STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL ) REGULATION, CONSTRUCTION ) INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CASE NOS. 91-8318
) 91-8319
GORDON LEE CEDERBERG, )
)
Respondent. )
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Pursuant to notice, the Division of Administrative Hearings, by its duly designated Hearing Officer, Mary Clark, held a formal hearing in the above- styled case on October 1, 1992, in Orlando, Florida.
APPEARANCES
For Petitioner: William S. Cummins, Esquire
Department of Professional Regulation
1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
For Respondent: Jack Snow, Esquire
407 Wekiva Spings Road, Suite 229 Longwood, Florida 32779
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE
The issues that were presented for disposition in the above-styled cases were whether Respondent committed certain alleged violations of Chapter 489,
F.S. and if so what discipline is appropriate.
As stated below, the parties stipulated to the violations, leaving only the issue of discipline to be resolved.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
The administrative complaint in #91-8318 (DPR Case #89-05831) dated May 2, 1991 alleges violations of Chapter 455 and 489, F.S. in a residential roofing job for customer, F. W. Cramer.
The amended administrative complaint in #91-8319, dated July 23, 1991 and involving a series of DPR cases, alleges multiple violations of Chapter 489,
in thirty-three counts.
The two complaints were forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings upon Respondent's request for formal hearing and were consolidated and set for hearing. At Petitioner's request, minor amendments were permitted in both complaints.
At the commencement of the hearing the parties announced this stipulation:
Petitioner voluntarily dismissed the administrative complaint in DOAH Case #91-8318, and these counts in DOAH Case #91-8139: I and II (DPR Case #0101772, relating to the Galbraith roofing job); XXV and XXVI (DPR Case #89-005014, relating to the Nichols roofing job); and XXXIV (DPR Case #89-007303, relating to license suspension by the Orange County Roofing Advisory Board of Adjustments and Appeals).
The Respondent admits the remaining allegations of the remaining counts in DOAH Case #91-8319, with the understanding that the Department was making no agreement for recommendation of penalties to the Construction Industry Licensing Board (CILB).
In lieu of evidence on the allegations of the complaint, Respondent requested and was given leave to present evidence in mitigation to be considered by the Board in its determination of an appropriate penalty. The parties agreed that the hearing officer should hear this evidence and make her recommendation to the Board.
Petitioner, therefore, presented no evidence other than the licensing file, marked and received without objection as Petitioner's Exhibit #1.
Respondent testified in his own behalf and presented the additional testimony of his colleague, Bill Potter, and his neighbor, Doris Jansen.
Without objection, at Respondent's request, the record was left open for 30 days to allow Respondent to depose his psychiatrist and other professionals and to file those depositions. The hearing officer established on the record that at the close of the 30 days the parties would be permitted an additional ten days to file proposed recommended orders.
No depositions were filed after the hearing and the deadline has long passed. Petitioner filed its Proposed Recommended Order on November 9, 1992. The findings of fact proposed by Petitioner are substantially adopted herein.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Gordon Lee Cederberg is, and has been at all times material hereto, a licensed registered roofing contractor, having been issued license number RC 0051346, by the State of Florida.
At all times material Respondent was the licensed qualifier for Allied American Roofing Company and was responsible in such capacity for supervising its contracting activities. Allied American Roofing Company was dissolved on November 4, 1988.
Stipulated Violations
By stipulation, Respondent has admitted the following allegations of the amended administrative complaint in DOAH #91-8319:
3. CASE NO. 0106373 COUNT THREE
Respondent d/b/a Allied American Roofing contracted with Michael Roberts on April 4, 1988 to reroof a home located at 530 Mason Street, Apopka, Florida.
The contract price was $942.80 and was paid in full. Respondent proceeded to complete the job without obtaining a permit and securing required inspections from the City of Apopka Building Department.
By the reason of the foregoing allegations, Respondent has violated Section 489.129(1)(d), F.S., in that the Respondent willfully and deliberately disregarded and violated the applicable building code of a municipality, to wit, Apopka, Florida, by failing to obtain a permit and inspection is as required by that municipality.
