The Issue Whether the Respondent failed to have the seating capacity required of a licensee in its category as alleged by the Notice to Show Cause and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent hereto, Respondent, EDM of Key West, Inc., d/b/a/ Portside, was the holder of a special restaurant license issued by Petitioner, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, Department of Business Regulation. This license, Series 6-COP, Number 54-00999SRX, authorizes Respondent to sell alcoholic beverages, subject to regulation by Petitioner and other authorities, in conjunction with its restaurant business. On November 16, 1988, Petitioner's law enforcement investigator, David Myers, inspected Respondent's premises to determine whether Respondent was in compliance with the regulations applicable to licensees such as Respondent. Two violations were discovered. The first was that the establishment failed to have sufficient seating for patrons under the covered portion of the premises. The second was that the establishment failed to keep adequate records of its sales of food and of its sales of alcohol as required by regulation. Official Notices were issued by Petitioner to Respondent for both violations. Investigator Myers told Respondent's dining room manager on November 16, 1988, that the establishment was required to have seating sufficient for at least 150 dining patrons under a permanent roof and that the seats located outside the roofed area could not be counted toward that requirement. This advice is consistent with Petitioner's interpretation of Rule 7A-3.014, Florida Administrative Code. Prior to December 12, 1988, Investigator Myers advised the management of Respondent that he intended to make a follow-up inspection on December 12, 1988. On December 12, 1988, there were 132 seats for dining patrons within the roofed area. Other seats for dining patrons were located in an uncovered area. Petitioner filed a Notice to Show Cause subsequent to its inspection of December 12, 1988, against Respondent alleging, in pertinent part, the following: On December 12, 1988, you, EDM OF KEY WEST INC., failed to have accommodations for service of 150 patrons at tables on your licensed premises . . . . The Notice to Show Cause did not cite Respondent for failure to keep adequate records of sales. On May 22, 1989, an inspection revealed that there was seating for only 118 dining patrons under the roofed area. On June 5, 1989, Respondent was found to be in compliance with the seating requirement. Respondent filed a timely request for hearing and therein denied the factual allegations of the charge brought against it.
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 having failed to have accommodations for the seating of 150 dining patrons as required by Section 561.20(2)(a)4, Florida Statutes, and by Rule 7A-3.014 and Rule 7A-3.015, Florida Administrative Code, and which imposes an administrative fine of $500.00 against Respondent. DONE and ENTERED this 21st day of July, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 21st day of July, 1989. APPENDIX The proposed findings of fact submitted on behalf of Petitioner are addressed as follows: Addressed in paragraph 1. Rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. Addressed in paragraph 2. Addressed in paragraph 3. 5-6. Addressed in paragraphs 4-5. Rejected in part as being unnecessary or subordinate to the findings made. 7-8. Addressed in paragraph 7. Rejected as being unnecessary to the result reached. Addressed in paragraph 3. 11-16. Rejected as being recitation of testimony or subordinate to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact submitted on behalf of Respondent are addressed as follows: Addressed in paragraph 1. Rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. Addressed in paragraph 2. Addressed in paragraph 3. 5-6. Addressed in paragraphs 4-5. Rejected in part as being unnecessary or subordinate to the findings made. 7-8. Addressed in paragraph 7. Rejected as being unnecessary to the result reached. Addressed in paragraph 3. 11-16. Rejected as being recitation of testimony or subordinate to the findings made. COPIES FURNISHED: Harry Hooper, Esquire Deputy General Counsel 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 James T. Hendrick, Esquire MORGAN & HENDRICK, P.A. Post Office Box 1117 Key West, Florida 33041 Leonard Ivey, Director Department of Business Regulation Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 Stephen R. MacNamara, Secretary Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 Joseph A. Sole, General Counsel Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000
The Issue The issues for resolution in this proceeding are whether the Respondent committed the violations alleged in an administrative complaint, as amended, and if so, what discipline is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Mano's, Inc., doing business as Sea Port (Mano's) is now and has at all relevant times been a licensee of the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco (DABT) holding a 4 COP SRX special restaurant license. Mano's operates a restaurant and lounge located in Cape Canaveral, Brevard County, Florida. Mano's license requires that at least 51 of its gross retail sales be served from food and non-alcoholic beverages. Mano's license application clearly acknowledges this and the requirement that it maintain a bona fide restaurant with 4000 square feet of floor space and seating for 200 patrons. Raymond Joseph Cascella is the president, sole corporate officer, and sole stockholder of Mano's. Attached to his license application dated May 14, 1991, is his sketch of the licensed premises. The instructions on the application provide that the sketch must include all specific areas which are part of the premises sought to be licensed. The sketch provided by Mr. Cascella includes the bar, restrooms, dining rooms, and kitchen. On September 10, 1996, Sam Brewer, then a special agent with DABT, conducted an inspection of Mano's licensed premises. Special Agent Brewer found several violations on his visit; he spoke with Mr. Cascella and gave Mr. Cascella a copy of the inspection report and three notices related to the violations. The violations observed and noted by Special Agent Brewer were improper display of the facility license (in the office rather than conspicuously displayed), insufficient seating (160 seats rather than 200), and failure to maintain sales receipts or other records to document that the 51 percent non- alcoholic beverages and food requirement was met. One of the notices provided to Mr. Cascella stated that no later than September 25, 1996, he