STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND )

PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, ) CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING ) BOARD, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) Case No. 05-0082PL

)

WAYNE H. WAGIE, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, A final hearing was held in this case before Larry J. Sartin, an Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings, on March 10, 2005, in Miami, Florida.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Theodore R. Gay

Assistant General Counsel Department of Business and

Professional Regulation 8685 Northwest 53rd Terrace, Suite 100

Miami, Florida 33166

For Respondent: Wayne H. Wagie, pro se

220 Northeast 45th Street Miami, Florida 33137

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

The issue in this case is whether Respondent, Wayne H. Wagie, committed the offenses alleged in an Administrative Complaint filed with Petitioner, the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, on August 11, 2004, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

On August 11, 2004, an Administrative Complaint was filed with Petitioner alleging that Respondent had violated certain statutory provisions governing certified general contractors in the State of Florida. Respondent filed a document titled Election of Rights, disputing the factual allegations of the Administrative Complaint and requesting a hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes (2004). A copy of the Administrative Complaint and the Election of Rights form was filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings on

January 10, 2005. The matter was designated DOAH Case No. 05- 0086PL and was assigned to the undersigned.

The final hearing was scheduled for March 10, 2005, by Amended Notice of Hearing issued March 4, 2005. On March 9, 2005, Petitioner filed a Motion to Present Testimony by Late- Filed Deposition. In the Motion, Petitioner requested that a witness, Candice Sicre, be allowed to testify via late-filed deposition due to the witness's medical condition. At the

commencement of the final hearing, the Motion was granted. Ms. Sicre's deposition was taken June 22, 2005.

At the final hearing Petitioner presented the testimony of Amy Aronson and Abdel Cedeno. Petitioner also offered

18 Exhibits which were marked and admitted. The deposition testimony of Ms. Sicre included two additional exhibits, Petitioner's Exhibits 19 and 20, which are hereby admitted. The deposition transcript has been marked as Petitioner's

Exhibit 21. Respondent testified on his own behalf and had admitted one Exhibit.

At the conclusion of the hearing it was agreed that post- hearing argument would be filed ten days from the later of the filing of the transcript of the final hearing or the deposition testimony of Ms. Sicre. The Transcript of the final hearing was filed April 27, 2005. The Transcript of Ms. Sicre's testimony was filed August 9, 2005. Post-hearing submittals were due, therefore, on or before August 19, 2005. Petitioner filed Petitioner's Proposed Recommended Order on August 19, 2005.

That pleading has been fully considered in issuing this Recommended Order.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The Parties.

   
   

   1. Petitioner, the Department of Business and Professional Regulation (hereinafter referred to as the "Department"), is the

      agency of the State of Florida charged with the responsibility for, among other things, the licensure of individuals who wish to engage in contracting in the State of Florida; and the investigation and prosecution of complaints against individuals who have been so licensed. See Ch. 689, Fla. Stat (2005).

   2. Respondent, Wayne H. Wagie, is and has been at all times material hereto a licensed certified general contractor in Florida.

   3. Mr. Wagie was originally licensed as a certified general contractor on or about December 28, 1978, license number CGC 13331. At all times material hereto, the status of his license has been "Current, Active."

   4. At all times material, Mr. Wagie was the qualifying agent for Unified Construction Technologies, Inc (hereinafter referred to as "Unified Construction"), a Florida corporation. Unified Construction did not have a certificate of authority as a qualified business organization.

   5. The Department has jurisdiction over Mr. Wagie's license.

2. The Spiegel Brothers.

   
   

   1. At the times material to this matter, Mr. Wagie engaged in a business arrangement with two brothers, Abraham and Yosef Spiegel (hereinafter referred to jointly as the "Spiegel Brothers), whereby Mr. Wagie allowed the Spiegel Brothers to use

      his general contractor's license number and qualifying number to pull permits for a company through which the Spiegel Brothers conducted construction business.

   2. The Spiegel Brothers' construction company was Mega Construction Group, Inc., d/b/a Mega Construction Group, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "Mega Construction").

   3. Pursuant to their agreement, Mega Construction, through the Spiegel Brothers, was to handle all aspects of any construction contracts the Spiegel Brothers were able to enter into, including negotiating the contract, handling funds received from customers, and performing all necessary work. The only function not to be carried out by the Spiegel Brothers or Mega Construction was to actually obtain the necessary building permits; that was Mr. Wagie's responsibility. In exchange for his services, Mr. Wagie was to receive a percentage of the sales price, with half paid upon execution of the contract and half after completion of the work.

   4. Neither of the Spiegel Brothers was a licensed general contractor in Florida. Nor was Mega Construction certified as a contractor qualified to do construction business in Florida. Mr. Wagie was aware of these facts.

3. The Sicre Contract.

   
   

   1. In 2001, Candida Sicre owned and resided at a house located at 650 82nd Street, Miami Beach, Florida.

   2. Ms. Sicre was interested in adding a handicap accessible bathroom to her home and, when she received a flyer in the mail advertising Mega Construction, she contacted the Spiegel Brothers.

   3. On August 13, 2001, Ms. Sicre entered into a written contract with Mega Construction (hereinafter referred to as the "Sicre Contract"). Pursuant to the Sicre Contract, Mega Construction agreed to construct a new handicap-accessible bathroom for which Ms. Sicre agreed to pay a total of

      $15,762.00. As part of their contract, it was agreed that an air-conditioning unit would be relocated. While the relocation of the air-conditioning unit is listed as "1" and the construction of the new bathroom is listed as "2" in the Sicre Contract, in fact the relocation of the air-conditioning unit was a necessary component of the construction of the new bathroom, for the new bathroom was to be constructed from where the air-conditioning unit was to be relocated.

   4. Ms. Sicre paid a total of $7,762.00 on the agreed Sicre Contract price.

   5. On September 17, 2001, Mr. Wagie, pursuant to his agreement with the Spiegel Brothers, signed a building permit application required to complete the Sicre Contract. That application was filed with the City of Miami Beach building department on or about January 4, 2002. On the permit

      application, Unified Construction was listed as the "Company," Mr. Wagie was listed as "Qualifier," and Mr. Wagie's license number was listed as the "License No." under "Contractor Information".

   6. The permit application was approved by the City of Miami Beach on or about May 31, 2002, and permit number KB0201178 was issued.

   7. Pursuant to an agreement between the Spiegel Brothers and Ms. Sicre, the starting date for the Sicre Contract was postponed to August 15, 2002, just over a year after it had been entered into.

   8. At some time after the Sicre Contract was entered into, the air-conditioning unit was relocated as specified in the contract.

   9. Except for the relocation of the air-conditioning unit, no further work specified under the Sicre Contract was performed. The actual construction of the new bathroom was never started. Eventually, Ms. Sicre was told that the work would not be performed because Mega Construction was going to declare bankruptcy.

   10. After being told that the new bathroom would not be completed, Ms. Sicre sold her house. She attempted, however, to obtain a refund of some of the $7,762.00 she had paid Mega Construction.

   11. Eventually, Ms. Sicre learned of Mr. Wagie's involvement with the Spiegel Brothers and, through a series of negotiations, it was agreed that she would receive a refund of

       $2,000.00 through Mr. Wagie from the Spiegel Brothers. She was eventually given two $1,000.00 checks in furtherance of this agreement, but the checks ultimately "bounced."

   12. The only work performed on the Sicre Contract by Mega Construction was the drawing of a building permit and the relocation of the air-conditioning unit. For this work,

       Ms. Sicre paid a total of $7,762.00. Ultimately, Mega Construction, although beginning the project by relocating the air-conditioning unit, abandoned the project without its completion.

