Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, DIVISION OF PARI-MUTUEL WAGERING vs OCTAVIO ABRAHAM NAVEDO, 17-002575PL (2017)

Court: Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Number: 17-002575PL Visitors: 7
Petitioner: DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, DIVISION OF PARI-MUTUEL WAGERING
Respondent: OCTAVIO ABRAHAM NAVEDO
Judges: F. SCOTT BOYD
Agency: Department of Business and Professional Regulation
Locations: Lauderdale Lakes, Florida
Filed: May 02, 2017
Status: Closed
Settled and/or Dismissed prior to entry of RO/FO on Thursday, May 11, 2017.

Latest Update: May 18, 2024
FILED Department of Business arid Professional Regulation Deputy Agency Clerk STATE OF FLORIDA CLERK Evette Lawson-Proctor DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATI| pate 3/24/2017 File # DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, DIVISION OF PARI-MUTUEL WAGERING, Petitioner, DBPR CASE No. 2016-028426 v. OCTAVIO ABRAHAM NAVEDO, Respondent. / ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT The Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering (“Petitioner” or “Drvision”), hereby files this Administrative Complaint against OCTAVIO ABRAHAM NAVEDO (“Respondent”), and alleges as follows: 1. The Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating pari-mutuel wagering pursuant to Chapter 550, Florida Statutes and cardroom operations pursuant to Section 849.086, Florida Statutes. 2. At all times material hereto, Respondent held a pari-mutuel wagering cardroom employee occupational license, number 6847393-1012 issued by the Petitioner. 3. At all times material hereto, Respondent worked as a poker dealer in the cardroom at the Melbourne Greyhound Park. 4. Melbourne Greyhound Park is a facility operated by a permitholder authorized to conduct pari-mutuel wagering and cardroom gambling in this state under Chapters 550 and 849, Florida Statutes. Count I 5. Petitioner hereby re-alleges and incorporates the allegations contained within paragraphs one through four, as though fully set forth herein. 6. On or about May 14, 2016, through May 15, 2016, Respondent stole chips from his well and concealed the stolen chips in his tip box. 7. Rule 61D-11.005(4)(b), Florida Administrative Code (2015), provides that “[nJo person shall, either directly or indirectly: [e]ngage in any act [or] practice...that would constitute a fraud or deceit upon any participant in a game, or the cardroom operator.” 8. Based on the foregoing, Respondent violated Rule 61D-11.005(4)(b), Florida Administrative Code (2015), by engaging in a practice that would constitute a fraud or deceit upon any participant in a game, or the cardroom operator. Count IT 9. Petitioner hereby re-alleges and incorporates the allegations contained within paragraphs one through four, as though fully set forth herein. 10. On or about June 16, 2016, Respondent was given a lifetime ejection from Melbourne Greyhound Park. 11. Section 550.0251(6), Florida Statutes (2015), provides in relevant part, “[t]he division may exclude from any pari-mutuel facility within this state any person who has been ejected from a pari-mutuel facility in this state...” 12. Based on the foregoing, Respondent is subject to exclusion by the Division because he was ejected from a pari-mutuel facility in Florida. WHEREFORE, Petitioner respectfully requests the Division enter an Order against the Respondent imposing one or more of the penalties as permissible under Chapters 550 and 849 Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated thereunder and permanently excluding the Respondent from all licensed pari-mutuel facilities in the State of Florida. Signed on this 20 day of March, 2017. WDH/sm MATILDE MILLER, Interim Secretary Department of Business and Professional Regulation /s/ Witham Hall William D. Hall Chief Attorney Florida Bar No. 67936 Office of the General Counsel Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering Department of Business and Professional Regulation 2601 Blair Stone Road, 5th Floor Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 NOTICE OF RIGHTS Please be advised that within twenty-one (21) days of your receipt of this administrative complaint you have the right to request an administrative hearing. Any such hearing would be conducted in accordance with the provisions of Sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes, and you would have the right to be represented by counsel or other qualified representative, to call and examine witnesses, and to have subpoenas issued on your behalf. However, if you do not file (ie., we do not receive) your request for hearing within the twenty-one (21) days, you will have waived your right to any hearing. Please also be advised that mediation is not available in this matter.

Docket for Case No: 17-002575PL
Source:  Florida - Division of Administrative Hearings

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer