The Issue Whether the Proposed Amendment of Rule 7E-6.007, Florida Administrative Code, is arbitrary and capricious and thus constitutes an invalid exercise of delegated authority?
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Hialeah, Inc., operates a race track (hereinafter referred to as the "Track") located in Dade County, Florida. The Petitioner is licensed by the Respondent. In December, 1981, the Petitioner was granted permission by letter from Bob Smith, then Director of the Respondent, the Department of Business Regulation, Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering, to operate Tel-A-Betting. Robert Rosenburg, Director of the Respondent after Mr. Smith, also approved Tel-A- Betting in a letter to the Petitioner. The Petitioner has continuously operated Tel-A-Betting for more than six years. The Petitioner instituted Tel-A-Betting in reliance on the Respondent's approval of Tel-A-Betting. If approval had not been granted to the Petitioner from the Respondent, the Petitioner would not have established Tel-A-Betting. Tel-A-Betting is a procedure for placing wagers on races at the Petitioner's Track. Persons utilizing this system (hereinafter referred to as "Account Holders"), open an account with the Petitioner by making a deposit of $100.00 or more with the Petitioner and paying a $25.00 fee. The funds deposited with the Petitioner are received and accounted for in accounts maintained at the Track. Once an account is opened, a plastic card which contains, among other information, an account number and an "800," toll-free, telephone number is issued to the Account Holder. Wagers may then be placed with the Petitioner by the Account Holder calling the "800" number and placing a wager with a telephone operator/pari-mutuel clerk located at the Track. The Account Holder identifies himself or herself by giving the operator the account number and a code name designated by the Account Holder when the account is opened. The account number is programmed into a computer to determine whether the Account Holder has sufficient funds in the account to make the wager. If the funds in the account are sufficient to cover the wager, the wager is entered into the computer. If the Account Holder wins the wager, the payoff is entered into his or her account. Calls to place wagers through the Tel-A-Betting program can be made from anywhere in Florida and the person making the call and wager need not be physically present at the Track to make the wager. Wagers taken through Tel-A-Betting are only made on races at the Track. Tel-A-Betting allows the Petitioner to receive wagered funds as part of its pari-mutuel pool from persons located anywhere in the State of Florida. When a wager is made through Tel-A-Betting, the operator/pari-mutuel clerk cannot establish the age or identity of the person placing the wager. The Petitioner is the only race track permit holder in the State of Florida which employs Tel-A-Betting. The Proposed Amendment of Rule 7E-6.007, Florida Administrative Code, if valid, will prohibit the Petitioner from continuing the use of Tel-A-Betting. The Respondent has not received any complaints about the use of Tel-A- Betting by minors or any other abuses. No evidence was presented that minors have made, or attempted to make, wagers through the use of Tel-A-Betting. The Respondent has not received any objections to Tel-A-Betting or complaints about unfair competition from other racetrack permit holders.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent violated section 760.08, Florida Statutes, of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992 (“FCRA”), by denying Petitioner the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of a place of public accommodation on the basis of Petitioner’s handicap.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner Smith is an adult male who resides in Sunrise, Florida. Respondent 7-Eleven is a Texas corporation, with its headquarters located at 3200 Hackberry Road, Irving, Texas. Respondent owns, operates, and franchises convenience stores in Florida under the trademarked name “7-Eleven.” Procedural Background On or about March 28, 2018, Smith filed a Public Accommodation Complaint of Discrimination with FCHR, alleging that 7-Eleven, Inc., through its agent, violated section 760.80 by denying him full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of a place of public accommodation on the basis of handicap. After conducting an investigation, FCHR issued a Determination: Reasonable Cause on or about September 19, 2018, finding reasonable cause to believe that an unlawful practice occurred. Smith timely filed a Petition for Relief on October 16, 2018, asserting that 7-Eleven had discriminated against him in a place of public accommodation on the basis of handicap. This charge, as set forth in the Petition for Relief, is the subject of this de novo proceeding. Events Giving Rise to this Proceeding On September 16, 2017, Smith arrived at the Store to purchase gasoline. He was accompanied by Mrs. Smith and his daughter, Rochelle Smith. At that time, the Store was a franchised 7-Eleven convenience store and gas station. HA&A Enterprises, Inc. (“HA&A”), owned by Sumera Shahzadi (“Shahzadi”), was the franchisee. Immediately upon arriving at the Store, Smith went inside to use the restroom, while Mrs. Smith remained outside to pump gas. Smith testified, credibly, that he had a stroke and, as a result, walks slowly with a visible limp. He testified that he sometimes, but not always, uses a cane to assist him in walking. He was not using a cane when he entered the Store on September 16, 2017. Upon entering the Store, Smith discovered that the restroom was locked. Smith asked Shahzada