4. Prior Disciplinary Action.

   
   

   1. On July 15, 1996, the Department filed a Final Order reflecting that a settlement stipulation had been approved by the Construction Industry Licensing Board (hereinafter referred to as the "Board"), pursuant to which Mr. Wagie agreed to pay an administrative fine in the amount of $250.00, plus investigative and legal costs in the amount of $368.30 to resolve charges against his license, which Mr. Wagie denied.

5. The Department's Costs of Investigation and Prosecution.

1. The Department has incurred $597.69 in the investigation and prosecution of this matter.

   CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

   
   

   1. Jurisdiction.

      
      

2. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this proceeding and of the parties thereto pursuant to Sections 120.569 and 120.57(1), Florida Statutes (2005).

   1. The Burden and Standard of Proof.

      
      

3. In the Administrative Complaint, the Department has sought, among other penalties, the revocation of Mr. Wagie's general contractor's license. Therefore, the Department has the burden of proving the allegations in the Administrative Complaint by clear and convincing evidence. See Department of Banking and Finance, Division of Securities and Investor Protection v. Osborne Stern and Co., 670 So. 2d 932 (Fla. 1996); Ferris v. Turlington, 510 So. 2d 292 (Fla. 1987); and McKinney v. Castor, 667 So. 2d 387 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995).

4. Clear and Convincing evidence has been defined as evidence which:

   [r]equires that the evidence must be found to be credible; the facts to which the witnesses testify must be distinctly

   remembered; the testimony must be precise and explicit and the witnesses must be lacking in confusion as to the facts in issue. The evidence must be of such weight that it produces in the mind of the trier of fact a firm belief or conviction, without hesitancy, as to the truth of the allegations sought to be established.

   
   

   Slomowitz v. Walker, 429 So. 2d 797, 800 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983).

   1. The Department’s Authority to Discipline General Contractors; The Charges Against Mr. Wagie.

5. Section 489.129(1), Florida Statutes (2000), gives the Board the authority to revoke or suspend the license of any General Contractor, if he or she commits certain acts specified in the statute.

6. In this case, Mr. Wagie has been alleged to have committed the acts proscribed by Section 489.129(1)(d), (g)3., (i), and (m), Florida Statutes (2000).

   1. Counts I and III; Section 489.129(1)(i), Florida Statutes (2000).

7. Section 489.129(1)(i), Florida Statutes (2000), provides that disciplinary action may be taken by the Board if a general contractor is guilty of:

   1. Failing in any material respect to comply with the provisions of this part or violating a rule or lawful order of the board.

8. In Count I, it has been alleged that Mr. Wagie violated this provision by having violated Section 489.127(4), Florida Statutes (2000), which provides, in pertinent part:

   (4)(a) A certified or registered contractor, or contractor authorized by a local construction regulation board to do contracting, may not enter into an agreement, oral or written, whereby his or her certification number or registration number is used, or to be used, by a person who is not certified or registered as provided for in this chapter, or used, or to be used, by a business organization that is not duly qualified as provided for in this chapter to engage in the business, or act in the capacity, of a contractor.

   
   

   1. A certified or registered contractor, or contractor authorized by a local construction regulation board to do contracting, may not knowingly allow his or her certification number or registration number to be used by a person who is not certified or registered as provided for in this chapter, or used by a business organization that is not qualified as provided for in this chapter to engage in the business, or act in the capacity of, a contractor.

      
      

   2. A certified or registered contractor, or contractor authorized by a local construction regulation board to do contracting, may not apply for or obtain a building permit for construction work unless the certified or registered contractor, or contractor authorized by a local construction regulation board to do contracting, or business organization duly qualified by said contractor, has entered into a contract to make improvements to, or perform the contracting at, the real property specified in the application or permit. This paragraph does not prohibit a

      contractor from applying for or obtaining a building permit to allow the contractor to perform work for another person without compensation or to perform work on property that is owned by the contractor.