must bring to the Rockledge DABT office records pertaining to total sales of food, non- alcoholic, and alcoholic beverages for the period June 1, 1996, through September 10, 1996. Mr. Cascella came to the Rockledge office on September 25, 1996, but the records he brought were computerized summaries of credit card transactions and did not reflect a break-out of sales of alcoholic beverages and non-alcoholic beverages and food. There were no guest receipts nor register tapes (also called "z-tapes") provided. On September 30, 1996, Special Agency Brewer issued another notice to Mano's. The notice, signed by Mr. Cascella, directs the licensee to produce these records to the Rockledge DABT district office no later than October 15, 1996, or administrative changes would be brought against the alcoholic beverage license: All records relating to gross retail sales of food and non-A/B and all records relating to gross retail sales of A/B (including source documents) (i.e., Z-tapes, waitress order checks), for the period June 1, 1996 thru September 10, 1996. All records relating to purchases of food and non-A/B and all records relating to purchases of A/B, for the period June 1, 1996, thru September 10, 1996. (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4) Mr. Cascella returned to the Rockledge office on October 15, 1996, with a box of papers. These papers were records of purchases made from different vendors but there were no records of any retail sales by Mano's. In spite of letters to Special Agent Brewer from Mano's counsel promising full compliance and in spite of Mr. Cascella's several efforts, Mr. Cascella never produced all of the required records for the relevant period (June 1, 1996 through September 10, 1996). At the hearing in this proceeding Mr. Cascella submitted a large plastic ziplock bag stuffed with register receipts from June 1, 1996, through September 10, 1996. Mr. Cascella thought he had shown these or copies to Special Agent Brewer but was not sure. Mr. Cascella also conceded that the tapes were not complete, as they were only from the cash register at the bar, and none were from the register in the restaurant. Thus, the receipts reflected mostly liquor sales for each day, and very little food. (Transcript pp. 231-238) On February 7, 1997, Special Agent Brewer sent an official notice to Mano's informing the licensee that DABT intended to file administrative charges for failure to produce records as requested, in violation of Section 561.29(1)(j), Florida Statutes. On March 8, 1997, Special Agent Brewer, two other DABT agents, and several officers or agents from other law enforcement agencies appeared at Mano's licensed premises in Cape Canaveral. Mr. Cascella, who lived upstairs with his wife, was summoned by the bartender and came downstairs immediately. Mr. Cascella was very upset and told the officers that they had no right to be there without a search warrant. Throughout the inspection he remained very vocal and argumentative. Special Agent Brewer was looking for food items as part of his inspection and he requested that Mr. Cascella grant access to a locked area within the kitchen, a walk-in cooler or freezer. When Mr. Cascella refused, Special Agent Brewer informed him that the refusal was a violation of the law and he could be arrested. Eventually during the inspection the agents gained access to the area only after they cut the lock. Mr. Cascella was arrested for his refusal to stop interfering with the inspection and for his persistent and obstreperous comments during the agents' questioning of the bartender. Between October 1996, and December 1996, Jane Davis, an auditor with DABT conducted a surcharge audit of Mano's for the period July 1, 1993, through June 30, 1996. Mr. Cascella was cooperative and had the records available for Ms. Davis' review. She did not conduct an SRX audit requested by Special Agent Brewer, as she was being transferred from Rockledge to Lakeland and she could not take on the task of reviewing all of the Z- tapes for a long period of time. The surcharge audit Ms. Davis conducted was for a purpose different from the determination of percentage of alcohol sales and non-alcohol sales; her audit period, and consequently the records she reviewed, were not the June 1, 1996, through September 10, 1996, period addressed in the notices of violation issued by Special Agent Brewer.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the agency enter its final order finding that Respondent violated Rule 61A-3.0141, Florida Administrative Code, and Section 562.41(3), Florida Statutes, and imposing civil penalties of $250 and $1,000, respectively, for a total of $1,250. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of August, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK 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 29th day of August, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: James D. Martin, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Allen C. D. Scott, II, Esquire Scott & Sheppard, P.A. 101 Orange Street St. Augustine, Florida 32084 Barbara D. Auger, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Joseph Martelli, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202
The Issue This case concerns the issue of whether Respondent's special restaurant beverage license should be suspended, revoked or otherwise disciplined for failing to derive 51 percent of gross revenue from the sale of food and for failing to maintain sufficient food and equipment to serve 150 full course meals on the licensed premises. The Petitioner, at the formal hearing, called as its only witness Beverage Officer G. L. Hodge. The Petitioner offered and had admitted into evidence two exhibits. Counsel for the Respondent contacted counsel for the Petitioner just prior to the formal hearing to notify the Petitioner that the Respondent would not be appearing at the formal hearing. The Respondent did not appear and therefore presented no evidence. Respondent was duly noticed and informed of the time and place of the hearing in accordance with Chapter 120 of the Florida Statues.