Hussain (“Hussain”), who was working behind the counter, for the restroom key so that he could use the restroom. Hussain told him that the restroom was out of order and did not give him the key. The evidence does not establish that Hussain was aware of any disability or handicap that Smith may have.4/ Because Smith was unable to use the restroom, he was forced to urinate outside, in the front of the Store. Smith had difficulty pulling down his pants, and he urinated on himself. He testified, credibly, that other persons were present at the Store and saw him urinate on himself. Mrs. Smith assisted Smith in pulling up his pants, then went inside the Store and asked Hussain for the key to the restroom. Hussain gave her the key. She went into the restroom and found it to be in working order. She also noticed that no “out of order” sign was posted on the restroom door. Mrs. Smith then took numerous photographs of various documents on the wall of the Store. These documents included: a Broward County Local Business Tax Receipt for the period of October 1, 2016, to September 30, 2017, showing the business name as “7-Eleven #35031” and the business owner as “7-Eleven Inc. & HA&A Enterprises, Inc.”; the 2016 Florida Annual Resale Certificate for Sales Tax issued to 7-Eleven Store #35031, HA&A Enterprises, Inc.; a Florida Department of Environmental Protection Storage Tank Registration Placard, 2015-2016, issued to 7-Eleven, Inc., Store #35031; a National Registry of Food Safety Professionalism certificate issued to Shahzada Hussain; a Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, Temporary License/Permit; a document titled “Notice,” with the name “7-Eleven” handwritten as the business authorized to engage in the money transmission business; a Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Liquefied Petroleum Gas License issued to 7-Eleven Store #35031; and a ServSafe Certification issued to Sumera Shahzadi. The photographs, along with a written description of each document depicted in the photographs, were admitted into evidence at the final hearing. At that time, Mrs. Smith also photographed the Store’s restroom door, on which signs reading “MEN” and “WOMEN” were hung. Each of these signs depicted a wheelchair symbol, presumably indicating that the restroom was handicapped- accessible. The restroom door did not have a sign posted indicating that it was out of order. Mrs. Smith also photographed Shazhadi and Hussain as they were working behind the counter of the Store. Mrs. Smith referred to Shazhadi and Hussain as “the owners” of the Store in her testimony at the final hearing regarding the September 16, 2017, incident.5/ Shortly after the incident, the police arrived at the Store on an unrelated matter. At the direction of the police officer investigating the unrelated matter, the Smiths did not purchase gasoline at the Store that day, and went to another store to purchase gas. Mrs. Smith testified that she frequently patronized the Store, both before and after the September 16, 2017, incident. As noted above, Smith credibly testified that other persons present at the Store saw him urinate on himself. Smith is a member of the clergy of a local church and, thus, is a well-known person in his neighborhood, where the Store is located. The credible evidence establishes that Smith was extremely embarrassed and humiliated, and experienced emotional distress as a result of having urinated on himself in public view. He testified that this incident so embarrassed him that he may move from the community or from the state. No evidence regarding any quantified or quantifiable injury or damages that Smith may have incurred as a result of the incident was presented. On or about November 14, 2017, the Smiths filed a complaint regarding their September 16, 2017, experience at the Store through 7-Eleven’s complaint hotline. Mrs. Smith testified that in one of the telephone conversations with the 7-Eleven corporate office, they were given an incident claim number. On or about November 19, 2017, Mavis Steffan, the 7-Eleven corporate field consultant for the subgroup of 7-Eleven stores that includes the Store, contacted the Smiths and spoke to them regarding the September 16, 2017, incident at the Store. Mrs. Smith testified that when the Smiths spoke with Steffan on November 19, 2017, she (Steffan) told them that on the date of the incident, the Store was a private franchise, and that on October 23, 2017, the Store “became corporate”——meaning that 7- Eleven, Inc., began operating the Store. Steffan apologized for the incident, invited the Smiths to patronize the Store again, and told them that Smith was free to use the restroom at the Store. Relationship between the Store and 7-Eleven Steffan testified at the final hearing regarding the relationship between the Store and 7-Eleven, as it existed on September 19, 2017. 7-Eleven and HA&A entered into a 7-Eleven, Inc. Florida Individual Store Franchise Agreement (hereafter, “Franchise Agreement” or “Agreement”), effective March 23, 2016, regarding the Store. The Franchise Agreement terminated on October 23, 2017, and, as of that date, 7-Eleven, Inc., began operating the Store.6/ Therefore, the Store was a franchised store on September 19, 2017, the date of the incident. As discussed above, HA&A was the franchisee. Pursuant to the Franchise Agreement, HA&A was an independent contractor. The Agreement provided that the franchisee——here, HA&A——controlled the manner and means of the operation of the franchised store, and exercised complete control over and responsibility for the conduct of its agents and employees, including the day-to-day operations of the franchised store. The Agreement expressly provided that the franchisee’s