      
      

9. Section 489.127(4), Florida Statutes (2000), prohibits a contractor from agreeing to, or knowingly allowing, the use of his or her general contractor's license number by a nonlicensee to engage in contracting activities. The evidence proved clearly and convincingly that Mr. Wagie violated this provision, and thus violated Section 489.129(1)(i), Florida Statutes (2000), when he allowed the Spiegel Brothers and Mega Construction to use his license number to obtain permits for the Sicre Contract.

10. In Count III, it has been alleged that Mr. Wagie violated Section 489.129(1)(i), Florida Statutes (2000), by having violated Section 489.119(2), Florida Statutes (2000), which provides, in pertinent part:

    If the applicant proposes to engage in contracting as a business organization, including any partnership, corporation, business trust, or other legal entity, or in any name other than the applicant's legal name or a fictitious name where the applicant is doing business as a sole proprietorship, the business organization must apply for a certificate of authority through a qualifying agent and under the fictitious name, if any.

    
    

11. The evidence proved clearly and convincingly that Mr. Wagie's qualified construction company, Unified

    Construction, did not have a certificate of authority as required by Section 489.119(2), Florida Statutes (2000). Mr. Wagie is, therefore, guilty of having violated Section

    489.129(1)(i), Florida Statutes (2000), as alleged in Count III of the Administrative Complaint.

    1. Count II; Section 489.129(1)(d), Florida Statutes

       
       

       (2000).

       
       

12. Section 489.129(1)(d), Florida Statutes (2000), provides that disciplinary action may be taken by the Board if a general contract is guilty of:

    1. Performing any act which assists a person or entity in engaging in the prohibited uncertified and unregistered practice of contracting, if the certificateholder or registrant knows or has reasonable grounds to know that the person or entity was uncertified and unregistered.

    
    

13. Mr. Wagie admitted that he knew that the Spiegel Brothers were not licensed to practice contracting in Florida. He also knew that Mega Construction was uncertified and unregistered. Despite this knowledge, Mr. Wagie assisted the Spiegel Brothers and Mega Construction to engage in the practice of contracting. Mr. Wagie's suggestion that he was told by some unnamed individual at the Department that his arrangement with the Spiegel Brothers and Mega Construction was okay is not credited.

14. The evidence proved clearly and convincingly that Mr. Wagie violated Section 489.129(1)(d), Florida Statutes (2000), as alleged in Count II of the Administrative Complaint.

    1. Count IV; Section 489.129(1)(g)3., Florida Statutes (2000).

15. Section 489.129(1)(g)3., Florida Statutes (2000), provides that disciplinary action may be taken by the Board if a general contractor is guilty of:

    (g) Committing mismanagement or misconduct in the practice of contracting that causes financial harm to a customer. Financial mismanagement or misconduct occurs when:

    
    

    . . . .

    
    

    (3) The contractor's job has been completed, and it is shown that the customer has had to pay more for the contracted job than the original contract price, as adjusted for subsequent change orders, unless such increase in cost was the result of circumstances beyond the control of the contractor, was the result of circumstances caused by the customer, or was otherwise permitted by the terms of the contract between the contractor and the customer.

    
    

16. The only contract at issue in this case is the Sicre Contract. As the Department concedes, the Sicre Contract was never completed. The Department argues, however, the following:

    if the verbal negotiations and agreement to refund $2,000.00 to Candida Sicre is construed as being the equivalent of a change order, then Section 489.129(1)(g)3, Florida Statutes, can be readily applied to

    this case because the agreement had the effect of treating the contractor's job as completed at a cost that exceeded the contract price, as adjusted for the change order, by $2,000.00.

    
    

17. How the foregoing constitutes a job that "has been completed" is not explained by the Department. The Sicre Contract, while listing the relocation of the air-conditioning unit as number "1" and the subsequent construction of the bathroom as number "2," was actually one "contractor's job." Only part of that job was completed: the first step, the relocation of the air-conditioning unit, was completed, but that step was meaningless and unnecessary without the construction of the bathroom.

