The Issue The issue presented here concerns the accusation by the Petitioner directed to the Respondent that the Respondent, on or about January 24, 1980, did unlawfully have in her possession or permit or allow someone else to have in their possession, namely, Anthony Lewis Graham, alcoholic beverages, to wit: one partial quart bottle of Smirnoff Vodka, one partial quart bottle of Gordon's Gin and one 200 ml bottle of Gordon's Gin, on the licensed premises and it is further alleged that the substances were not authorized by law to be sold under the Respondent's license, contrary to Section 562.02, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner in this action is an agency of the State of Florida which has as its purpose the regulation of those several licensees who sell alcoholic beverages and tobacco products in the State of Florida. The Respondent, Estelle Collins, is the holder of an alcoholic beverages license issued by the Petitioner, License No. 26-00766, Series 2-APS. This license allows the Respondent to sell beer and wine to be consumed off the licensed premises. The license is issued for the Respondent's premises located at 1152 East 21st Street, Jacksonville, Florida, where the Respondent trades under the name 21st Street Grocery. On January 24, 1980, Anthony Lewis Graham, one of the Respondent's patrons in her licensed premises, removed a box from his automobile which was parked on the street in the vicinity of the licensed premises. He carried the box which contained a partially filled quart bottle of Gordon`s Gin; a partially filled quart bottle of Smirnoff Vodka and a partially filled 200 ml bottle of Gordon's Gin into the licensed premises. These bottles contained liquor, that is, alcoholic or spiritous beverages that were not authorized to be sold at the licensed premises under the terms and conditions of the license issued to the Respondent. The box containing the liquor was carried in while an employee of the Respondent was working in the licensed premises and placed behind the meat counter. The box was left with the top opened. It is not clear whether the employee saw the bottles in the box prior to a routine premises inspection conducted by officers with the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco. The inspection took place shortly after Graham had brought the alcoholic beverages into the licensed premises. When the officers entered the premises, they identified themselves to the employee working in the store and this employee left to get the licensee. The employee returned with the Respondent, Estelle Collins, and the officers commenced inspection of the premises. In the course of that inspection, they discovered the aforementioned bottles of alcoholic beverages in the box. They also noted other empty liquor bottles in the area of the meat counter and the service counter within the licensed premises. (There had been another occasion in February, 1979, when the Petitioner's officers had discovered empty gin and vodka bottles in the licensed premises, and this former situation brought about a citation to the Respondent but no penalty action was taken against the Respondent.) No testimony was developed on the matter of the instructions which the Respondent had given to her employees on the subject of keeping unauthorized forms of liquor out of the licensed premises. The only remark which was established by the hearing dealing with the question of keeping those items away from the licensed premises was a statement by Graham, who said that it was not unusual for him to go behind the service counter in the licensed premises. Following this inspection and the discovery of the alcoholic beverages, to wit: liquor bottles in the box, the Petitioner brought the present action against the Respondent.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Notice to Show Cause/Administrative Complaint accusation placed against the Respondent, Estelle Collins, d/b/a 21st Street Grocery, License No. 26-00766, Series 2-APS, be DISMISSED. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of September, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 101 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of September, 1980. COPIES FURNISHED: William Hatch, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 J. Kennedy Hutcheson, Esquire 341 East Bay Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202
The Issue Whether respondent's alcoholic beverage license should be suspended or revoked for alleged violations of the Beverage Law, Chapters 561 and 562, Florida Statutes (1981).
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, respondent held alcoholic beverage license No. 15-388 2-COP, authorizing it to sell beer and wine at its business known as Golden Dolphin #2, ("licensed premises") located at 218-B Highway A1A, Satellite Beach, Florida. The licensed premises includes a bar, lounge, and stage where nude or partially nude dancers provide live entertainment. I. Alleged Violations Occurring On July 3, 1980 During the evening of July 3, 1980, Beverage Officers B. A. Watts and Kevin Ashcroft entered the licensed premises in an undercover capacity. Officer Watts sat down at a table and ordered a beer. Patricia Belle Gardener a/k/a "Peaches," employed by respondent, approached and sat down at his table. While they were talking, Anita Jackson, a waitress employed by respondent, approached and asked him, "Do you want to buy Peaches a drink?" or words to that effect. He turned to Peaches and asked her if she wanted a drink; she answered "Yes." He then ordered a wine cocktail for her and paid Ms. Jackson $5.00. (Testimony of Watts.) Later that evening, Peaches asked Officer Watts if he would buy her another drink. He replied that the price was rather steep but that, if she got part of it, he would agree. After she replied that she received a commission from the sale, he agreed. She summonned waitress Jackson, and told her that he wanted another drink. Ms. Jackson asked Officer Watts if he wanted a bottle, which she said was a "better deal." (Tr. 32) After hearing the price, he declined and ordered her another wine cocktail. (Testimony of Watts.) Officer Watts then asked Peaches what time she got off work and if she had a date. She told him the time, and that she did not have a date. He asked if she liked to have a good time, to which she replied, "Yes, how much money have you got?" (Tr.33) He answered "How much will it take?" and offered her $20. She said "that's not enough." He asked, "[H]ow about $30?" (Tr.33) She agreed. He asked, "What will $30 get me?" and she replied, "Half and half," which--in street talk--means oral and sexual intercourse. (Testimony of Watts.) Officer