4. CASE NO. 0107766
COUNT FOUR
Respondent's license was under suspension by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board between August 10, 1988, and March 3, 1989.
Respondent d/b/a Allied American Roofing contracted with Nancy Wiegner on September 22, 1988, to reroof a home located at 15 Kentucky Street, St. Cloud, Florida. The contract price was $1,600.00 and it was paid in full. Respondent commenced work under the contract but failed to obtain a permit prior to commencing such work from the City of St. Cloud, Florida, and the municipality issued a stop order on the job. Respondent further engaged in contracting in a municipality where he had not registered.
By reason of the foregoing allegation, Respondent has violated Section 489.129(1)(j), F.S., in that he failed in a material respect to comply with the provisions of Section 489.117(2), F.S., in that he engaged in contracting in a municipality, to wit, St. Cloud, Florida, where he had failed to comply with the local licensing requirements for the type of work covered by his registration.
COUNT FIVE
By reason of the foregoing allegations, Respondent has violated Section 489.129(1)(d), F.S., in that Respondent willfully deliberately disregarded and violated the applicable building code of a municipality, to wit, St. Cloud, Florida by failing to secure a permit as required by that municipality.
COUNT SIX
By reason of the foregoing allegations, Respondent has violated Section 489.129(1)(j), F.S., by failing in a material respect to comply with the provisions of Section 489.127(1)(e), F.S., by engaging in contracting while his license was suspended.
COUNT SEVEN
By reason of the foregoing allegations, Respondent has violated 489.129(1)(m), F.S., by committing gross negligence, misconduct, and/or incompetency in the practice of contracting.
8. CASE NO. 0112740 COUNT EIGHT
Respondent d/b/a Allied American Roofing contracted with Emma Smith on October 3, 1988 to reroof a home at 1911 Mullet Lake Park Road, Geneva, Seminole County, Florida. The contract price was $4,100.00 and it was paid in full.
Respondent proceeded to complete the job without obtaining a permit and securing required inspections from the Seminole County Building Department. Respondent failed to properly construct a watertight roof which continued to leak and caused damage to the home. Respondent has failed to honor the five (5) year labor and twenty (20) year material warranty that was part of the said contract, although he was requested to do so.
By reason of the foregoing allegations, Respondent has violated Section 489.129(1)(n), F.S., in that the Respondent proceeded on a job without obtaining an applicable local building department permit and inspections.
COUNT NINE
By reason of the foregoing allegations, Respondent has violated Section 489.129(1)(j), F.S., by failing in a material respect to comply with the provisions of Section 489.127(1)(e), F.S., by engaging in contracting while his license was suspended.
COUNT TEN
By reason of the aforesaid allegations, Respondent is guilty of violating Section 489.129(1)(m), F.S., by committing an act of gross negligence, incompetency and/or misconduct in the practice of contracting by failing to honor the written warranty described in paragraph twenty-six above.
COUNT ELEVEN
By reason of the aforesaid allegations, Respondent is guilty of violating Section 489.129(1)(m), F.S., by committing an act or acts of gross negligence, incompetency and/or misconduct in the practice of contracting.
12. CASE NO. 89-001674 COUNT TWELVE
Respondent d/b/a Allied American Roofing Company contracted with Thelma Beck to reroof a home at 3910 Pineland Ridge Road, Orlando, Orange County, Florida on January 26, 1989 for a price of $2,270.00. Respondent accepted a
$100.00 deposit for said job; the work was not begun and the $100.00 deposit was returned to Mrs. Beck.
By reason of the foregoing allegations, Respondent has violated Section 489.129(1)(j), F.S., by failing in a material respect to comply with the provisions of Section 489.127(1)(e), F.S., by engaging in contracting while his license was suspended.
COUNT THIRTEEN
By reason of the aforesaid allegations, Respondent is guilty of violating Section 489.129(1)(m), F.S., by committing an act or acts of gross negligence, incompetency and/or misconduct in the practice of contracting.