18. Even if the Department's argument were reasonable, it must fail because the Administrative Complaint does not contain any allegation that Mr. Wagie violated Section 489.129(1)(g)3., Florida Statutes (2000), through any alleged "change order." See, e.g., Cottrill v. Department of Insurance, 685 So. 2d 1371 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); Kinney v. Department of State, 501 So. 2d

    129 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987); and Hunter v. Department of Professional Regulation, 458 So. 2d 842 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1984). Due process prohibits the Department from taking disciplinary action against a licensee based on matters not specifically alleged in the charging instrument, unless those matters have been tried by consent. See Shore Village Property Owners'

    Association, Inc. v. Department of Environmental Protection, 824 So. 2d 208, 210 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002); and Delk v. Department of

    Professional Regulation, 595 So. 2d 966, 967 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992).

19. The evidence failed to prove clearly and convincingly that Mr. Wagie violated Section 489.129(1)(g)3., Florida Statutes (2000).

    1. Count V; Section 489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes (2000).

20. Section 489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes (2000), provides that disciplinary action may be taken by the Board if a general contract is guilty of:

    (m) Committing incompetency or misconduct in the practice of contracting.

    
    

21. The real violation proved in this case is that Mr.

    
    

    Wagie unreasonably aided and abetted the Spiegel Brothers to practice construction in Florida without a license. The incompetency or misconduct in the actual practice of contracting was, however, committed by the Spiegel Brothers and not

    Mr. Wagie.

    
    

22. The Department has argued that, by attempting to obtain a refund for Ms. Sicre of $2,000.00 and then failing to do so, Mr. Wagie committed "misconduct in the practice of

    contracting." This argument is without merit. Nor was such a violation alleged in the Administrative Complaint.

23. The evidence failed to prove clearly and convincingly that Mr. Wagie violated Section 489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes (2000).

    1. The Appropriate Penalty.

    
    

24. The Department is authorized, upon finding a violation of Section 489.129(1), Florida Statutes, to impose discipline upon a general contractor's license. In particular, the Board is authorized to take any of the following actions:

    . . . place on probation or reprimand the licensee, revoke, suspend, or deny the issuance or renewal of the certificate, registration, or certificate of authority, require financial restitution to a consumer for financial harm directly related to a violation of a provision of this part, impose an administrative fine not to exceed

    $10,000 per violation, require continuing education, or assess costs associated with investigation and prosecution, if the contractor, financially responsible officer, or business organization for which the contractor is a primary qualifying agent, a financially responsible officer, or a secondary qualifying agent responsible under s. 489.1195 . . . .

    
    

25. Section 455.2273(5), Florida Statutes (2005), requires that the penalty guidelines of the Board must be followed in determining what disciplinary action to take under Section 489.129(1), Florida Statutes. Those guidelines are set out in Florida Administrative Code Chapter 61G4-17.

26. In relevant part, Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G4-17.001 provides the following:

    1. The following guidelines shall be used in disciplinary cases, absent aggravating or mitigating circumstances and subject to other provisions of this chapter.

       
       

       . . . .

       
       

       (d) Section 489.129(1)(d), F.S.:

       Assisting unlicensed person to evade provision of Chapter 489, F.S. First violation, $1,000 to $2,500 fine and/or probation; repeat violation, $5,000 fine and suspension or revocation.

       
       

       . . . .

       
       

       1. Section 489.129(1)(i), F.S.: Failing in any material respect to comply with the provisions of Part I of Chapter 489, F.S.

    
    

    . . . .

    
    

    8. Section 489.119, F.S.: Failure to register qualified business organization. First violation, $250 to $500 fine; repeat violation, $500 to $1,000 fine and/or probation, suspension or revocation.

    
    

    No penalty guideline is provided for a violation of Section 489.129(1)(i), Florida Statutes, due to a violation of Section 489.127(4), Florida Statutes.

27. Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G4-17.001 goes on to provide the following guidelines relevant to this case:

    1. For purposes of these guidelines, violations for which the Respondent has previously been issued a citation pursuant to Section 455.224, F.S., and Rule 61G4-

       19.001, F.A.C., shall be considered repeat violations.