Ashcroft, who had entered the premises with Officer Watts, had seated himself at the bar. He was approached by Laurie Thornton, another female dancer employed by respondent, who asked, "How about buying me a drink?" or words to that effect. He declined, after which she approached another patron at the bar. (Testimony of Ashcroft.) No evidence was adduced to show that respondent, through its owners or managers, knew that its employees were asking or soliciting customers to purchase alcoholic beverages for the employees' consumption. II. Alleged Violations Occurring On February 19, 1981 In February, 1981, DABT launched another investigation of the licensed premises. On February 19, 1981, Beverage Officers Fred Dunbar and Rufus Blanton entered the licensed premises, set at a table near the dance stage, and ordered beers from Helen Davis, a waitress employed by respondent. McKinney Rojas, a/k/a Tia Marie, a dancer employed by respondent, approached them and sat down at their table. Almost immediately, waitress Davis appeared and asked "Are you going to buy Ti [meaning Tia Marie] a drink?" (Tr.-73) Officer Dunbar replied, "Ti ain't said nothing about wanting a drink." (Tr.-73) Tia Marie then explained: Fred, let me explain it to you. This is a beer and wine bar, and it's against the rules for us to drink beer. What I'd like for you to do is buy me a bottle of champagne. Helen will bring it to us in a bucket of ice with two glasses and we can sit here and drink it together, and we can talk. (Tr.-73) Officer Dunbar agreed and ordered a small (6.3 oz.) bottle champagne for $10.00. Waitress Davis then brought it to the table with a bucket of ice and one glass. He continued to drink his beer; she drank the champagne and remained at the table for approximately 45 minutes, then excused herself because it was her turn to dance on stage. (Testimony of Dunbar, Blanton.) Tia Marie then returned to the beverage officers table. Almost immediately waitress Davis appeared and asked Officer Dunbar if he was going to buy Tia Marie another bottle. He declined. Tia Marie then stood up, and asked Officer Blanton if he was going to buy her a bottle. Waitress Davis asked him the same question. He agreed, waitress Davis brought another bottle of champagne, and he paid her $10.00. During this conversation, Tia Marie explained to the officers that she was getting a 25 percent commission for the drinks customers bought for her; that they were really paying for her company, not for the champagne. (Testimony of Blanton, Dunbar.) During that same evening, Beverage Officer Watts entered the licensed premises and sat at another table near the dance stage. He ordered a beer from waitress Davis. Shortly thereafter, "Sabal," a female dancer employed by respondent, sat down at his table and engaged him in conversation. A few minutes later, waitress Davis appeared and asked if he wanted to buy Sabal a drink. He turned to Sabal and asked her what she wanted. She replied, "Helen [Davis] can explain it to you." (Tr.-46) Ms. Davis then explained that he could buy a bottle of champagne for Sabal for $10.00. He agreed. (Testimony of Watts.) After Sabal finished drinking the champagne, she asked Officer Watts if he would buy her another bottle. He replied that it was a rather steep price, that he might agree if she got something out of it. After being assured that she received a commission of $3.00 per bottle, he agreed to purchase her another for $10.00. Waitress Davis, again, brought it to the table. After finishing her second bottle, Sabal told Officer Watts that it was her turn to dance and went to the nearby stage. (Testimony of Watts.) III. Alleged Violations Occurring On February 26, 1981 On February 26, 1981, the three beverage officers (Watts, Dunbar and Blanton) returned to the licensed premises. Officers Dunbar and Blanton again sat at a table near the stage, Officer Watts sat at another. While seated at their table, Officers Dunbar and Blanton were approached by "Dominique" (later identified as Madeline C. Droege), a female dancer employed by respondent. Dominique was wearing black panties, stockings with a garter belt, high-heeled shoes, and a silk elastic-like material covering her breasts. Almost immediately, waitress Davis appeared and asked, "Are you going to buy Dominique a drink?" (Tr.-77) Officer Dunbar replied, "We're not going to go through all that again are we?" (Tr.-77) Waitress Davis laughed, and Dominique said she would like to have some wine. But before he agreed to buy her wine, the conversation turned to the subject of lap dancing. (Testimony of Dunbar, Blanton) Dominique told Officer Blanton that she would perform a lap dance for him for $5.00. He agreed. When the next song started, she removed the silk material covering her breasts and straddled Officer Blanton's lap. Wearing only panties and high-heeled shoes, she simulated sexual intercourse by rotating and gyrating the lower part of her body. During the lap dance, she massaged her breasts with her hands. Later that evening she also performed the same type of dance on Officer Watts, for which she was also paid $5.00. (Testimony of Blanton, Watts.) After Dominique departed, Michelle Smith, another female dancer employed by respondent, approached the officers' table and asked if she could join them. They agreed, she sat down, and then waitress Davis appeared, asking, "Are you going to buy Michelle a bottle of champagne?" (Tr.-80) At first, he resisted. But Miss Smith encouraged him, "Oh, come on, Fred, buy me a bottle of champagne. (Tr.-81) He finally agreed, and waitress Davis brought a bucket of ice, a glass, and a small bottle of champagne, for which he paid $10.00. Miss Smith also told the officers that she received a commission on the champagne sales. After drinking half of the bottle she left the table, explaining that she had to go backstage. (Testimony of Dunbar.) She returned to the table a few minutes later, finished the bottle of champagne, and requested another. At the same time, she turned the bottle upside down in the ice bucket and admitted that this was a signal to the waitress that she wanted another bottle. Waitress Davis then returned to the table and--at Miss Smith's request--Officer Dunbar purchased her a second bottle of champagne. She later requested that he purchase a third bottle, but he declined, explaining that he was out of money. She then left the table and performed a striptease on the nearby stage. (Testimony of Dunbar.) Before leaving the premises, the two officers were approached by Tia Marie, the same dancer whom they had met on February 19, 1981. She sat at the table and asked Officer Blanton to buy her a drink. He agreed and waitress Davis returned with a bottle of champagne. Tia Marie consumed the champagne, then turned the bottle upside down on the ice bucket. (Testimony of Dunbar, Blanton) That same evening, Office Watts--who had seated himself at another table nearby--was also approached by Dominique, who sat down and engaged him in conversation. Waitress Davis soon appeared and asked if he would like to buy the lady a drink. He said the lady had not asked for one; Dominique responded that she would like to have one. She then ordered a bottle of champagne for which Officer Watts paid the waitress $10.00. (Testimony of Watts.)