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this proceeding, the Respondent, Colonial Park Pub, Inc., was the holder of Beverage License No. 62-2029-SRX, Series 4-COP. This license was issued to the premises known as the Colonial Park Pub and Restaurant, located at 8239 46th Avenue North, St. Petersburg, Florida. The license held by Respondent is a special restaurant license. After receiving a complaint about the licensed premises, Beverage Officer G. L. Hedge on July 26, 1983, went to the licensed premises to perform an inspection. A food inventory revealed the following food items stored on the licensed premises: In the kitchen, in the freezer closest the entrance was approximately: 15 slices of bacon 8 slices of turkey 20 slices of pickles 3 onions 3 tomatoes 2 slices of American cheese 10 oz. of tuna fish 25 slices of Pastrimi hot dogs slices of roast beef 1b. of American cheese 1bs. of Swiss cheese 1 six 1b. can of sliced pineapple In the freezer in the middle of the kitchen the following was found: 2 loaves of bread 5 sandwich buns 8 submarine rolls 4 heads of lettuce 2 celery stalks 1 gallon of milk 4 lemons 13 limes 34 In tomatoes the stand-up icebox was found the following food: 3/4 of a cantalope 3 1/2 sticks of margarine 12 rolls 2 1/2 20 oz. bags of mixed vegetables 4 bags of hard rolls 7 hot dogs 2 loaves of Jewish bread 4 slices of salami 3 slices of ham In the food storage chest was found the following food: 7 cans of pickle spears 99 oz. 2 1 1b. bags of potato chips 2 cans of red beans 6 1bs. 15 oz. 4 cans of tuna fish 11 1bs. 2 1/2 oz. This was not sufficient food to prepare 150 full course meals as defined in Rule 7A-3.15, Florida Administrative Code. The licensed premises had the appearance of a lounge and not a bona fide restaurant operation. There were no silverware, menus, plates, or table cloths on any of the tables. The premises were dimly lit and no one was observed eating any meals. The inspection occurred at approximately 2:15 p.m. There were approximately 30 meals per day served at the licensed premises and only sandwiches were served after approximately 8:00 p.m. The menu stated that dinners were not served after 7:30 p.m. During the period May 1982, through April 1983, the Colonial Park Pub and Restaurant had total gross sales of $197,564.07. Of this total, beverage sales were $135,530.17 and food sales were $62,033.90. Food sales for the year constituted 31 percent of sales. During this same period, beverage purchases amounted to $69,442.76 versus food purchases of $19,046.89. There were only two months, May and June 1982, where the Respondent even approached food sales equalling 51 percent of gross sales.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is, RECOMMENDED: That the Petitioner enter a final order finding the Respondent guilty of the violations charged in the Notice to Show Cause and revoking beverage license No. 62-2029-SRX. DONE AND ORDERED this 9th day of April 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARVIN E. CHAVIS 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 9th day of April, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Louisa Hargrett, Esquire Staff Attorney Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 John L. Waller, Esquire The Legal Building 447 3rd Avenue, Suite 403 St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Howard M. Rasmussen, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gary R. Rutledge, Secretary Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Florida Administrative Code Rule 61A-3.0141(2)(a)2., and its directive that the square footage making up the licensed premises of a special restaurant (SRX) license be “contiguous,” constitutes a valid exercise of delegated legislative authority. Whether a genuine issue of material fact exists, and, if so, whether Petitioner’s Motion for Summary Adjudication should be denied.
Findings Of Fact The following findings of facts are determined: The State of Florida, Department of Business and Professional Regulation (Respondent) is the state agency responsible for adopting the existing rule which is the subject of this proceeding. Under the provisions of Section 561.02, Florida Statutes, the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, within the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, is charged with the supervision and enforcement of all alcoholic beverages manufactured, packaged, distributed and sold within the state under the Beverage Law. The Division issues both general and special alcoholic beverage licenses. Petitioner, Brooklyn Luncheonette, LLC, d/b/a Del Tura Pub and Restaurant is the owner/operator of a restaurant located in North Fort Myers, Florida. It is seeking issuance of a special restaurant license (SRX) pursuant to Subsection 561.20(2)(a)4., Florida Statutes, from the Division. Therefore, Petitioner is substantially affected by the challenged rule. Petitioner operates a restaurant on a leased parcel of property consisting of two buildings with a dedicated pathway between the two buildings. Petitioner’s restaurant premises consist of two buildings which contain a minimum of 2,500 square feet in the aggregate of service area. Petitioner’s restaurant facility is equipped to serve 150 patrons full course meals at tables at one time. The sole reason asserted by Respondent for denial of Petitioner’s application is the alleged noncompliance with the “contiguous” requirement of Florida Administrative Code Rule 61A-3.0141(2)(a)2. The provision of general law, applicable to Petitioner, which sets forth the specific criteria for an SRX license, is Subsection 561.20(2)(a)4., Florida Statutes. To these statutory criteria, Respondent has, by Florida Administrative Code Rule 61A-3.0141(2)(a)2., added an additional criteria: “The required square footage shall be contiguous and under the management and control of a single establishment.” Respondent has interpreted the provision to mean that the buildings containing the square footage must physically touch. Florida Administrative Code Rule 61A-3.0141 reflects that the sole law implemented is Subsection 561.20(2)(a)4., Florida Statutes. Susan Doherty is the chief of Respondent’s Bureau of Licensing, whose duties include determining “if a license will be issued based upon the qualifications of the applicant [and] whether the premises meets all requirements based on the type of license applied for.” Ms. Doherty, whose deposition was taken on May 12, 2009, testified in pertinent part: Q. All right. If I can direct your attention to Subsection (2)(a)(2) of Rule 61A-3.0141, it says, “The required square footage shall be contiguous and under the management and control of a single licensed restaurant establishment.” What does “contiguous” mean? A. Touching, actually connected, touching. * * * Q. Do you see anything in the statute that prohibits a licensee from qualifying if the square footage is in two buildings that the applicant leases and they’re connected by a pathway which the applicant leases? Do you see anything in the statute that precludes that? A. In the statute, no. Q. Do you see anything in the rule that precludes that? A. In my opinion, Section (2)(a)(2), the contiguous would. Deposition of