       
       

    2. For any violation occurring after October 1, 1989, the board may assess the costs of investigation and prosecution. The assessment of such costs may be made in addition to the penalties provided by these guidelines without demonstration of aggravating factors set forth in Rule 61G4- 17.002, F.A.C.

       
       

    3. For any violation occurring after October 1, 1988, the board shall order the contractor to make restitution in the amount of financial loss suffered by the consumer. Such restitution shall be ordered in addition to the penalties provided by these guidelines upon demonstration of aggravating factors set forth in subsection 61G4- 17.002(1), F.A.C., and to the extent that such order does not contravene federal bankruptcy law.

    
    

28. Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G4-17.002 provides for the consideration of aggravating and mitigating circumstances in determining what penalty to impose on a licensee. There is one aggravating circumstance in this case: the monetary damage incurred by Ms. Sicre.

29. The Department has proved the violations alleged in Counts I, II, and III of the Administrative Complaint; violations of Section 489.129(1)(d) and (i), Florida Statutes (2000). The Department has suggested the following penalties for these violations:

    1. Count I (Section 489.129(1)(i), Florida Statutes (2000), by reason of having violated Section 489.127(4), Florida Statutes (2000)): an administrative fine of $2,500.00;

    2. Count II (Section 489.129(1)(d), Florida Statutes (2000)): an administrative fine of $2,500.00; and

    3. Count III (Section 489.129(1)(i), Florida Statutes (2000), by reason of having violated Section 489.119(4), Florida Statutes (2000)): an administrative fine of $750.00.

30. The Department has also suggested that Mr. Wagie be required to pay Ms. Sicre $2,000.00 in restitution, pay the costs of the investigation and prosecution of this matter, and that his license be suspended for a period of two years.

31. The violations of Counts I and II are essentially the same violation. Therefore, since there is no guideline for a violation of Section 489.129(1)(i), Florida Statutes (2000), due to a violation of Section 489.127(4), Florida Statutes (2000), provided in the Board's rules, the Department has suggested that the same maximum penalty provided for a violation of Section 489.129(1)(d), Florida Statutes (2000), should be imposed for the Count I violation. This suggestion results in an excessive violation. Since there was essentially one violation proved to support Counts I and II (Mr. Wagie's assistance to the Spiegel Brothers on the Sicre Contract), a maximum administrative penalty of $2,500.00 is recommended for those Counts.

32. As to Count III, the penalty requested by the Department is reasonable.

33. Finally, the Department's suggestions that Mr. Wagie be required to pay Ms. Sicre $2,000.00 in restitution, pay the costs of the investigation and prosecution of this matter, and that his license be suspended for a period of two years are all reasonable and within the guidelines.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department:

1. Finding that Wayne H. Wagie violated Section 489.129(1)(i), Florida Statutes (2000), as alleged in Counts I and III of the Administrative Complaint; and violated Section 489.129(1)(d), Florida Statutes (2000), as alleged in Count II of the Administrative Complaint;

2. Dismissing Counts IV and V of the Administrative Complaint; and

3. Imposing an administrative fine in the total amount of

$3,250.00; requiring that Mr. Wagie pay Ms. Sicre $2,000.00 in restitution; requiring that Mr. Wagie pay $597.69 as the costs of the investigation and prosecution of this matter; and that his license be suspended for a period of two years.

DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of August, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

S

LARRY J. SARTIN

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060

(850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675

Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us

Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of August, 2005.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Theodore R. Gay Assistant General Counsel

Department of Business and Professional Regulation

8685 Northwest 53rd Terrace, Suite 100

Miami, Florida 33166

Wayne H. Wagie

220 Northeast 45th Street Miami, Florida 33137

Tim Vaccaro, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Business and

Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792

Leon Biegalski, General Counsel Department of Business and

Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202

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.

Docket for Case No: 05-000082PL

Orders for Case No: 05-000082PL