COUNT FOURTEEN
Respondent d/b/a Allied American Roofing contracted with Morris Remmers to reroof a home at 8719 Butternut Boulevard, Orlando, Orange County, Florida, on or about February 23, 1989. The contract price was $2,870.00 and it was paid in full. Respondent proceeded to complete the job without obtaining a permit and securing required inspections from the Orange County Building Department.
By reason of the foregoing allegation, Respondent is guilty of violating Section 489.129(1)(n), F.S., in that Respondent proceeded in a job without obtaining an applicable local building department permit and inspections.
COUNT FIFTEEN
By reason of the foregoing allegations, Respondent has violated Section 489.129(1)(j), F.S., by failing in a material respect to comply with the provisions of Section 489.127(1)(e), F.S., by engaging in contracting while his license was suspended.
COUNT SIXTEEN
By reason of the aforesaid allegations, Respondent is guilty of violating Section 489.129(1)(m), F.S., by committing an act or acts of gross negligence, incompetency and/or misconduct in the practice of contracting.
17. CASE NO. 89-008737 COUNT SEVENTEEN
Respondent d/b/a Allied American Roofing contracted with Robert Speirs to reroof a dwelling at 2467 Fieldingwood Road, Maitland, Seminole County, Florida on or about October 14, 1988. The contract price was $3,600.00. Respondent proceeded to work the job but failed to obtain a permit and secure required inspections from the Seminole County Building Department. Respondent failed to properly construct a water tight roof which continued to leak. Respondent failed to honor the three (3) year labor and twenty (20) year material warranty that was part of the contract although he was requested to do so.
By reason of the aforesaid allegations, Respondent has violated Section 489.129(1)(n), F.S., in that Respondent proceeded on a job without obtaining an applicable local building department permit and inspections.
COUNT EIGHTEEN
By reason of the foregoing allegations, Respondent has violated Section 489.129(1)(j), F.S., by failing in a material respect to comply with the provisions of Section 489.127(1)(e), F.S., by engaging in contracting while license was suspended.
COUNT NINETEEN
By reason of the aforesaid allegations, Respondent is guilty of violating Section 489.129(1)(m), F.S., by committing an act of gross negligence, incompetency and/or misconduct in the practice of contracting by failing to honor his written warranty described in paragraphs forty-seven above.
COUNTY TWENTY
By reason of the aforesaid allegations, Respondent is guilty of violating 489.129(1)(m), F.S., by committing an act or acts of gross negligence, incompetency and/or misconduct in the practice of contracting.
21. CASE NO. 109636
COUNT TWENTY-ONE
Respondent d/b/a Allied American Roofing Company contracted with Daniel J. Doherty to reroof a home at 225 Dover Wood Road, Fern Park, Seminole County, Florida on October 2, 1988, for the contract price of $3,590.00 which was paid in full. Respondent proceeded to complete the job without obtaining a permit and securing required inspections from the Seminole County Building Department. Respondent failed to construct a watertight roof, which contributed to water damage to the interior of Mr. Doherty's home. Respondent failed to honor the five (5) year labor and twenty (20) year material warranty that was part of the contract, although he was requested to do so.
By the reason of the foregoing allegations, Respondent has violated Section 489.129(1)(n), F.S., by proceeding on the job without obtaining a local building department permit and inspections.
COUNT TWENTY-TWO
By reason of the foregoing allegations, Respondent has violated Section 489.129(1)(j), F.S., by failing in a material respect to comply with the provisions of Section 489.127(1)(e), F.S. by engaging in contracting while his license was suspended.
COUNT TWENTY-THREE
By reason of the foregoing allegations, Respondent has violated 489.129(1)(m), F.S., by committing gross negligence, misconduct, and/or incompetency in the practice of contracting by failing to honor his warranty as described in paragraph fifty-six above.
COUNT TWENTY-FOUR
By reason of the aforesaid allegations, Respondent is guilty of violating Section 489.129(1)(m), F.S., by committing an act or acts of gross negligence, incompetency and/or misconduct in the practice of contracting.
