herein.

27.-29. A summary of testimony - not a Finding of Fact

30. Accepted.

31.-32. Accepted and incorporated herein.

FOR THE RESPONDENT

1. Accepted and incorporated herein.

2. Accepted as the original determination of the department on which this hearing is based.

3.-5. Accepted and incorporated except for the comment that Anthony and Felix share the control of the company which is rejected as contra to the evidence.

1. First sentence as rejected as a Conclusion of Law as is the last. Remainder is accepted.

2. Accepted.

3. Rejected as an incorrect statement of Fact. Store records are unclear, but ownership, upon inquiry was clarified. The finding that Rose owns only 40 percent of the store is rejected.

4. Rejected as contra to the weight of the evidence and as argument. The loan from Anthony's further, classified as "substantial", was not otherwise described.

5. Accepted.

6. Accepted, but not controlling.

7. Accepted except for last sentence, which is rejected.

8. Accepted in that the family worked together. Rejected as implying management responsibility was shared. The

9. Finding that decision making and actual power was shared by the family as a unit is rejected. No evidence was presented to show that by the Department.

10. Accepted.

11. Accepted.

17.-19. Accepted.

COPIES FURNISHED:

LEIBY AND ELDER

290 NORTHWEST 165TH STREET PENTHOUSE 2

MIAMI, FLORIDA 33169

JUDY RICE, ESQUIRE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 605 SUWANNEE STREET, MS 58

TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399

KAYE N. HENDERSON, SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION HAYDON BURNS BUILDING

605 SUWANNEE STREET

TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-0450

THOMAS H. BATEMAN, III, ESQUIRE GENERAL COUNSEL

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION HAYDON BURNS BUILDING

605 SUWANNEE STREET

TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-0450

=================================================================

AGENCY FINAL ORDER

=================================================================

STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

SWIFTLINE TRUCKING, INC.,

Petitioner,

vs. CASE NO. 87-3669

STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,

Respondent.

/

FINAL ORDER

The FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION denied the application of SWIFTLINE TRUCKING, INC., Petitioner, for certification as a Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE). Petitioner requested an administrative hearing, so the matter was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearing

A hearing was held in this matter January 8, 1988. The record has been reviewed along with the Recommended Order (copy attached) of the Hearing Officer. The Recommended Order is hereby adopted, except as modified by the Stipulation of the parties and this Final Order.

In order to bring this matter to quick and expeditious close, the parties entered into a Stipulation, which is incorporated and made a part of this Order, regarding revisions to Petitioner's corporate documents. Additionally, a special meeting of the directors of SWIFTLINE TRUCKING, INC., was held March 25, 1988, for the purpose of revising the by-laws of the corporation to bring the corporate documents into compliance with the rule requirements of Rule 14-78,

F.A.C. A copy of the minutes of said special meeting and a copy of the revised by-laws are incorporated and made a part of this Order also. Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that the application of SWIFTLINE TRUCKING, INC., for certification as a Disadvantaged Business Enterprise is GRANTED.

DONE AND ORDERED this 12th day of April, 1988.

KAYE N. HENDERSON, P.E.

Secretary

Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399

Copies furnished:

Arnold H. Pollock, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building

2009 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

Kathleen E. Bente, Attorney Leiby and Elder

165th Street - Penthouse 2 Miami, Florida 33169

Judy Rice, Attorney Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, MS 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399

Ms. Juanita Moore, Chief Bureau of Minority Programs

Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399

The following information is required by law to be included in all Final Orders:

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW

Judicial review of agency final orders may be pursued in accordance with Section 120.68, Florida Statutes, and Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.O3O(b)(1)(c) and 9.110. To initiate an appeal, a Notice of Appeal must be filed with the Department's Clerk of Agency Proceedings, Haydon Burns Building, MS 58, 605 Suwannee Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458, and with the appropriate District Court of Appeal within thirty (30) days of the filing of this Final Order with the Department's Clerk of Agency Proceedings. The Notice of Appeal filed with the District Court of Appeal should be accompanied by the filing fee specified in Section 35.22(3), Florida Statutes.

Docket for Case No: 87-003669

Orders for Case No: 87-003669