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That respondent's alcoholic beverage license be revoked for multiple violations of the Beverage Law. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 20th day of April, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of April, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: James N. Watson, Jr., Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Samuel S. Henderson, Esquire and Jerrold A. Bross, Esquire 1365 North Courtney Parkway, Suite D Merritt Island, Florida 32952 Gary Rutledge, Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Howard M. Rasmussen, Director Department of Business Regulation Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue is whether an administrative fine should be imposed on Respondent for unlawfully selling "spirituous beverages" on its licensed premises, as alleged in the Administrative Action served by Petitioner on March 17, 1999.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: In this disciplinary action, Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco (Division), seeks to impose penal sanctions on the license of Respondent, Polpo Mario, Inc., doing business as Polpo Mario Ristorante, on the ground that on February 24, 1999, an employee of the establishment served a Division special agent a shot of vodka and a shot glass containing a mixture of vodka and amaretto, none of which could be lawfully sold under Respondent's license. After this proceeding began, the restaurant was voluntarily closed by the owner. Respondent has denied the charge and requested a formal hearing to contest this allegation. In his request for a hearing, Respondent contended that the employee who served the drinks was actually a bus boy and had no authority to wait on customers; that the bus boy was pressured into making the sale; that the employee was "slightly retarded"; and that the chef occasionally used amaretto in preparing a special dessert. Except for the latter assertion, none of these defenses was established at the final hearing. Respondent is subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of the Division, having been issued license no. 68-01763, Series 2COP. That license allows Respondent to make sales of beer and wine for consumption on the premises of its restaurant located at 3131 Clark Road, Sarasota, Florida. The license does not, however, authorize the sale of "spirituous beverages," such as vodka, whiskey, and liquors, which contain more than six percent of alcohol by volume. Besides the above license, Respondent also holds licenses from the Division for three other restaurants, including a Series 4COP, SRX license, which authorizes the sale of all types of alcoholic beverages in conjunction with food sales. This type of license has an annual fee of $1,820.00. On November 6, 1998, a Division auditor, Eileen O'Shea (O'Shea), performed a routine audit of Respondent's corporate offices. Such audits are required to be performed at least once every three years. During the course of the audit, O'Shea examined various invoices from liquor dealers, including one which suggested that liquor may have been transferred from one of the restaurants holding a Series 4COP, SRX license to Polpo Mario Ristorante. O'Shea cautioned Respondent's president, Joseph Casadio (Casadio), and his wife, that under a Series 2COP license, they were not authorized to sell or have alcoholic beverages on the licensed premises. She also gave them a copy of the state statutes which contained this restriction, and O'Shea suggested that if any liquor was kept in the kitchen for food prepration purposes, that the bottle be marked with a "K." She further advised them that if they intended to use alcoholic beverages for preparing certain special dishes, they must obtain written approval from the Division to do so. There is, however, no statutory or rule authority for this requirement. Finally, she referred her findings to a Division special agent. Both Casadio and his wife acknowledged to O'Shea that they now understood the requirements and that no laws were being violated. Casadio also told her that he had once served customers an after dinner expresso with Sambuca (a liquor) without charge, but he no longer did so. Around 6:15 p.m. on February 24, 1999, and presumably in response to O'Shea's referral, Division special agent Samuel J. Funaro (Funaro) visited the licensed premises of Respondent for the purpose of attempting to purchase spirituous beverages. Funaro was greeted by Gerard Woel (Woel), an employee who seated Funaro at a table near the bar and handed him a menu. Besides Woel, there were two other female waitresses on duty that evening, including Kim Mitchell (Mitchell). None of these former employees, or any others, testified at the final hearing; however, their out-of-court statements have been treated as admissions by employees of a party and therefore an exception to the hearsay rule. Although there were several special entrees shown on a display board at the entrance to the restaurant, none were desserts. Funaro ordered an Eggplant Parmigiana as his entree and a bottle of Budweiser beer to drink. He also asked Woel for a whiskey chaser to go with his beer. Woel departed and returned from the kitchen a few minutes later with a shot glass containing a clear liquid. The parties have stipulated that the liquid was vodka. Woel remarked that the vodka came from a bottle kept by the chef in the kitchen. By serving that drink, Respondent exceeded the authority under its license. At a later point in his meal, Funaro ordered a second bottle of beer and another whiskey chaser. A few minutes later, Woel returned with a shot glass containing a brownish colored liquid and explained that it represented the last vodka in the chef's bottle along with a small amount of amaretto, which was the only other alcoholic beverage in the kitchen. Although Funaro did not retain a sample of the drink, based on his experience, he concluded that the shot glass did in fact contain vodka and amaretto. By serving the drink, Respondent exceeded the authority under its license. Shortly before 8:00 p.m., Funaro completed his meal. Woel was busy with other customers, so the bill was presented by Mitchell, another waitress on duty. The bill totaled $17.91, including tax, and besides the food charge, contained a charge for one beer (even though two had been ordered) and an item for $5.50 entitled "2-Open Food Lunch." As to the latter item, Mitchell explained that this was the way liquor sales were rung up on the cash register because the cash register did not have a specific key for liquor sales. On March 10, 1999, O'Shea and Funaro returned to Respondent's restaurant for the purpose of conducting an inspection of the premises. They found a bottle of Bols Amaretto in the kitchen used for preparing desserts. At that time, the chef on duty told them that after dinner drinks were served at one time but the practice was discontinued. He also stated that the previous chef had kept a bottle of vodka on the premises for preparing a pasta sauce. On March 16, 1999, Funaro met with Casadio and explained the violations he had noted during his previous visit and inspection. Casadio explained again that he had once given a complimentary after dinner drink to patrons but discontinued that practice after O'Shea had given him a verbal warning during her audit. He also explained that the amaretto found in the kitchen on the March 10 inspection was used to prepare desserts for patrons. In mitigation, Casadio established that he had been in the restaurant business for some 20 years, and there is no evidence that he has ever been charged with, or convicted of, violating any Division regulations or state law. He pointed out that he would never risk his license for the price of two drinks ($5.50), that he has always attempted to comply with all relevant requirements, and that he immediately fired Woel after learning of his actions. Given the extremely small amount of liquor involved, the minimal amounts kept on hand in the kitchen for cooking purposes, and the fact that Respondent was obviously not engaged in this conduct on a widespread, continuing basis, a reduction in the fine is appropriate.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco enter a final order determining that Respondent has violated Section 562.12(1), Florida Statutes, as charged in the Administrative Action, and that an administrative fine in the amount of $750.00 be imposed. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of December, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 30th day of December, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph Martelli, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Charles D. Peters, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Joseph Casadio 3131 Clark Road, Suite 103 Sarasota, Florida 34231 Barbara D. Auger, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether or not Petitioner (complainant) is entitled to recover $1,340.50 or any part thereof against Respondent dealer and Respondent surety company.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a grower of watermelons and qualifies as a "producer" under Section 604.15(5) F.S. Respondent Steve Helms Fruit Co., Inc. is a broker-shipper of watermelons and qualifies as a "dealer" under Section 604.15(1) F.S. Respondent Ohio Casualty Insurance Co. is listed as surety for Steve Helms Fruit Co., Inc. The amount and period of the bond have not been established. The time material to the amended complaint is June, 1994. Two or three weeks before Petitioner's melons were ready for harvest, Steve Helms personally came to Petitioner's home and requested to ship Petitioner's melons for ultimate retail sale. Petitioner requested to be paid "up front." Mr. Helms would not agree to pay all the money "up front" but agreed to pay some. He also agreed to pay within 14 days of the first shipment. Petitioner had had a bad experience two years previously, so he got Mr. Helms to promise to "clean up" his field. This expression is subject to some interpretation, and although Petitioner initially stated that the agreement was for Respondent broker-shipper to buy all his melons regardless of condition, Petitioner later modified his statement to say that Mr. Helms only promised not to take the best melons and leave the rest. Harvesting began May 15, 1994. Until June 10, 1994, Petitioner's usual contact with Respondent broker- shipper was Frank Favuzza, who oversaw all weighing and loading and assessed the Petitioner's melons on behalf of Respondent broker-shipper. On June 10, 1994, Mr. Helms was again personally in the field. Petitioner told Mr. Helms that he had to get the remainder of the melons off the field by Sunday, otherwise the heat would ruin them. Mr. Helms said he would wait until Monday. Petitioner believes that if the melons had been harvested by Sunday, June 12, 1994, three truckloads could have been harvested. On Monday, less than a full truckload was in good enough condition to be loaded onto a truck. A lot of melons were going bad and were left in the field to rot. On Tuesday, June 14, 1994, Petitioner's melons were weighed at Romeo, Florida and the poundage established at 29,330 pounds. Frank Favuzza estimated to Petitioner that his melons would only bring $.04/lb. From this conversation, related by Petitioner, it may be clearly inferred that Petitioner knew he would not be paid until after Respondent broker-shipper received payment from the ultimate retailer at the other end of the transaction. Petitioner's amended complaint alleged the amounts due as follows: "On June 1, 1994, #92111, 700 lbs. at $.07 equals $49.00, not $490.00; June 3, 1994, #92117, 900 lbs. at $.07 equals $63.00, not $630.00; and June 3, 1994, #92120, 790 lbs. at $.07 equals $55.30, not $553.00. Therefore Item (12) Complaint Total is amended to $1,340.00." The amendments did not alter the original claim for 6-14-94, invoice 92157 for 29,330 lbs. of melons at $.04 for $1,173.20. There was no claim for the melons that rotted in Petitioner's field. Weight tickets and Respondent's corresponding broker-shipper's bills of lading were admitted in evidence. These showed the following amounts were received by Respondent broker-shipper: 6/1/94 INVOICE 92111 46,020 net weight melons 6/3/94 INVOICE 92117 45,580 net weight melons 6/3/94 INVOICE 92120 44,720 net weight melons 6/14/94 INVOICE 92157 29,330 net weight melons Petitioner testified, without refutation, that he was present at each weighing and that he had agreed to take $.07 per pound on all loads except for the June 14, 1994 load for which he was claiming $.04 per pound. The bills of lading support Petitioner's testimony as to the price per pound. The bills of lading also clearly show that the price per pound was "to farm minus labor." This notation means that the net amount to be paid Petitioner by Respondent was subject to a prior deduction for labor, but it cannot reasonably be inferred to include a deduction for shipping. Petitioner's last load of 29,330 lbs. of melons weighed on June 14, 1994 was less than a full truckload, so Respondent added melons from another farm to that truck to make up a full load. Respondent broker-shipper did not pay Petitioner for 700 pounds of the June 1, 1994, invoice 92111 truckload; for 900 pounds of the first June 3, 1994 invoice 92117 truckload; for 790 pounds of the second June 3, 1994 invoice 92120 truckload; or for any (29,330 pounds) of the June 14, 1994 invoice 92157 truckload, upon grounds that those melons were not saleable at their destination. Petitioner put in evidence Exhibit P-3 which is an accounting Respondent had sent him. It shows that Respondent broker-shipper had deducted $690.30 for labor on invoice 92111 and claimed 700 pounds could not be sold; had deducted $683.70 for labor on invoice 92117 and claimed 900 pounds could not be sold; had deducted $670.80 for labor on invoice 92120 and claimed 790 pounds could not be sold; and had paid Petitioner nothing on a June 14, 1994 truckload, invoice 92159. Invoice 92157, which corresponds to Petitioner's June 14, 1994 partial truckload of 29,330 pounds of melons, is not listed or otherwise explained in the exhibit. The exhibit is conclusionary and inexplicably is dated 1993. There is no back-up evidence to support Respondent's making these deductions. No inspection certificate or labor charges are in evidence. Petitioner's initial complaint, which he put in evidence as P-1, constitutes an admission by him. In the complaint, Petitioner contended (1) that he was selling "direct" to Respondent broker-shipper; (2) that he was selling "f.o.b."; and (3) that he was selling "Fob shipping point excectance (sic) after final inspection." Petitioner also stated therein that he was given an inspection sheet showing 46,310 lbs. of watermelons had failed inspection and he did not feel the melons that failed inspection were his melons because Frank Favuzza approved of all melons loaded from Petitioner's field and the inspection sheet did not say that the bad melons were Petitioner's melons. Somewhat contrariwise, Petitioner testified at formal hearing that he had asked Respondent broker-shipper for a government inspection certificate showing that his melons were bad and never got it. From the credible evidence as a whole, it is inferred that Petitioner sold his watermelons on the June 14, 1994 truckload at $.04 per pound contingent upon the melons arriving at their ultimate destination in saleable condition per a federal inspection. It is further inferred that the prior three loads at issue also were sold contingent upon their arriving in saleable condition. The evidence as a whole also supports a finding that Petitioner's melons left the weigh station in a condition capable of being sold for the respective prices agreed upon between Petitioner and Respondent broker-shipper. Any deterioration of melons between June 10, 1994 when Petitioner requested that the broker-shipper take the last load and June 14, 1994 when the last load actually was weighed and shipped is attributable to Respondent broker-shipper, but that fact is not significant since the lesser rate of $.04/lb. was agreed upon prior to shipping and after Respondent broker-shipper had seen and approved the loaded melons. Petitioner's foregoing evidence of delivering saleable quality melons to Respondent broker-shipper is unrefuted. The presumption is thereby created that but for some failure of Respondent broker-shipper, the melons would have arrived at their ultimate destination in saleable condition. There is no evidence of record to support Respondent's deductions for "labor," or for melons which allegedly could not be sold upon delivery at the ultimate destination. Petitioner moved ore tenus to further amend his complaint to include a prayer for reimbursement for the cost of the melons which rotted in his field and became unsaleable between June 10 and June 14, 1994 due to Respondent broker-shipper's delay in loading and to assert a claim for interest on the $1,340.50 claim. This motion was denied as too late.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Agriculture enter a final order awarding Petitioner $1,340.50, and binding Respondents to pay the full amount of $1,340.50, which in Ohio Casualty Insurance Co.'s case shall be only to the extent of its bond. RECOMMENDED this 2nd day of June, 1995, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS 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 2nd day of June, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER 94-6189A The following constitute specific rulings, pursuant to S120.59(2), F.S., upon the parties' respective proposed findings of fact (PFOF). Petitioner's PFOF: 1-2 Accepted. Rejected as unnecessary Rejected as subordinate and mere argumentation. 5-6 Rejected as mere argumentation. Rejected as these were not the dates testified. Rejected as mere argumentation. Respondent Steve Helms Fruit Co., Inc.'s PFOF: 1 Accepted. 2-4 Rejected as not proven. Accepted as to the June 10-14, 1994 load. Rejected as not proven. Not proven in whole. Covered to the extent proven. While one inference might be that a different invoice number was assigned to the combined load, that is not the only reasonable inference based on the evidence submitted. Likewise, although Petitioner apparently got some inspection certificate, that certificate is not in evidence. There is no record evidence as to what it covered. It is not reasonable to infer or guess that it covered four loads on four trucks on three dates or that there is any way to calculate from it that the only bad melons were Petitioner's melons and not those mixed in from another farm on June 14, 1994. See FOF 19-20. 8-15 Rejected as not proven. Respondent Ohio Casualty Insurance Co.'s PFOF: None filed COPIES FURNISHED: Frank Favuzza, President Steve Helms Fruit Co., Inc. Post Office Box 1682 Auburndale, Florida 33823 Tom Morton Ohio Casualty Insurance Co. Post Office Box 94-5010 Maitland, Florida 32794-5010 L. C. Stevenson 333 NW 46th Avenue Ocala, Florida 34482 Richard Tritschler, Esquire Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Hon. Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol, PL 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399
The Issue The primary issue in this hearing was the existence of a contract between M. Stembridge and Jack's Fruit Company under which monies were owed Stembridge.
Findings Of Fact Prior to August 5, 1974, Mrs. Barbara Stembridge, who was in the grove caretaking business, called Mr. Jack Goldtrap by telephone relative to the sale of citrus fruit on properties managed by her for her mother-in-law and herself. Their discussion regarding the sale of the fruit and the terms was incorporated with the contract, Exhibit 1, which Mr. Goldtrap sent to Mrs. Stembridge together with a check for $7500. Mrs. Stembridge executed the contract, accepted the check, and returned the executed contract to Mr. Goldtrap. This contract recites that Mr. Goldtrap had purchased " all fruit on the following groves at market price at time of picking less 50 cents plus picking cost". Thereafter the contract lists the groves subject to the contract: "Home Bloc, Poor Prospect and R. F. Stembridge grove." The testimony was uncontroverted that the fruit which is the subject of the instant controversy was located within the groves enumerated in the contract, however, Mrs. Barbara Stembridge stated that it had not been her intent to sell the fruit in controversy, but she was uncertain whether this was communicated to Mr. Goldtrap prior to the execution of the contract. Mr. Goldtrap testified that he felt he had purchased all the fruit on the groves as stated in the contract. The Hearing Officer finds that the contract, Exhibit 1, takes precedent over any prior verbal agreement between the parties to the contract and that Mr. Goldtrap purchased all fruit in the grove identified therein. Mrs. Barbara Stembridge and R. M. Stembridge testified that subsequent to the written contract with Mr. Goldtrap that R. M. Stembridge entered into an oral agreement to purchase the fruit in controversy from Mrs. Stembridge (the mother of R. M. Stembridge and mother-in-law of Mrs. Barbara Stembridge, who is the sister-in-law of R. M. Stembridge). R. M. Stembridge desired the fruit for sale in his roadside stand at his service station, and planned to pick the fruit in controversy himself on a piecemeal basis over several months. Pursuant to her mother-in-law's Instructions, Mrs. Barbara Stembridge contacted T. G. Mixon, a field superintendent with 31 years experience to estimate the value of the fruit in controversy. T. G. Mixon looked at the trees and crop in controversy late in 1974 and estimated in value to R. M. Stembridge as $3/box; however, he qualified his estimate stating that this was only a valid estimate of its value to R. M. Stembridge based on his particular intended use and that its market value was no where near that figure. R. M. Stembridge paid the agreed upon price of $900 to his mother-in-law for the fruit in controversy. Prior to picking the fruit he had purchased, Mr. Goldtrap visited the groves and was shown the groves, their boundaries, and the fruit in controversy by Mrs. Barbara Stembridge's foreman. This fruit was red grapefruit which is generally unsuitable for juice production. Such fruit cannot be economically picked for juice because there is no market for the unacceptable fruit. Mr. Goldtrap was advised by Mrs. Stembridge's foreman that Mr. Stembridge was interested in the fruit. Mrs. Barbara Stembridge testified that she thought that her foreman had told an unknown person that the red grapefruit had been promised to her brother-in-law. Mr. Goldtrap decided not to pick the red grapefruit, but to leave the fruit on the trees, and instructed his picking crew supervisors to check with R. M. Stembridge to determine which of the fruit be desired. In addition to the red grapefruit in controversy, R. M. Stembridge also had agreed to purchase white grapefruit from approximately 10 trees adjoining his service station, a fact unknown to Mr. Goldtrap or his supervisors. When the supervisors called on Mr. Stembridge to find out which trees should be spared, Stembridge thinking that they were referring to the white grapefruit trees near his station and that they had been shown the red grapefruit trees by his sister-in-law's foreman told them to begin their picking and when they got down to the station he would show them the trees to spare. Mrs. Barbara Stembridge's foreman did not instruct the picking supervisors and the picking crew picked the red grapefruit in controversy. When Mr. Stembridge became aware of the reds having been picked, he contacted Mr. Goldtrap. Mr. Stembridge was very irate and Mr. Goldtrap was very apologetic not fully realizing how the fruit had been picked when it had been his intent to spare the fruit. At this point, Stembridge demanded $3/box for the fruit, and Mr. Goldtrap stated that was a high price. Thereafter, in either this conversation or a subsequent one, Stembridge stated perhaps he knew a man who would buy them, however, when contacted this individual was not interested. When Goldtrap was advised of this, Goldtrap said he would send another truck and collect the red grapefruit. The issue presented in this controversy, therefore, becomes a question of whether there was a transaction between Mr. Goldtrap and Mr. R. M. Stembridge. It is clear from the contract, Exhibit 1, that Mr. Goldtrap owned the fruit in question at the time Mr. Stembridge "purchased" the fruit from his mother. Goldtrap intended to leave the fruit because of it low value and instructed his supervisors to contact Stembridge so that Stembridge could identify the trees in which be was interested. However, these trees were not identified by Stembridge because Stembridge thinking the supervisors were referring to the white grapefruit trees, did not indicate the trees he desired. Therefore, Goldtrap's intent to relinquish his right to the fruit was never effectively communicated to Mrs. Barbara Stembridge or to R. M. Stembridge. Mr. Stembridge's demand for $3/box for the grapefruit was in essence a demand for damages and not an offer for sale. Even if it were viewed as an offer (overlooking Stembridge's lack of ownership), there is no evidence that Goldtrap accepted the offer. His response was to advise Stembridge that he would send another truck to pick up the fruit. This action was consistent with his prior contract with Barbara Stembridge to purchase all the fruit in the groves and his legal obligation. See Section 601.64(3), Florida Statutes. The testimony was clear that Mr. Goldtrap had not paid out the moneys received from the sale of the red grapefruit because of the questions raised by R. M. Stembridge. However, Barbara Stembridge has filed no complaint in this matter, and based upon the foregoing findings that there is no transaction or contract between R. M. Stembridge and Goldtrap, R. M. Stembridge is not entitled to an accounting or to payment for the fruit in controversy.
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Administrative action and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent, Ramesh Gordon Kowlessar, held license number 16-12937, series 2APS, authorizing the sale of alcoholic beverages (beer and wine) for consumption off the premises known as K's American & West Indian Grocery & Food, located at 4486 West Hallandale Beach Boulevard, Pembroke Park, Florida (hereinafter "the licensed premises"). On March 25, 1997, Sergeant Carol Owsiany, an agent with the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, and Michael Kaufman, a special agent with the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, operating undercover, visited the licensed premises to investigate a complaint that Respondent was selling alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises (a practice not permitted by Respondent's license). Sergeant Owsiany and Agent Kaufman entered the premises at or about 10:15 a.m., and were greeted by Respondent who, after assuring the agents that they could dine on the premises, seated them at the counter. Sergeant Owsiany ordered a meal of curry and rice, and Agent Kaufman requested beer with the meal. The Respondent directed Agent Kaufman to the beer cooler. Agent Kaufman selected two cans of "Budweiser" beer (an alcoholic beverage) from the cooler and returned to the counter, where he handed one beer to Sergeant Owsiany. The agents opened their respective beers, and consumed a portion of the beer while seated at the counter in the presence of Respondent. Following service of her meal, Sergeant Owsiany consumed a small portion of food, and requested that the remainder be packaged to go. The agents then proceeded to the check-out counter with the two open and partially consumed beers, as well as the packaged meal. At the counter, the agents observed 52 packages of unstamped, non-Florida-tax-paid cigarettes offered for sale. Sergeant Owsiany paid for her meal and the two beers, and the agents exited the building.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondent guilty of the charges set forth in the Administrative Action; imposing a civil penalty in the total sum of $1,000 for such violations, subject to Respondent's option to substitute a period of suspension in lieu of all or a portion of the civil penalty; and, requiring Respondent to pay to the Department excise taxes in the sum of $17.63. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of April, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of April, 1998.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Action, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at the final hearing and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: At all times material to the instant case, Respondent operated a restaurant, Dinosaur's Café and Sports Bar, located in Boynton Beach, Florida. Respondent is now, and has been at all times material to the instant case, the holder of a Special Restaurant License (license number 60-11570 4COP SRX) authorizing it to sell alcoholic beverages on the premises of Dinosaur's Café and Sports Bar. On September 28, 1999, DABT Special Agent Jennifer DeGidio conducted an inspection of the premises of Dinosaur's Café and Sports Bar. Her inspection revealed that the premises had available seating for less than 150 patrons and that there were no records on the premises regarding the purchase and sale of food, alcoholic beverages, and non-alcoholic beverages. At no time had DABT given Respondent written approval to maintain these records at a designated off-premises location. During her September 28, 1999, inspection, Special Agent DeGidio issued and served on Respondent notices advising Respondent that its failure to have seating for at least 150 patrons and to maintain food and beverage records on the premises for a minimum of three years from the date of sale was in violation of the law and that, if these violations were not remedied within 14 days, administrative charges would be brought against Respondent. Special Agent DiGidio returned to the premises of Dinosaur's Café and Sports Bar on October 12, 1999, to find that the noticed violations had not been corrected. There were still fewer than 150 seats for patrons, and Respondent was again unable to produce the required records on the premises. The Administrative Action that is the subject of the instant controversy was issued on November 16, 1999. As of that date, Respondent had failed to timely remit to DABT $16.75 in surcharge monies that Respondent owed DABT for alcoholic beverages it had sold at retail for on-premises consumption at Dinosaur's Café and Sports Bar.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that DABT enter a final order finding Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Action, and disciplining Respondent therefor by revoking its license "without prejudice to obtain any other type of license, but with prejudice to obtain the same type of special license for 5 years"; fining Respondent $1,000.00; and requiring Respondent to pay the $16.75 in surcharge monies it owes DABT, plus applicable penalties and interest. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of August, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STUART M. LERNER 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 21st day of August, 2001.
The Issue Should Respondent's alcoholic beverage license be revoked, suspended, or otherwise disciplined?
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: At times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent held alcoholic beverage license No. 63-02541, series 2APS, for an establishment known as Green and White Texaco (the licensed premises), located at 3501 Cleveland Heights Boulevard, Lakeland, Florida. The Department opened an investigation of the licensed premises after an arrest was made by the Lakeland Police Department related to alleged sales of alcoholic beverages to underage persons by Respondent's employees. James Carl Clinard was identified as the underage Investigative Aide No. 97032 in the Administrative Action filed against Respondent by the Department. On December 5, 1997, James Carl Clinard was 18 years of age (date of birth May 23, 1979) and his appearance on December 5, 1997, was that of a person under 21 years of age. On December 5, 1997, Clinard was working with Officer Leron Strong and Lt. Nelson in an attempt, as an underage Investigative Aide, to purchase an alcoholic beverage from the licensed premises. Before beginning work on December 5, 1997, Clinard was instructed by Strong and Nelson that he was not to attempt to deceive anyone as to his age or appearance. Clinard's identification (a valid State of Florida driver's license which indicated his age to be 18 years) was checked by Lt. Nelson and Officer Strong and found to be legitimate. Clinard's photograph on his identification and his appearance on December 5, 1997, were similar and not misleading as to his age listed on his identification. Clinard was only allowed to carry into the licensed premises his identification and the money furnished by the Department for the purchase of the alcoholic beverage. Sometime around 6:20 p.m. on December 5, 1997, Clinard entered Respondent's licensed premises. Both Strong and Nelson waited outside the licensed premises. After entering the licensed premises, Clinard went to the cooler and selected a bottle of "Bud Light" beer which he brought to the counter. Before selling Clinard the beer, the cashier, Robin Ann Boss asked for and Clinard presented his identification. The cashier sold Clinard the beer, notwithstanding that Clinard's identification showed his age to be 18 years of age. After paying for the beer, Clinard took possession of the beer and exited the licensed premises. Subsequently, Clinard turned the beer over to the Department's agents. Clinard does not remember the cashier giving him a receipt for the beer. Likewise, the agents do not remember Clinard turning in a receipt for the beer. As a result of selling the alcoholic beverage to Clinard, Robin Ann Boss was arrested by Officer Strong. On December 8, 1997, Lt. Nelson mailed Respondent an Official Notice advising Respondent that its employee, Robin Ann Boss, had been "warned or charged" for selling, giving, or serving persons under 21 years of age alcoholic beverages in violation of Section 562.11, Florida Statutes. Crystal Henry was identified as the underage Investigative Aide No. 97028 in the Administrative Action filed against the Respondent by the Department. On January 7, 1998, Henry was 16 years of age (date of birth October 22, 1981) and her appearance on January 7, 1998, was that of person under the age of 21 years. On January 7, 1998, Henry was working with Agent Cleveland McKenzie and Anne Ekstrand in an attempt, as an underage Investigative Aide, to purchase alcoholic beverages or tobacco products from the licensed premises. Before beginning work on January 7, 1998, Henry was instructed by Agents McKenzie and Ekstrand that she was not to attempt to deceive anyone as to her age or appearance. Agents McKenzie and Ekstrand checked Henry's identification (a valid State of Florida driver's license which indicated her age to be 16 years) and found it to be legitimate and found that her identification was not misleading as to her age or her appearance on January 7, 1998. Henry was only allowed to carry into the licensed premises her identification and the money furnished to her by the Department for the purchase of the alcoholic beverage and tobacco product. Sometime around 5:00 p.m. on January 7, 1998, Henry entered the licensed premises. Upon entering the licensed premises, Henry proceeded to the beer cooler and obtained a Bacardi Breezer wine cooler. Henry then walked to the check-out counter with the wine cooler and asked the clerk for a five-pack of Black and Mild Cigars. The sales clerk completed the sale without asking Henry for any form of identification. Henry paid the sales clerk $1.79 for the cigars and $2.09 for the wine cooler. Henry took possession of the wine cooler and cigars and exited the licensed premises. Subsequently, Henry turned the wine cooler and cigars over to Agent McKenzie. Henry does not remember the clerk giving her a receipt for the wine cooler and cigars. Likewise, the agents do not remember Henry turning in a receipt for the wine cooler and cigars. The clerk was identified as Valerie Ann Walker, who was subsequently charged with and arrested for, the sale of an alcoholic beverage and tobacco product to an underage person in violation of Section 562.11, Florida Statutes. A Final Warning was issued to Respondent on January 9, 1998, advising Respondent of the violation and giving Respondent notice that another violation would result in the issuance of an Administrative Action by the Department which could subject Respondent's alcoholic beverage license to formal revocation or suspension proceedings. Enrique Ramos was identified as the underage Investigative Aide No. 97033 in the Administrative Action filed against the Respondent by the Department. On February 17, 1998, Ramos was 18 years of age and his appearance on February 17, 1998, was that of a person under the age of 21 years. On February 17, 1998, Enrique Ramos was working with Agents McKenzie and Ekstrand in an attempt, as an underage Investigative Aide, to purchase alcoholic beverages from the licensed premises. Before beginning work on February 17, 1998, Ramos was instructed by Agents McKenzie and Ekstrand not to attempt to deceive anyone about his age or appearance. Agents McKenzie and Ekstrand checked Ramos' identification (a valid State of Florida driver's license which indicated his age to be 18 years) and found his identification to be legitimate and his identification not misleading as to his age or appearance. Ramos was only allowed to carry into the licensed premises his identification and the money furnished by the Department for the purchase of the alcoholic beverage. At approximately 4:15 p.m. on February 17, 1998, Ramos entered the licensed premises and went to the beer cooler and obtained a six-pack of Budweiser Beer (12-ounce bottles) and approached the check-out counter and placed the beer on the counter. The clerk sold Ramos the beer without checking his identification. Ramos paid the clerk $5.19 for the beer. Ramos took possession of the beer from the clerk and exited the licensed premises where he subsequently turned the beer over to Agents McKenzie and Ekstrand. The clerk was later identified as Ravin E. Bradshaw. Bradshaw was charged with selling an alcoholic beverage to a person under the age of 21 in violation of Section 562.11, Florida Statutes. Respondent's back-up cash register tapes (Respondent's Exhibit number 2) do not reflect a beer sale during the period of time Ramos testified that he purchased the six-pack of Budweiser Beer on February 17, 1998. However, I find the testimonies of Ramos, Agent McKenzie, and Agent Ekstrand to be more credible concerning the purchase of the beer on February 17, 1998, than the back-up cash register tapes or the testimony of Bradshaw, Respondent's clerk and Jung I. Huang, Respondent's manager. The testimony of Respondent's clerks were that they were instructed to "card" or check each alcoholic beverage or tobacco product purchaser's identification to determine if the purchaser was 21 years old or older. However, it was also the practice of Jung Huang and his wife, Yu Chin Lin, a.k.a Michelle, president of Green and White, Inc., to become angry with a clerk who was "carding" every customer. In some instances, both Huang and Michelle would advise a clerk not to card certain customers. Respondent failed to comply with all the training and record-keeping requirements of the Responsible Vendor Program set out in Sections 561.701-561.706, Florida Statutes, notwithstanding the testimony of Jung Huang to the contrary and whose testimony I find lacks credibility.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and having reviewed the penalty guidelines set forth in Rule 61A-2.022, Florida Administrative Code, it is recommended that the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco enter a final order suspending Respondent's alcoholic beverage license No. 63-02541, 2APS for a period of seven days and it is further recommended that Respondent be required to pay an administrative fine of $1,000.00 to the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th of August, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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 10th day of August, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Elsa Lopez Whitehurst, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Tony Dodds, Esquire 825 East Main Street Lakeland, Florida 33801 Joseph Martelli, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 William Woodyard, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399
