STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, the Division of Administrative Hearings, by its Administrative Law Judge, Joyous D. Parrish, conducted a formal hearing in the above-styled matter in Tallahassee, Florida. As explained below, this hearing was not completed.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioners: Wilbur E. Brewton, Esquire

Lee M. Killinger, Esquire Gray, Harris & Robinson, P.A.

225 South Adams Street, Suite 250 Tallahassee, Florida 32301

(Attorneys for Calder Race Course, Inc. and Tropical Park, Inc.)

Howell L. Ferguson, Esquire Cindy L. Bartin, Esquire LANDERS & PARSONS

310 West College Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32302

(Attorneys for Tampa Bay Downs, Inc.)

David S. Romanik, Esquire ROMANIK, LAVIN, HUSS & PAOLI

1901 Harrison Street

Hollywood, Florida 33020 (Attorneys for Gulfstream Park

Racing Association, Inc.)

Warren H. Husband, Esquire

Messer, Caparello, Madsen, Goldman & Metz, P.A.

Post Office Box 1876 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1876

(Attorneys for Florida Thoroughbred Breeders' Association)

Alan B. Koslow, Esquire David H. Reimer, Esquire BECKER & POLIAKOFF, P.A.

Post Office Box 9057

Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33310-9057 (Attorneys for PPI, Inc.)

For Respondent: Alexander H. Twedt, Esquire

Department of Business and Professional Regulation

1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792

Harry R. Detwiler, Jr., Esquire John M. Alford, Esquire

ALFORD & DETWILER

1106-6 A Thomasville Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303

For Intervenors: Gary R. Rutledge, Esquire

Harold F.X. Purnell, Esquire Rutledge, Ecenia, Underwood, Purnell & Hoffman, P.A.

Post Office Box 551 Tallahassee, Florida 32302

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

Whether Petitioners are entitled to exceed the twenty percent cap on simulcasts.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

These cases arose because the Petitioners sought to conduct full card simulcasting from locations outside this state at their respective racing facilities. The statute in effect at the time of the petitions placed a twenty percent cap on such broadcasts except when otherwise authorized by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering (the Department). Such statute further directed the Department to consider the best interests of racing and the need to promote live racing and purse distribution when determining whether or not to grant full card simulcasting.

The Department denied each of the Petitioners' requests to exceed the twenty percent cap. Efforts to obtain administrative review of the denials ultimately ended with the cases being forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings for formal proceedings. Calder Race Course, Inc., the first of the Petitioners to challenge the Department's denial, was assigned DOAH

case no. 95-6180 and was referred for hearing on December 19, 1995. The other petitions followed and were consolidated with the lowest numbered case.

The Intervenors, a group of greyhound kennel clubs, opposed full card simulcasting and maintained their interests must be considered in determining the "best interests of racing." They were granted intervention in the matter because of the intra-state implications which result when full card simulcasting is, in effect, rebroadcast among the various pari-mutuel facilities within the state.

Without detailing the host of prehearing matters which occurred, the hearing was commenced on April 30, 1996, with the Petitioners presenting evidence and testimony in support of why they should be permitted to exceed the twenty percent cap. They and the Department had rested their cases when it was discovered that legislation approved by the Florida legislature would, arguably, render this matter moot as it removed the limitation on simulcast broadcasts provided the guidelines of the new statute would be met.

In response to a request to continue the hearing in order to verify the status of the legislation, the hearing was delayed until May 30, 1996. At that time, the Department and the Intervenors argued that once allowed to become law, House Bill 337 would effectively permit the Petitioners to conduct full card simulcasting. Petitioners claimed that it was still speculative as to whether or not the new law would be unchallenged or be allowed to go into effect as projected by the Department. All parties were granted leave until June 6, 1996, to file appropriate pleadings regarding their positions in this cause.

The Department and the Intervenors argue that the case is moot since the new statute allows the Petitioners to do what they have requested. Petitioners maintain that since some of their racing seasons do not begin until later in the year, or, in the case of Gulfstream not until 1997, that the Department must render a decision on their petitions. Such decision is mandated they claim because, if challenged, the new law has a reverse severability clause which would render all portions of the bill invalid if any portion is determined to be so. Further, Petitioners argue that since the Department has agreed that full card simulcasting is in the best interests of racing as evidenced by their consent to allow full card simulcasting prior to the effective date of the new law, that the Department should grant the Petitioners' petitions.

This order is entered to resolve all outstanding motions filed by the parties. Rule 60Q-2.016(3), Florida Administrative Code provides:

Whenever a ruling on a motion recommends action by the agency head which is dispositive of a matter, it shall be incorporated in a recommended order.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The Department is the state agency charged with the responsibility of regulating pari-mutuel facilities within the State of Florida.

   
   

2. The Department also regulates, pursuant to Chapter 550, Florida Statutes, simulcast broadcasts of pari-mutuel events which are imported into the state at pari-mutuel facilities located within Florida.

   
   

3. Such broadcasts are permissible and are subject to statutory taxes depending on the type of event and the applicable percentages of tax on the wagers received. Such amounts may vary depending on facility and type of event.

4. Thoroughbred racing permit holders may simulcast thoroughbred races conducted at out-of-state thoroughbred tracks. Similarly, a harness racing facility may simulcast harness races conducted at out-of-state harness tracks. Theoretically, greyhound clubs may simulcast greyhound races conducted out-of- state and jai alai may simulcast jai alai matches from out-of-state.

   
   

5. In each instance, the Florida pari-mutuel permit holder may send the simulcast signal to any pari-mutuel permit holder within the state.

   
   

6. Historically, the number of the races which could be imported from out- of-state to be broadcast at a Florida permit holder location was capped at twenty percent. A permit holder could exceed this limitation with approval from the Department when it was in the best interests of racing and would promote live racing and purse distribution.

   
   

7. Petitioner, Calder Race Course, Inc. (Calder), is a thoroughbred racing pari-mutuel permit holder fully authorized by the Department to conduct live races during its racing meet. Its racing facility is located in Miami, Florida.

   
   

8. In June, 1995, Calder first requested permission to conduct full card simulcasting pursuant to Section 550.3551(6), Florida Statutes. That request, covering racing dates remaining for the 1995-1996 racing season, was denied. Moreover, Calder's request for an administrative hearing to challenge the denial was also denied.

   
   

9. Calder's successful appeal to the district court of appeal ultimately resulted in this matter, DOAH case no. 95-6180, being referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings for formal proceedings.

   
   

10. In December, 1995, Calder again filed an application to exceed the twenty percent full card simulcast limitation for its 1996-1997 racing season. Again, the Department denied the request.

    
    

11. Having the benefit of the appellate decision, the Department referred the matter, DOAH case no. 96-1348, to the Division of Administrative Hearings for formal proceedings.

    
    

12. Petitioner, Tampa Bay Downs, Inc. (TBD), is a thoroughbred racing pari-mutuel permit holder fully authorized to conduct live races during its racing season. Its racing facility is located in Oldsmar, Florida.

    
    

13. In September, 1995 and January, 1996, TBD applied for full card simulcasting for its racing meet. Consistent with its response to Calder's request, the Department denied the TBD applications and referred the matter to the Division of Administrative Hearings for formal proceedings, DOAH case nos. 96-0025 and 96-1351.

    
    

14. Petitioner, Tropical Park, Inc. (Tropical), is a thoroughbred racing pari-mutuel permit holder that is fully authorized to conduct live races during its racing season. It shares the Calder facility in Miami but has a different racing meet.

    
    

15. Like Calder, Tropical filed for full card simulcasting for its 1996- 1997 racing meet and was denied by the Department. Its petition for formal proceedings has been designated DOAH case no. 96-1349.

16. Petitioner, Gulfstream Park Racing Association, Inc. (Gulfstream) is a thoroughbred racing pari-mutuel permit holder fully authorized to conduct live races during its racing season. Gulfstream is located in Hallandale, Florida.