S. Doherty, pp. 15 and 18. Chief Doherty conceded, however, that she could not point to any provision of the relevant statute that imposes a “contiguous” requirement regarding the square footage. Chief Doherty further noted that for special licenses issued for hotels pursuant to Subsection 561.20(2)(a)1., Florida Statutes, she was aware that there were numerous non-contiguous buildings licensed pursuant to such section. The deposition of Respondent’s agency representative, Major Carol Owsiany, was taken on May 13, 2009. Major Owsiany testified: Q. . . . Isn’t it correct that there’s 2,500 square feet of service area located in the two buildings that are currently the subject of the [Petitioner’s] temporary SRX license? A. Yes, sir. Q. Can you point to me any provision of Section 561.20(2)(1)(4) that precludes the petitioner from having the requisite square footage in two buildings? A. One second, sir. Not in the statute, but I can in the rule. Deposition of C. Owsiany, p. 8. For purposes of this rule challenge case, there are no genuine issues of material fact in dispute.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this proceeding the Respondent held beverage license number 58-01528, SRX, Series 4COP. This license was issued to licensed premises located at 100 West Washington, Orlando, Florida. This is a special restaurant license. The above license expired on September 30, 1982, and was renewed for one year. The check given to the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco in payment for the fees necessary to renew the license was deposited for collection by the Division and was returned dishonored for insufficient funds. The license was retrieved by the Division on November 8, 1982, and because the fee has not been paid the license remains in the possession of the Division. At the time the Respondent failed to make good on the check or to otherwise pay the renewal fee, there were charges pending against the Respondent's license. Respondent had been notified of pending charges of violation of the beverage laws prior to September 30, 1982. On June 10, 1982, Beverage Officer Maria Lynn Scruggs visited the Respondent's licensed premises to conduct a routine special restaurant license inspection. Upon arriving at the licensed premises, Officer Scruggs requested the liquor and food invoices. One of the employees stated that there were no such invoices on the licensed premises. Walter Brown, vice-president of the Respondent corporation, stated that the Invoices were at the accountant's office. These invoices are required to be kept on the licensed premises for a period of 3 years and no permission had been obtained by Respondent to remove the invoices from the licensed premises. During this routine inspection, Officer Scruggs was assisted by Beverage Officers Ken Rigsby and Ron Westcoat. After being unable to review invoices the three officers counted the chairs in the licensed premises and inspected the kitchen area. There was a total of 154 chairs on the licensed premises. In the kitchen, there was found to be an approximately one pound container of frozen fish, ten #10 cans of pork and beans, ten to twelve heads of lettuce, one 1 pound bag of french fries, approximately ten pounds of cooked chicken, and approximately four pounds of cooked pork ribs. The cook, Mr. John Burk, showed Officer Scruggs an invoice for the following items which had been ordered: roast beef, American cheese, two cucumbers, mayonnaise, and two hams. There was a salad bar set up near the bar with items such as onions, mushrooms, and bell peppers. There was less than a cup of each item. An inspection of the silver and plates revealed that there were 113 plates, 24 coffee cups, and 25 water glasses. There was adequate silver as required under the beverage rules. At the time of this inspection, the licensed premises was not open for business. The liquor on premises could not be inventoried because the liquor cabinet was locked. This inspection took place from approximately 10:30 p.m. to 12:00 or 12:30 p.m. Shortly after the June 10, 1983, inspection, the specific date being unknown, Officer Scruggs returned to Respondent's license premises to complete the inspection. Upon inspecting the liquor inventory, Officer Scruggs found that most of the bottles had ABC Liquor Stamps reflecting that the bottles of liquor had been purchased from another retailer. The Respondent at this time was on a "no sale" list which prohibited the licensee from purchasing alcoholic beverages from another retailer or wholesaler while on that list. Licensees who appear on the "no sale" list are placed there because of failure to clear a delinquent account within the specified time. The Respondent had been on the "no sale" list since October 14, 1981, and had been informed by letter on October 14, 1981, that it had been placed on the "no sale" list. The liquor which was inventoried by Officer Scruggs had recently been purchased from either ABC Liquors or Liquor World. On this second visit, Officer Scruggs was able to review the Respondent's invoices for the period July 1981, through June 1982. These invoices revealed total sales of $193,566.99 during that period. Of that total, liquor sales represented $145,639.55 and food sales totaled $47,927.44. During the period July 1981 through June 1982, food sales accounted for 25 percent of Respondent's gross sales while alcoholic beverages accounted for 75 percent of its gross sales. The invoices as kept by the Respondent were not separated as required by the beverage rules and had to be separated prior to arriving at the above totals.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law it is RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent's beverage license be revoked. DONE and ORDERED this 28th day of September, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: James N. Watson, Jr., Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. George Cooper 4627 Parma Court Orlando, Florida 32811 MARVIN E. CHAVIS 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 28th day of September, 1983. Mr. Jack Wallace Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Post Office Box 17735 Orlando, Florida 32860
The Issue The primary issue in this disciplinary proceeding is whether Respondent, which operates a restaurant where alcoholic beverages are served pursuant to a license issued by Petitioner, continued to sell alcohol after the service of full course meals had stopped, in violation of the statutes governing holders of beverage licenses. If Petitioner proves the alleged violation, then it will be necessary to consider whether penalties should be imposed on Respondent.