COUNT TWENTY-SEVEN
Respondent d/b/a Allied American Roofing contracted with Gloria Viruet to reroof a home at 3010 (renumbered to 3007) Northwood Blvd., Orlando, Orange County, Florida on June 7, 1988. The contract price was $3,500.00. Respondent proceeded to complete the job without receiving a permit and securing required
inspections from the Orange County Building Department. The Respondent failed to properly construct a watertight roof and a leak developed after construction. Respondent failed to honor the five (5) year labor and twenty (20) material warranty that was part of the said contract, although he has been requested to do so.
By reason of the aforesaid allegations, Respondent has violated Section 489.129(1)(d), F.S., in that Respondent willfully and deliberately disregarded and violated the applicable building code of a County, to wit, Orange County, Florida by failing to obtain a permit and inspections as required by that County.
COUNT TWENTY-EIGHT
By reason of the aforesaid allegations, Respondent is guilty of violating Section 489.129(1)(m), F.S., by committing an act or acts of gross negligence, incompetency and/or misconduct in the practice of contracting, by failing to honor his written warranty described in paragraphs seventy.
COUNTY TWENTY-NINE
By reason of the aforesaid allegations, Respondent is guilty of violating Section 489.129(1)(m), F.S., by committing an act or acts of gross negligence, incompetency and/or misconduct in the practice of contracting.
28. CASE NO. 0108263 COUNT THIRTY
Respondent d/b/a Allied American Roofing Company contracted with John E. Hultin to reroof a home located at 3610 Lakeview, Apopka, Florida on November 7, 1987. The contract price was $2,900.00 and it was paid in full. Respondent proceeded to complete the job without obtaining a permit and securing required inspections from the Seminole County Building Department. Respondent failed to properly install a roof covering, violating Section 103 of the Standard Building Code, 1985 Standard of Installation of Roofing Coverings adopted by Seminole County and Seminole County Ordinance Section 40.51.
The contract provided for a five (5) year labor warranty and a twenty (20) year material warranty. Respondent made several attempts to correct defects but has not fulfilled his warranty as the roof continued to leak.
By reason of the aforesaid allegations, Respondent has violated Section 489.129(1)(d), F.S., in that the Respondent willfully and deliberately disregarded and violated the applicable building code of a county, to wit, Seminole County, Florida by failing to obtain a permit and inspections as required by that county.
COUNT THIRTY-ONE
By reason of the foregoing allegations, Respondent has violated Section 489.129(1)(d), F.S., in that the Respondent willfully and deliberately disregarded and violated the applicable building code of a county, to wit, Seminole County, Florida by installing the above described roof in a grossly negligent manner and in a manner which violated Section 103 of the Standard Building Code, 1985 Standard of Installation of Roof Covering, adopted by Seminole County and Seminole Ordinances Section 40.51.
COUNT THIRTY-TWO
By reason of the aforesaid allegations, Respondent is guilty of violating Section 489.129(1)(m), F.S., by committing an act or acts of gross negligence, incompetency and/or misconduct in the practices of contracting by failing to honor his written warranty described above.
COUNT THIRTY-THREE
By reason of the aforesaid allegations, Respondent is guilty of violating Section 489.129(1)(m), F.S., by committing an act or acts of gross negligence, incompetency and/or misconduct in the practice of contracting.
FACTS RELATED TO RESPONDENT'S PROPOSED MITIGATION
Respondent has been engaged in the practice of roofing contracting for over twenty years.
Prior to moving to Florida in 1983 his company worked in Michigan, Ohio and Indiana on large commercial jobs.
In 1983 he was employed by the Disney company to do commercial roofing work.
After licensure in Florida, Cederberg continued with large public works and commercial jobs in Florida. Sometime around 1988, after a disastrous reversal of fortune, the company filed for bankruptcy.
Although he was utterly unfamiliar with the practice of residential roof contracting, particularly the demanding supervision involved, Gordon Cederberg began doing residential work.
Around this same time Cederberg's wife left him and he was given custody of three children, ages three, six, and nine. He was emotionally distraught and obtained counseling and financial and other support from his church group.