    
    

17. On or about January 3, 1996, Gulfstream filed an application with the Department for authorization to exceed the twenty percent limitation on simulcasts. This application was for the 1996-1997 racing season with a race meet running from January 3, 1997 through March 16, 1997.

    
    

18. The Department denied Gulfstream's application. Such denial, DOAH case no. 96-1350, was timely opposed by Gulfstream.

    
    

19. Petitioner, PPI, Inc., d/b/a Pompano Park Racing (Pompano), is a harness racing pari-mutuel permit holder that is fully authorized to conduct live harness races during its racing season. Pompano is located in Pompano Beach, Florida.

    
    

20. On or about December 20, 1995, Pompano filed an application with the Department for authorization to exceed the twenty percent limitation on simulcasts. This application was for Pompano's 1996-1997 racing season.

    
    

21. The Department denied Pompano's application. Such denial, DOAH case no. 96-1392, was timely opposed by Pompano.

    
    

22. Petitioner, the Florida Thoroughbred Breeders' Association, d/b/a the Florida Thoroughbred Breeders' and Owners' Association (Breeders), is a nonprofit corporation with its principal place of business located in Ocala, Florida. This Petitioner represents Florida owners and breeders of thoroughbred race horses.

    
    

23. The Breeders maintain that denying simulcasting in excess of the twenty percent limitation adversely impacts the amounts which must be paid as the breeder's percentage of the wagers made at pari-mutuel facilities. Thus, Florida breeders lose income which simulcasting in excess of the cap would contribute to breeders' awards.

    
    

24. The Intervenors are greyhound pari-mutuel permit holders who opposed full card simulcasting in excess of the statutory twenty percent limitation. Such Intervenors did not oppose the importation of the broadcast signals to a specific pari-mutuel location, but opposed its unbridled rebroadcast to pari- mutuel facilities within the state as allowed by law.

    
    

25. Before the hearing in this cause was completed and on the last day of the 1996 regular session, the Legislature enacted CS/HB 337. Such bill became law without the Governor's signature and went into effect on July 1, 1996. The new law made numerous amendments to Chapter 550, Florida Statutes.

    
    

26. Among the changes was the removal of the twenty percent limitation on simulcast wagering for pari-mutuel permit holders.

    
    

27. On May 16, 1996, the Department issued a letter to all pari-mutuel wagering permit holders that provided, in pertinent part:

    
    

    In light of this omnibus legislation which addressed the concerns of the entire pari- mutuel industry including the issues surrounding full-card simulcasting, the

    Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering (Division) believes it is in the best interest of Florida racing to immediately allow full- card simulcast wagering until June 30, 1996 pursuant to the Division's discretion set forth in subsection six of Section 550.3551, Florida Statutes.

    
    

    Accordingly, any pari-mutuel wagering permitholder whose annual license currently authorizes them to conduct live performances at any time during the period of May 17, 1996 through June 30, 1996 may receive broadcasts of like-kind events conducted at facilities outside this State at the race- track, dog track, or jai-alai enclosure of the licensee during any live performance authorized by the permitholder's annual license. On June 30, 1996 the privilege granted by this letter terminates; thereby, ending any authorization to exceed the twenty-percent limitation on simulcast wagering for all permitholders within the State. Full-card simulcast wagering authorized and regulated pursuant to the provisions in the Committee Substitute for House Bill 337 becomes effective on

    July 1, 1996.

    
    

28. Thereafter, the Department filed a motion to dismiss Petitioners' requests for formal administrative hearing due to mootness.

    
    

29. The Intervenors have supported the Department's motion to dismiss.

    
    

30. The Petitioners, with the exception of Gulfstream which wanted the hearing and the administrative process to be completed, filed a motion to abate so that the 1996-1997 racing season may be completed before a determination is made as to the mootness of the issue.

    
    

    CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

    
    

31. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties to, and the subject matter of, these proceedings.

    
    

32. Based upon the Legislature enactment of CS/HB 337 together with the Department's letter of May 16, 1996, it is concluded that full card simulcast wagering is in the best interests of Florida racing.