Findings Of Fact At all relevant times, Respondent Barrett Enterprises, Inc. ("Barrett"), d/b/a Stuart Grill & Ale ("Stuart Grill"), has held a Special Restaurant License (an "SRX license"), which authorizes the licensee to sell alcoholic beverages secondary to the service of food and non-alcoholic beverages. Consequently, Barrett is subject to the regulatory and disciplinary jurisdiction of Petitioner Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco (the "Division"). Barrett employs approximately 50 people to work at Stuart Grill, which is an establishment located in Martin County, Florida. Stuart Grill grosses nearly $2 million annually on food sales. In 2007, Barrett collected and remitted roughly $100,000 in sales tax on revenue from its food service operation. It sells 60,000 pounds, more or less, of chicken wings each year. In short, Stuart Grill is a bona fide restaurant.2 On two occasions——once on September 20, 2007, and again on October 19, 2007——four agents of the Division visited Stuart Grill late in the evening, around 11:00 p.m. They were conducting an investigation to determine whether "full course meals" (a term of art that will be discussed below) were available at all times when the restaurant was serving alcoholic beverages. (One of the conditions of holding an SRX license is that the licensee must make full course meals available while selling alcohol.) The two investigative visits followed the same pattern. Each time, the agents seated themselves at a booth in the main dining room, which was not crowded. The waitress (a different one each time) informed the agents that the kitchen was closed and, therefore, that they would need to order from the "Late Nite Menu," which was provided. The Late Nite Menu contained a limited number of items, namely: mozzarella sticks, beer battered "veggies" (mushrooms or onion rings), chicken strips, dolphin bites, conch fritters, fried critters (clam strips or grouper strips), fried calamari, smoked fish dip, and chicken wings. Each time, an agent tried to order a hamburger and was told that hamburgers were not available. Both times, the agents ordered (and were served) chicken wings, a couple of sodas, and beer.3 Neither visit lasted more than roughly half an hour. Dean Barrett, one of the restaurant's owners, testified credibly that the Late Nite Menu which was given to the agents was actually a bar menu; patrons in the main dining room should not have been instructed that they could order only from the Late Nite Menu, as apparently happened when the Division's agents went to Stuart Grill in September and October 2007. The undersigned accepts Mr. Barrett's testimony in this regard as truthful and finds that the waitresses (neither of whom was identified) who served the agents did not act in accordance with their employer's directives on those occasions. Regardless of that, however, the evidence fails to establish that "full course meals" were not available. As will be seen below, the term "full course meal" is defined for this purpose as a meal consisting of a salad or vegetable, an entrée, a beverage, and bread. When the Late Nite Menu is reviewed with this definition in mind, the factual determination is inescapable that the agents could have ordered such entrées as chicken strips, chicken wings, or fried calamari. They also could have ordered a vegetable ("beer battered veggies") from the Late Nite Menu. Half of the items (entrée and vegetable) constituting a "full course meal," in other words, appeared on the face of the Late Nite Menu. No beverages were listed in the Late Nite Menu. The agents, however, ordered (and were served) sodas and beer. The evidence thus establishes that non-menu items were, in fact, available when the agents visited. Moreover, it is found, the "beverage" requirement for a "full course meal" plainly was met. The only item needed to complete a "full course meal" is bread.4 There is no direct evidence that bread was not available. Perhaps it might be inferred, based on the absence of an obvious bread item on the Late Nite Menu, that no bread could be had. The undersigned declines to draw such an inference, however, because (as found above) other non-menu items were available upon request. Nor would the "fact" that the "kitchen was closed" (which it was not) be a sufficient basis for the undersigned to infer that bread was unavailable. Without more evidence than was adduced in this case, there is not a sufficiently convincing reason for the undersigned to infer that some slices of bread or a few rolls, for example, could not have been found in the restaurant, were a patron to have requested bread with his order of, say, chicken strips (entrée), onion rings (vegetable), and a soda (beverage). The problem with the Division's case, at bottom, is that the agents did not do enough to establish, affirmatively, the negative proposition that the Division must prove, i.e. that a full course meal was not available.5 Because it was (or should have been) clear to the agents that a vegetable, entrée, and beverage were available, they should have asked, specifically, for bread. They did not. The only off-menu item which the agents requested (other than drinks) was a hamburger. The evidence being insufficient to prove that a "full course meal" could not be had on the occasions in question, it must be concluded, as a matter of ultimate fact, that Barrett is not guilty of serving alcohol without simultaneously making full course meals available, as charged in the Administrative Action [Complaint].
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Division enter a final order finding Barrett not guilty of the instant charge. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of May, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM 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.stae.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of May, 2008.