Cederberg's roofing contractor's license was suspended by the Construction Industry Licensing Board from August 1, 1988 to March 1, 1989, during which time he continued to work, due to financial pressures. Warranty work was not done due to his financial and emotional straits.
According to Cederberg and his witnesses, he is in the process now of turning his life around. He operates on a smaller scale and is able to handle the work. He has one employee and has been able to avoid new complaints.
He is still financially unable to provide restitution to the customers previously harmed.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction in this proceeding pursuant to Sections 455.225(5), F.S. and 120.57(1), F.S.
Respondent has admitted the violations of Chapter 489, F.S. outlined above.
As explained to the parties by the hearing officer at the hearing, her recommendation as to penalty is just that: a recommendation. The Florida Supreme Court has recently found
. . . it is a primary function of professional disciplinary boards to determine the appropriate punishment for the misconduct of the professionals it regulates. As long as the statute under which a professional agency operates provides guidelines for imposing penalties, the agency complies with Section 120.57(1)(b)10, and the increased penalty falls within the guidelines established by its statute, a professional board or agency has the discretion to increase the recommended penalty.
Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission v. Bradley, 596 So.2d 661, 663 (Fla. 1992)
The Construction Industry Licensing Board (CILB) has the authority pursuant to Section 489.129(1), F.S. to
. . . revoke, suspend, or deny the issuance or renewal of the certificate or registration of a contractor, require financial restitution to a consumer, impose an administrative fine not to exceed $5,000, place a contractor on probation, require continuing education, assess costs associated with investigation and prosecution, or reprimand or censure a contractor if the contractor or if the business organization for which the contractor is a primary qualifying agent or is a secondary qualifying agent responsible under Section 489.1195, is found guilty of [acts including those admitted by Respondent].
The disciplinary guidelines of the CILB are found in Chapter 21E-17,
F.A.C. Penalties for the violations alleged and admitted by Gordon Cederberg range from fines to revocation (Rule 21E-17.001, F.A.C.), with increases for repeat violations (Rule 21E-17.003, F.A.C.). Aggravating and mitigating circumstances are addressed in Rule 21E-17.002, F.A.C.
The aggravating circumstances here involve repeat offenses and damage to the customers, which damage has not been compensated by restitution. Mitigating factors include Respondent's obvious efforts at rehabilitation and the fact that the multiple offenses occurred in a relatively short period within a lengthy career.
These mitigating and aggravating factors have been considered along with all the factors described in Chapter 21E-17, F.A.C. in making this recommendation to the board.
Based on the foregoing it is hereby, RECOMMENDED:
that the parties' stipulation with regard to dismissals and admissions described above be accepted by the Board and that the following penalty be imposed:
a) 1000.00 fine;
one year suspension, with this penalty suspended during, and removed upon successful completion of, probation with an appropriate timetable for restitution and the requirement that appropriate continuing education courses are completed; and
payment of costs of investigation and prosecution.
DONE and ENTERED this 31st day of December, 1992, at Tallahassee, Florida.
MARY CLARK
Hearing Officer
Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building
1230 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550
(904) 488-9675
Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of December, 1992.
COPIES FURNISHED:
Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Professional
Regulation
1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
Daniel O'Brien, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board
P.O. Box 2 Jacksonville, FL 32202
William S. Cummins, Esquire Department of Professional
Regulation
1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
Jack Snow, Esquire
407 Wekiva Spings Road, Suite 229 Longwood, FL 32779
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS
All parties have the right to submit written exceptions to this Recommended Order. All agencies allow each party at least 10 days in which to submit written exceptions. Some agencies allow a larger period within which to submit written exceptions. You should consult with the agency that will issue the final order in this case concerning agency rules on the deadline for filing exceptions to this Recommended Order. Any exceptions to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that will issue the final order in this case.
=================================================================
AGENCY FINAL ORDER
=================================================================
STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING
DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION,
CASE NO.: 0106373, 0107766,
Petitioner, 0112740, 89-01674, 89-02162,
-vs- 89-08737, 0109636, 89-11891,
0108263
GORDON LEE CEDERBERG, DOAH CASE NO.: 91-8318, 91-8319 LICENSE NO.: RC 0051346,
Respondent.