    
    

33. Regardless of whether the bill would withstand a challenge on other grounds, it is concluded that the Department has accepted full card simulcast wagering as appropriate for the pari-mutuel industry in Florida. It may not deny that option to these Petitioners based upon some speculative issue with the enacting legislation.

    
    

34. Accordingly, these Petitioners should not have to wait for the 1996- 1997 season to conclude to determine whether they may conduct full card simulcast wagering throughout this racing season.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED:

That the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering, enter a final order approving all full card simulcasting applications for which days remain in the Petitioner's racing meet. All other applications are deemed moot as the racing meets have expired.

DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of October, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

JOYOUS D. PARRISH

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060

(904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675

Fax Filing (904) 921-6847

Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of October 1996.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Alexander H. Twedt, Esquire Department of Business and

Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792

Harry R. Detwiler, Jr., Esquire John M. Alford, Esquire

ALFORD & DETWILER

1106-6 A Thomasville Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303

Wilbur E. Brewton, Esquire Lee M. Killinger, Esquire Gray, Harris & Robinson, P.A.

225 South Adams Street, Suite 250 Tallahassee, Florida 32301

(Attorneys for Calder Race Course, Inc. and Tropical Park, Inc.)

Howell L. Ferguson, Esquire Cindy L. Bartin, Esquire LANDERS & PARSONS

Post Office Box 271 Tallahassee, Florida 32302

(Attorneys for Tampa Bay Downs, Inc.)

Gary R. Rutledge, Esquire Harold F.X. Purnell, Esquire Rutledge, Ecenia, Underwood,

Purnell & Hoffman, P.A. Post Office Box 551 Tallahassee, Florida 32302

(Attorneys for the Intervenors)

David S. Romanik, Esquire ROMANIK, LAVIN, HUSS & PAOLI

1901 Harrison Street

Hollywood, Florida 33020 (Attorneys for Gulfstream Park Racing Association, Inc.)

Warren H. Husband, Esquire

Messer, Caparello, Madsen, Goldman & Metz, P.A.

Post Office Box 1876 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1876

(Attorneys for Florida Thoroughbred Breeders' Association)

Alan B. Koslow, Esquire David H. Reimer, Esquire BECKER & POLIAKOFF, P.A.

Post Office Box 9057

Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33310-9057 (Attorneys for PPI, Inc.)

Lynda L. Goodgame General Counsel

Department of Business and Professional Regulation

1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792

Royal H. Logan Acting Director

Pari-Mutuel Wagering Department of Business and

Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within 15 days from the date of 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 BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION

CALDER RACE COURSE, INC., et al.,

Petitioners, DOAH Case Nos: 95-6180 96-0025

vs. 96-1348

96-1349

DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND 96-1350

PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, DIVISION 96-1351

OF PARI-MUTUEL WAGERING, 96-1392

96-1393

Respondent,

and

WEST FLAGLER ASSOCIATES, LTD.,

et al.,

Intervenors.

/

FINAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL

DUE TO MOOTNESS AND LACK OF JURISDICTION

This matter is before the Secretary of the Department of Business and Professional Regulation (Agency) for the purpose of issuing a final order. On October 30, 1996, an Administrative Law Judge from the Division of Administrative Hearings forwarded to the Department her Recommended Order, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A and, by reference, incorporated as part of this Order. On November 14, 1996, Respondent, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering (hereinafter referred to as "Department"), timely filed exceptions to the Recommended Order, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit B. On November 14, 1996, Petitioner, Tampa Bay Downs, Inc. timely filed exceptions to the Recommended Order, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit C. Also on November 14, 1996, Intervenors, West Flagler Associates, Ltd. et al. (hereinafter referred to as "Intervening Greyhound Tracks") timely filed exceptions to the Recommended Order, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit D.

BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS

These cases arose because certain thoroughbred and harness racing permit holders sought to conduct full card simulcasting from locations outside this state at their respective racing facilities. At the time of each request, sections 550.3551(3) and (4), Florida Statutes (1995), authorized all licensed pari-mutuel wagering permit holders to receive broadcasts conducted at pari- mutuel facilities located outside Florida. Section 550.3551(6), Florida Statutes (1995), placed a twenty percent cap on such broadcasts except when otherwise authorized by the Department. The Department could only adjust the twenty percent limitation when evidence demonstrated that such adjustment was in the "best interest of racing" and when such an adjustment would "promote live racing and the purse distribution." Fla. Stat. s 550.3551(6)(1995).

The Department denied each of the permit holders' requests to exceed the twenty percent cap. Petitions filed by permit holders (and the Florida Thoroughbred Breeders' Assoc., Inc.) with the Department concerning this issue were forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings for formal proceedings, individual case numbers were assigned, the related cases were ultimately consolidated and a formal hearing before an Administrative Law Judge commenced on April 30, 1996.

Before the hearing in this cause was completed and on the last day of the 1996 regular session, the Legislature enacted CS/HB 337. This bill became law without the Governor's signature and went into effect on July 1, 1996. The new law made numerous amendments to Chapter 550, Florida Statutes, including a change to section 550.3551(6) to remove the twenty percent limitation on simulcast wagering for pari-mutuel permit holders and to eliminate any Department authority to regulate or limit the number of full card simulcasts received by petitioning permit holders. Fla. CS/HB 337, s 12 at 24 (1996) (Codified at Fla. Stat. s 550.3551(6) (Supp. 1996)).

Under the old law, there was an authorization to engage in simulcast wagering and a twenty percent limitation was placed on that authorization; any exception to the twenty percent limitation had to be authorized by the Department. Fla. Stat. s 550.3551(3),(4) and (6)(1995). Under current law, all permit holders are allowed to engage in simulcast wagering with the twenty percent limitation being applied only to greyhound permit holders not located in Dade or Broward County. Fla. Stat s 550.3551(6)(Supp. 1996). Moreover, the new law removes all Department discretion and authority to adjust the twenty percent limitation on simulcast wagering.

By operation of law, each Petitioner in this case licensed to conduct pari- mutuel wagering in the State of Florida is authorized to engage in unlimited full card simulcasting for fiscal year 1996-97 thereby ending any case or controversy Petitioners have concerning the denial of requests for this time period. Similarly, there is no longer any case or controversy concerning the Department's denial of requests to engage in unlimited simulcast wagering during fiscal year 1995-1996 which ended on June 30, 1996. The Florida Supreme Court, in 1991, held that "[a] case is moot" when it presents no actual controversy or when the issues have ceased to exist." Godwin v. State, 593 So.2d 211, 212 (Fla. 1991). Furthermore, whether a case is moot depends upon the existence of a case or controversy in which a decision can be rendered and whether that decision can be given effect. Montgomery v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 468 So.2d 1014, 1016-17 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). By virtue of the action taken by the Legislature, the issues raised by Petitioners in these cases have

been resolved through legislative action and by operation of law; the issues cease to exist and no longer present a case or controversy upon which the relief sought by Petitioners can be granted or given effect.

The Administrative Law Judge submitted to this Agency a Recommended Order in this case including findings of facts pertaining to the issues in question. Section 120.57(1)(b), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1996), provides in part that:

all parties shall have an opportunity to respond, to present evidence and argument on all issues involved, to conduct cross- examination and submit rebuttal evidence, to submit proposed findings of facts and order, to file exceptions to the presiding officer's recommended order, and to be represented by counsel or other qualified representative.

Section 120.57(1)(j), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1996), provides in part that:

The agency may not reject or modify the findings of fact unless the agency first determines

from a review of the entire record, and states with particularity in the order, that the findings of fact were not based upon the competent substantial evidence or that the proceedings on which the findings were based did not comply with essential requirements

of law.

The evidentiary proceedings relating to Petitioners' cases were abated by the Administrative Law Judge after the Legislature enacted CS/HB 337, legislation directly related to authorizing full card simulcasting. After this legislation became law, the Administrative Law Judge issued a Recommended Order without reconvening the evidentiary hearing. As a result, no party had the opportunity to submit a Proposed Recommended Order to the Administrative Law Judge. Additionally, the Intervening Greyhound Tracks did not have the opportunity to present evidence and argument in this proceeding. Furthermore, although parties in this proceeding timely filed exceptions to the Recommended Order, the Agency is unable to reach any definitive conclusions regarding findings of fact in the absence of a completed hearing and a review of a full transcript of the proceedings.

Although the fact-finding hearing in this case was not concluded prior to the issuance of the Administrative Law Judge's Recommended Order, a remand to the Division of Administrative Hearings is not appropriate in this instance.

Manasota 88, Inc. v. Them or, 545 So.2d 439 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)("agency has the authority, if not the obligation, to demand the evidentiary proceedings necessary to resolve all factual issues involved in the application presently before it.") The legal conclusions outlined herein relating to the mootness of the case in controversy and the jurisdiction of this Department are dispositive of the petitions filed, and resolution of any disputed issues of fact in this case would not alter the legal conclusions in this Order. Accordingly, there would be no purpose served by the Agency remanding this matter to the Division of Administrative Hearings to correct procedural deficiencies relating to fact finding and the issuance of the Recommended Order.

In her Recommended Order, the Administrative Law Judge recommends that the Department enter a final order approving all full card simulcasting applications for which days remain in the Petitioner's racing meet. As explained herein, by operation of law the issues raised by the petitions filed are moot. Because the matter is moot, the Department is without jurisdiction to make a final determination on the petitions. See Montgomery v. Department of Health & Rehab. Services, 468 So.2d 1014, 1016 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). Therefore, the Petitions should be dismissed on the grounds of mootness.

Based on the foregoing, it is ORDERED:

1. The recommendation of the Administrative Law Judge that the Department enter a final order approving all full card simulcasting applications for which days remain in the Petitioner's racing meet is hereby rejected for the reasons stated herein.

   
   

2. For reasons stated herein, all petitions in this matter are dismissed on the ground of mootness and lack of jurisdiction.

This Final Order becomes effective upon its filing with the Agency Clerk of the Department of Business and Professional Regulation.

DONE and ORDERED this 27th day of January, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County.

Richard T. Farrell, Secretary Department of Business and

Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW

The parties are hereby notified pursuant to section 120.569(1), Florida Statutes, that an appeal of this Final Order may be taken pursuant to section 120.68, Florida Statutes, by filing one copy of a Notice to Appeal with the Agency Clerk of the Department of Business and Professional Regulation and one copy of a Notice to Appeal with the required filing fee with the District Court of Appeal within thirty days of the date this Order is filed with the Agency Clerk of the Department of Business and Professional Regulation.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Final Order and its attachments have been sent by U.S. Mail to the following on this 27th day of January, 1997:

Harry R. Detwiler, Jr., Esquire John M. Alford, Esquire

1106-A Thomasville Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303

Howell L. Ferguson, Esquire Cindy L. Bartin, Esquire Landers & Parsons

Post Office Box 271 Tallahassee, Florida 32302

Wilbur E. Brewton, Esquire Gray, Harris & Robinson, P.A.

225 South Adams Street Tallahassee, Florida 32302-3189

Harold F. X. Purnell, Esquire Gary R. Rutledge, Esquire

Rutledge, Ecenia, Underwood & Purnell, P.A. Post Office 551

Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0551

David S. Romanik, Esquire Romanik, Lavin, Huss, and Paoli Post Office Box 1040

Hollywood, Florida 33022

Alan B. Koslow, Esquire Becker & Poliakoff, P.A. Post Office Box 9057

Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33312

Warren H. Husband, Esquire

Msser, Caparello, Madsen, Goldman & Metz, P.A.

Post Office Box 1876 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1876

Alex Twedt, Esquire

Office of the' General Counsel Department of Business and Professional

Regulation

1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750

Joyous D. Parrish Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060

Lynda Goodgame, Esquire Office of the General Counsel Department of Business and

Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Telephone: 904/488-3140

Docket for Case No: 95-006180

Orders for Case No: 95-006180