The Issue The ultimate issue in this case is whether the Petitioner's application for a special (SRX) restaurant alcoholic beverage license should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulations of the parties, on the testimony of the witness at the hearing, and on the exhibits received in evidence at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact: Stipulated Facts The special restaurant license is sought for the Brass Elephant Restaurant within the corporate limits of the City of Sanibel, Florida. The restaurant is located on a 7.7-acre parcel of property adjacent to the Gulf of Mexico. The restaurant is located within a resort complex known as the Sanibel Island Hilton. Seating within the restaurant itself is limited to 100 seats by court order and zoning regulations of the City of Sanibel. No bar is maintained within the restaurant itself. The Brass Elephant Restaurant derives more than 51 percent of its revenue from the sale of food and non-alcoholic beverages. The Brass Elephant Restaurant has in excess of 2,500 square feet of service area. The Sanibel Island Hilton is being operated as a first-class destination resort. Hilton Corporation has stringent constraints on the operation of such a resort and has made special exceptions for this resort in light of the special zoning and building restrictions imposed by the City of Sanibel on the resort area; these special exceptions allow, inter alia, separate buildings and outside walkways. The restaurant in question is an accessory use to the Hilton Hotel, and is not an autonomous restaurant. There is no separate sign advertising the restaurant as an individual entity. Access can only be gained from the hotel grounds. By virtue of the development permit issued by the City of Sanibel, the Hilton is precluded from operating a saloon, lounge or restaurant separate and apart from its food service operation. Additional Facts Proved at Hearing The Petitioner also has a banquet facility on the premises known as the "Commodore Suite." It is located approximately 250 feet from the Brass Elephant. Meals for the Commodore Suite are prepared at the kitchen facility in the Brass Elephant. On many occasions patrons of the Commodore Suite have been served at tables simultaneously with those in the Brass Elephant, thereby making the total patrons served at one time at the two locations more than 150. The Petitioner has available on the resort premises all of the necessary equipment to serve more than 150 persons at one time in the Brass Elephant, though the City of Sanibel prohibits it from having more than 100 seats in the restaurant. In addition to the restaurant and the banquet room, there is also a pool bar on the Petitioner's resort premises. The restaurant, pool bar, and banquet room are physically separate from each other. The distance between the restaurant and the banquet room is approximately 250 feet and the distance between the restaurant and pool bar is about the same. There are no separate walkways from the various buildings to the restaurant. To walk from the restaurant to the banquet room, one has to walk across a street, part of a parking lot, and around or under one of the other buildings at the resort. To walk from the pool bar to the restaurant or the banquet room, one has to walk around or through another building. The foregoing paragraphs numbered 1 through 16 comprise all of the findings of fact in this case. Such findings include the substance of all of the findings proposed by the Petitioner and the substance of the vast majority of the facts proposed by the Respondent. To the extent I have not made certain proposed findings of fact, such proposed findings are irrelevant and immaterial to the issues to be decided in this case.
Recommendation For all of the reasons set forth above, I recommend that the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco issue a Final Order denying the application of Shell Harbor Group, Inc., for a special restaurant liquor license. DONE and ORDERED this 1st day of May, 1985, at Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH 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 1st day of May, 1985.
Findings Of Fact At about 4:00 o'clock on the afternoon of May 8, 1979, petitioner's officers David William Shomers and Muriel Snipes Waldmann, entered respondent's place of business. At that time, Sherry Ann Armetto was behind the bar. When Officers Shomers and Waldmann asked Ms. Armetto for a meal she told them that the cook had not yet arrived. Officer Shomers and Officer Waldmann then each ordered a Scotch and soda, and both were served. At about 5:00 o'clock, the cook was still nowhere to he found. Officer Shomers counted the places available for people to sit down and eat, including seats in the bar, and determined that there were only 161 such places. Even though Ms. Armetto had worked for respondent as a bar tender for five or six months before the inspection on May 8, 1979, she had never been advised to refrain from selling alcoholic beverages when the kitchen was closed. She was so advised, however, after the events of May 8, 1979. Ricardo John Gutierrez had worked for the business four or four and one half years as of May of 1979. He was never told not to sell alcoholic beverages while meals were not sold. Petitioner initiated the present proceedings on or about July 3, 1979. In May of 1979, respondent Pete Rose Corporation held license number 16-790 SRX, an "ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE LICENSE FOR THE PERIOD OCTOBER 1, 1970, THRU SEPTEMBER 30, 1979." Petitioner's exhibit No. 1. Respondent has not renewed the license since. As a condition of this beverage license, respondent was required to maintain at least 4,000 square feet, sufficient tables, chairs, china, other equipment and personnel to serve food to 200 persons, Officer Shomers testified.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That petitioner dismiss the notice to show cause, thereby terminating these proceedings and allowing respondent's license to expire; and then cancel respondent's license. DONE and ENTERED this 15th day of February, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: James Watson, Jr., Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Pete Rose Corporation d/b/a Fat Cats 2590 S. State Road 7 Miramar, Florida
The Issue Whether Petitioner may discipline Respondent’s alcoholic beverage license for Respondent’s violating Florida Administrative Code Rule 61A-3.0141(3)(D) and Section 561.20(4) “within” 561.29(1)(a),1/ Florida Statutes, on three separate occasions.