/
FINAL ORDER
THIS MATTER came before the Construction Industry Licensing Board (hereinafter referred to as the "Board) pursuant to Section 120.57(1)(b)(9), Florida Statutes, on May 13, 1993, in Miami, Florida, for consideration of the Recommended Order (a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference). The Petitioner was represented by Wellington Meffert. The Respondent was present and represented by counsel at the Board meeting.
Upon consideration of the Hearing Officer's Recommended Order, and the arguments of the parties and after a review of the complete record in this matter, including the exceptions filed, the Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
The Hearing Officer's Findings of Fact are hereby approved and adopted except where they are in contradiction to Petitioner's Exceptions to Recommended Order and Motion for Increased Penalty which is hereby approved and adopted in toto and incorporated by reference for those reasons cited in said document.
There is competent, substantial evidence to support the Hearing Officer's Findings of Fact.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Board has jurisdiction of this matter pursuant to the provisions of Section 120.57(1), and Chapter 489, Florida Statutes.
The Hearing Officer's Conclusions of Law are hereby approved and adopted except where they are in contradiction to Petitioner's Exceptions to
Recommended Order and Motion for Increased Penalty which is hereby approved and adopted in toto and incorporated herein by reference.
Respondent is guilty of violating Section 489.129(1)(d),(h),(j),(m), and (n), Florida Statutes.
The penalty recommended by the Hearing Officer is hereby rejected for those reasons cited in Petitioner's Exceptions to Recommended Order and Motion for Increased Penalty.
There is competent, substantial evidence to support the Boards findings and conclusions.
THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
Respondent shall pay an administrative fine in the amount of five thousand dollars ($5,000.00) and costs in the amount of ten thousand seven hundred twenty dollars and twenty five cents ($10,720.25) to the Board and restitution to the customers named in the Administrative Complaint in the amounts specified therein. Said restitution shall be paid in twenty four (24) equal monthly payments to begin upon the effective date of this order; Respondent shalt send a monthly written report to the Board's Executive Director documenting said restitution payments. The aforementioned fine and costs, shall be paid in twelve (12) equal payments beginning on the twenty fifth (25th) month after the effective date of this order. Failure to make any of the ordered payments shall result in all payments begin due immediately and in total.
In addition, the Respondent will be required to pay interest on fines due to the Board at a rate of 18 percent per annum, beginning at the end of the payment period referenced to in the paragraph above.
Respondent shall be on probation in this case for three (3) years, and in connection therewith shall appear before the Board's Probation Committee, to stand for and answer questions from the Department and the Board, at the Board's regularly scheduled monthly meetings in the months of January 1994, July 1994, January 1995, July 1995, January 1996, and July 1996, wherever said meetings shall be held; provided Respondent's license is in good standing. Should Respondent's license be suspended or go inactive the probation period shall similarly go inactive and shall be reactivated for the remainder of the specified time upon reactivation of said license. The first probation appearance to be six months after said license is reactivated with subsequent probation appearances every six months until the original probation period is completed.
In connection with each probation appearance, Respondent will provide such information and documentation as the Department or Board shall request, within the time constraints set by the Department, said documentation to include, but not be limited to, monthly bank statements, financial statements, permit applications, contracts, and operations questionnaires. The burden shall be solely upon Respondent to remember the requirement for said appearance, and to take the necessary steps in advance of said appearances to contact the Board office and ascertain the specific time, date, and place of said appearance, the Respondent will not rely on getting notice of said appearances from the Board or Department. It shall be considered misconduct under Section 489.1129(1)(m) for Respondent to violate any condition of this probation.
To ensure successful completion of probation it is ordered that Respondent's license is suspended for twenty years with the suspension stayed for the period of probation. If Respondent successfully completes probation the suspension shall terminate. If Respondent fails to properly respond to or make successful probationary appearances as directed, upon notification to the Department by the Probation Committee Chairman, the stay shall be lifted. The suspension shall remain in effect for the remainder of the twenty year period or until a further stay is granted by the Board.