Findings Of Fact Pursuant to un-refuted testimony, Respondent, MJT Restaurant Group, Inc., doing business as The Copper Pot, holds Beverage License 5202697, Series 4 COP, SRX.3/ Respondent’s establishment is located in Ocala, Florida. It is divided into two separate interior rooms, with two separate exterior entrances. The two rooms are connected through the interior by a single opening between one room, which is the main restaurant area, and a second room, which is the bar/lounge. A complaint was opened against Respondent with a warning letter issued by Investigative Specialist Melodi Brewton on March 15, 2007. The Administrative Complaint that was ultimately filed in this case addresses only the dates of April 7, 2007, June 17, 2007, and July 20, 2007. On April 7, 2007, Special Agents Angel Rosado and Lawrence Perez visited Respondent’s premises in an undercover capacity at approximately 11:00 p.m. On that date, the restaurant’s exterior door was closed and locked, but the lounge’s exterior door was open. The agents entered through the lounge’s exterior door and observed patrons consuming alcohol and listening to a band in the bar area. The agents requested a menu from the bartender. The bartender told them the kitchen was closed. Each agent then ordered a beer, and a sealed alcoholic beer bottle was sold to each of them as alcoholic beer. Each agent was over 21 years of age, familiar with the smell and taste of alcohol, and testified that the liquid inside his container had been alcoholic beer. The agents testified that they had paid for, and received, the liquid as if it were alcoholic beer. A chain of custody was maintained and a sample vial of the beer served by Respondent on Tuesday, April 7, 2007, was brought to the hearing but was not admitted into evidence as unduly repetitious and cumbersome.4/ On June 16, 2007, Special Agent Rosado and Special Agent Lawrence Perez visited The Copper Pot at approximately 11:30 p.m. The outside restaurant door was not locked, but the lights were off inside the restaurant room where chairs were stacked on the tables. The agents observed patrons in the lounge room consuming alcohol. When the agents asked for a menu, the male bartender told them that the kitchen was closed. The bartender offered to heat up some spinach dip for them, but they declined. Each agent then ordered an alcoholic beer, and a liquid was sold to each of them as alcoholic beer. Each agent was over 21 years of age, familiar with the smell and taste of alcohol, and testified that the liquid sold him was alcoholic beer. Each agent testified that he had paid for, and received, the liquid as if it were alcoholic beer. A sample of the alcoholic beer was logged into the Agency evidence room on June 17, 2007. That sample of the beer served by Respondent on June 16, 2007, was brought to the hearing but was not admitted into evidence as unduly repetitious and cumbersome.5/ During the June 16-17, 2007, visit, Agent Perez spoke with a woman who was later determined to be one of the corporate officers of the licensee, Judith Vallejo. When Agent Perez asked her about obtaining a meal, Judith Vallejo replied that the kitchen was closed, but they could get food at the nearby Steak’N’Shake. The male bartender then told the agents that the Respondent’s restaurant closes at 9:00 p.m. weekdays and 10:00 p.m. on weekends. June 16, 2007, was a Saturday. June 17, 2007, was a Sunday. At about 11:00 p.m. on July 20, 2007, Special Agents James DeLoach, Ernest Wilson, and Angela Francis entered Respondent licensee’s premises through the lounge. The restaurant’s outside entrance was locked and the restaurant was dark. In the lounge, they asked for a menu to order a meal. The male bartender told them that the kitchen was closed, but they could have a spinach dip. The agents ordered, and were served, one beer and two mixed drinks, which Special Agents DeLoach and Wilson testified had alcohol in them. Special Agent Francis did not testify. Both of the special agents who testified were over 21 years of age, familiar with the taste and smell of alcohol, identified that the liquids they had been served were, in fact, alcoholic beverages, and that they had bought and paid for what the bartender served them as alcoholic beverages as if they were alcoholic beverages. Each testified that the bartender had represented that what he was serving them were the alcoholic beverages they had ordered. A sample vial of only the beer served by Respondent to Special Agent Wilson on July 20, 2007, was brought to the hearing, but it was not admitted into evidence as unduly repetitious and cumbersome.6/ Thereafter, a notice of intent to file charges was served upon one of Respondent’s corporate officers. There was testimony from a Special Agent that an SRX licensee is required to earn fifty per cent of its gross income from the sale of food and must sell food which is the equivalent of a full course meal during the entire time alcohol is being served, and that the Administrative Complaint herein should have cited Section 561.20(1) instead of 561.20(4), Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered dismissing all statutory charges; finding Respondent guilty, under each of the three counts of the Administrative Complaint, of violating Florida Administrative Code Rule 61A-3.0141(3)(d); and for the rule violations, fining Respondent $1,000.00, and revoking Respondent's license without prejudice to Respondent's obtaining any type of license, but with prejudice to Respondent's obtaining the same type of special license for five years. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of March, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELLA JANE P. DAVIS 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 4th day of March, 2008.
The Issue One issue posed for decision herein is whether or not the Petitioners are entitled to a transfer of License No. 16-1333 SRX (4-COP), an alcoholic beverage license which currently allows Jacob's Ladder, Inc., to serve liquor, wine and beer as Part of its restaurant business pursuant to Sections 561.32 and 561.321, Florida Statutes. Also at issue is whether or not the Petitioners are entitled to have a default judgment for removal of tenant," issued by the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in Broward County, against Jacob's Ladder, Inc., recorded by Respondent as a lien pursuant to Chapter 561.65, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received including a stipulation by the parties, the following relevant facts are found. License No. 16-1333 SRX (4-COP) is issued to the premises at 1480 South Ocean Boulevard, Pompano Beach, Florida. Petitioners are owners in fee simple to this property. Petitioners leased this property to the past licensee, Jacob's Ladder, Inc. (Petitioners' Exhibit No. 1). Petitioners transferred the subject license to the lessee, Jacob's Ladder, Inc., for use while they operated a restaurant at the subject location (1480 South Ocean Boulevard, Pompano Beach, Florida). The transfer of the license was not a subject of the lease agreement and the record does not reflect that any consideration was exchanged for the license. Petitioner and Jacob's Ladder, Inc., subsequently executed a transfer application transferring the subject license back to Petitioners. The transfer application was then placed in escrow for the stated purpose of facilitating a license transfer in the event that the lessee defaulted on the lease agreement. (Petitioners' Exhibit Nos. 2 and 12.) Petitioners later learned that the property had been converted to a bar instead of a "family type restaurant." Thus, Petitioners concluded that the "conversion" resulted in a use of the premises in a function inconsistent with the lease and Florida's alcoholic beverage laws. Petitioners, therefore, sought and obtained a court order evicting Jacob's Ladder, Inc., from the premises (Petitioners' Exhibit No. 3). Respondent had notice that the Petitioners were lessors and owners of the property to which the subject license was issued both when Petitioners transferred the license to Jacob's Ladder, Inc., and when the Petitioners' attorneys informed Respondent of Petitioners' status as lessors and owners of the subject property. (Petitioners' Exhibit No. 4.) On January 22, 1979, Respondent, through its District Supervisor, filed charges and prepared an Administrative Complaint for Rule violations against Jacob's Ladder occurring in June of 1978. On February 1, 1979, Petitioners' attorneys met for an office conference with Respondent's Director and other staff personnel concerning the subject license. During this meeting, Respondent, in addition to being advised that Petitioners were the lessors of the subject premises, was also advised that Petitioners had taken possession and was seeking transfer of the license to Petitioners. During this meeting, Petitioners were advised by Respondent that Jacob's Ladder had continuously violated rules governing the special restaurant license which was issued; that Respondent intended to revoke the license and was presently proceeding to that end. On February 5, 1979, Petitioners signed a letter of agreement, stipulating to their future conduct and to the conduct of any future lessee. (Petitioners' Exhibit No. 6.) On February 9, 1979, Petitioners executed an application for transfer of License No. 16-1333 SRX (4-COP)(Petitioners Exhibit No. 12). Also on February 9, 1979, Respondent executed and forwarded two documents captioned a Notice to Show Cause/Notice of Informal Conference and a Notice of Informal Conference both of which were received at two locations by J. Epsimos, President of Jacob's Ladder, Inc., on February 13 and 15, 1979. (Petitioners' Exhibit No. 7.) Petitioners' letter of agreement, application for transfer and request for lien filing were mailed to Respondent on February 16, 1979. On March 8, 1979, Respondent returned Petitioners' transfer application, request for lien recording and letter of agreement. (Petitioners' Exhibit No. 5.) In May, 1979, Respondent drafted a revocation order which was not executed, at least in Part, due to Petitioners application for and receipt of a temporary injunction enjoining Respondent from executing the revocation order. The file on the revocation proceedings was closed on May 29, 1979. (Respondent's Exhibit No. 3.) Following the March 8, 1979, letter wherein Respondent returned Petitioners' application and advised that a revocation proceeding was Pending, Respondent proceeded with this effort to suspend or revoke License No. 16-1333 SRX (4-COP). (DOAH Case No. 79-898.) The licensee, Jacob's Ladder, Inc., communicated to Respondent that it did not contest the charges in the Notice to Show Cause filed February 9, 1979, and therefore, did not want a hearing. The matter was, therefore, closed by this Division on May 29, 1979. (See Respondent's Exhibit Nos. 2 and 3.) The licensed premises is one unit of a 57-unit condominium. The remaining 56 units are all residential. There are currently 41 Parking spaces which serve the condominium. According to the Director of Building and Zoning Enforcement for Broward County, the 41 Parking spaces are inadequate to serve the condominium units and are "clearly inadequate to serve 56 residential units in addition to the subject restaurant. Since the Premises were first licensed to serve alcoholic beverages in 1974, condominium residents have complained to the Director of the Respondent about problems they perceived were being created by the service of alcoholic beverages at the restaurant. (Testimony of Nuzum and Nerzig.) Respondent's Director denied the license transfer for two reasons. First, the premises could never serve as a legitimate restaurant but would continue to operate as a bar due to inadequate parking facilities and thus, would be unable to comply with pertinent rules, regulations and statutes governing special restaurant licenses. (Chapter 561, Florida Statutes.) This is so due to the inadequacy of the parking facilities. Secondly, the licensee bad been in violation of the beverage law in 1977 for the same type of violations charged in the subject complaint when the transfer application was submitted. 2/ The Department (Respondent) has an ongoing policy of refusing to record documents pursuant to Section 561.65, Florida Statutes, when the license against which the document is to be recorded is in a revocation proceeding. (Testimony of C. L. Ivey, Regional Supervisor, Barry Schoenfield, Bureau Chief of Licensing, and C. Nuzum, Respondent's Director.) Also, Chief Schoenfield testified to Respondent's policy of only recording liens from lenders that are licensed by the State. This policy appears to be sanctioned by Chapter 561.65, Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That the action of Respondent in refusing to transfer License No. 16-1333 SRX (4-COP), and refusing to record Petitioners' judgement and lien filings be SUSTAINED. RECOMMENDED this 27th day of May, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, 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 27th day of May, 1981.