Pursuant to Section 120.59, Florida Statutes, the Parties are hereby notified that they may appeal this Final Order by filing one copy of a Notice of Appeal with the Clerk of the Department of Professional Regulation, Northwood Centre, 1940 N. Monroe Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792, and by filing the filing fee and one copy of the Notice of Appeal with the District Court of Appeal within thirty (30) days of the effective date of this Order.
This Order shall become effective upon filing with the clerk of the Department of Professional Regulation.
DONE AND ORDERED this 30th day of June, 1993.
CARLOS LOPEZ-CANTERA, Chairman
Construction Industry Licensing Board
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Final Order has been provided by U.S. to
Gordon Lee Cederberg Jack Snow
2220 Fairglenn Way 407 Wekiva Springs Road
Winter Park, Florida 32794 Suite 229
Longwood, Florida 32779
and by hand delivery/United States Mail to the Board Clerk, Department of Professional Regulation and its Counsel, Northwood Centre, 1940 North Monroe Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792, on or before 5:00 p.m., this 30th day of June, 1993.
Susanne Gray
| Issue Date | Proceedings |
|---|---|
| Jul. 02, 1993 | Final Order filed. |
| Jan. 08, 1993 | Letter to MWC from Jack Snow (re: request for 10 more days to finalize Discovery) filed. |
| Dec. 31, 1992 | Recommended Order sent out. CASE CLOSED. Hearing held 10/1/92. |
| Nov. 09, 1992 | (Petitioner) Proposed Recommended Order filed. |
| Oct. 20, 1992 | Transcript filed. |
| Oct. 06, 1992 | (Orange County) Motion for Protective Order filed. |
| Oct. 01, 1992 | CASE STATUS: Hearing Held. |
| Sep. 01, 1992 | Notice of Telephone Hearing sent out. (telephonic final hearing set for 9-10-92; 10:00am) |
| Aug. 05, 1992 | Notice of Hearing filed. (From William S. Cummins) |
| Jul. 29, 1992 | Notice of Hearing sent out. (hearing set for October 1-2, 1992; 9:00am; Orlando) |
| Jul. 28, 1992 | Order sent out. (Motion for continuance granted) |
| Jul. 23, 1992 | Notice of Filing Petitioner`s Second Request for Admissions filed. |
| Jul. 23, 1992 | (Petitioner) Noticed of Filing Motion for Continuance w/Motion for Continuance & cover ltr filed. (From William S. Cummins) |
| Jul. 09, 1992 | Notice of Hearing sent out. (hearing set for August 27-28, 1992; 9:00am; Orlando) |
| Jul. 08, 1992 | Petitioner`s Second Request for Admissions filed. |
| May 04, 1992 | Order Granting Continuance sent out. (hearing date to be rescheduled at a later date; parties to file status report by 5-22-92) |
| Apr. 28, 1992 | Petitioner`s First Request for Admissions filed. |
| Apr. 27, 1992 | (Petitioner) Motion for Continuance filed. |
| Apr. 17, 1992 | Order sent out. (response shall be filed no later than 5:00pm, 4-20-92) |
| Apr. 15, 1992 | Ltr. to JDP from W. Cummins re: change of address filed. |
| Apr. 14, 1992 | Motion to Deem Admitted Petitioner`s First Request for Admissions; Petitioner`s First Request for Admissions (unanswered) filed. |
| Feb. 10, 1992 | Notice of Hearing sent out. (hearing set for May 7-8, 1992; 9:00am; Orlando). |
| Jan. 22, 1992 | (DPR) Response to Initial Order filed. |
| Jan. 15, 1992 | Petitioner`s First Request for Admissions filed. |
| Jan. 13, 1992 | Initial Order sent out. |
| Dec. 27, 1991 | Agency referral letter; Administrative Complaint; Election of Rights filed. |
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Jun. 30, 1993 | Agency Final Order | |
| Dec. 31, 1992 | Recommended Order | Resp admitted allegations, presented mitigation evid. Roofing contr. failed to pull permits, multi-minor viol-$1000 fine probation w/restit plus costs. |