agents and employees could not be considered or held out to be agents or employees of 7-Eleven, and could not incur any liability in the name of, or on behalf of, 7-Eleven. The Agreement further provided that all employees of the franchised store were solely those of the franchisee, and that no actions taken by the franchisee, its agents, or its employees would be attributable to 7-Eleven. As part of the Franchise Agreement, HA&A also agreed to comply with 7-Eleven’s Operations Manual (“Manual”). Provisions in the Manual stated that the franchisee was solely responsible for setting the policies and procedures to operate his or her store in accordance with the laws of the legal jurisdiction in which the store was located, and that the franchisee was solely responsible for the actions of its employees while on the job. Additionally, training materials provided by 7-Eleven to franchisees for use in training franchisee employees expressly informed those employees that they were not “in any way considered to be an employee, agent[,] or independent contractor of 7-Eleven, Inc.,” and that 7-Eleven did not “assume any liability for providing you these training materials.” Consistent with these provisions, Steffan testified that the franchisee——here, HA&A——was solely responsible for the overall operations of the Store, including supervising, hiring, firing, promoting, and disciplining Store employees. HA&A also was solely responsible for enforcing workplace rules, policies, and procedures for the Store. Based on this evidence, it is determined that HA&A was solely responsible for the actions of its employees and agents, including Hussain’s actions on September 16, 2017, toward Smith. Stated another way, the evidence establishes that 7-Eleven was not responsible for Hussain’s actions in the Store, including his actions on September 16, 2017, toward Smith while he (Smith) was in the Store.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of March, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CATHY M. SELLERS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of March, 2019.
The Issue Whether the registration fees for two automobiles leased by Petitioner should be based on the vehicles being classified as "automobiles for private use" as contended by Petitioner or whether the registration should be based on the vehicles being classified as "motor vehicles for hire" as contended by Respondent.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is in the insurance business. In connection with that business, he leases two motor vehicles from World Omni Leasing Company. Petitioner pays to World Omni Leasing a monthly fee for the use of the two vehicles. Petitioner and his wife uses these two vehicles for business and personal purposes. Petitioner and his wife are the sole operators of these two vehicles. The registration fee for each automobile was based on the automobile being classified as a "for-hire vehicle" as that term is defined by Section 320.01(15)(a), Florida Statutes. Petitioner contends that the registration for each vehicle should be based on each vehicle being classified as a "private use" vehicle as defined by Section 320.01(14), Florida Statutes. The registration fee for each automobile under the "for-hire" classification was higher than the registration fee would have been under the "private use" classification.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a final order that adopts the findings of fact and conclusions of law contained herein and which sustains the registration fees that have been charged for the two subject vehicles. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of September, 1994, 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 6th day of September, 1994. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. David Youner Post Office Box 450580 Sunrise, Florida 33345 Michael J. Alderman, Esquire Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, Room A432 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0504 Charles J. Brantley, Director Division of Motor Vehicles Room B439, Neil Kirkman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0500 Enoch Jon Whitney, General Counsel Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0500
Conclusions This matter came before the Department for entry of a Final Order upon submission of an Order Granting Motion to Relinquish Jurisdiction and Closing Files by William F. Quattlebaum, Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings. The Department hereby Filed July 18, 2011 10:02 AM Division of Administrative Hearings adopts the Order Granting Motion to Relinquish Jurisdiction and Closing Files as its Final Order in this matter. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that this case is CLOSED DONE AND ORDERED this Ee day of July, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. whet Sandra C. Lambert, Director Division of Motorist Services Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, Room A435, MS 80 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Motorist Services this ___/4 day of July, 2011. Nalini Vinayak, Dealer Ucense Administrator NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS Judicial review of this order may be had pursuant to section 120.68, Florida Statutes, in the District Court of Appeal for the First District, State of Florida, or in any other district court of appeal of this state in an appellate district where a party resides. In order to initiate such review, one copy of the notice of appeal must be filed with the Department and the other copy of the notice of appeal, together with the filing fee, must be filed with the court within thirty days of the filing date of this order as set out above, pursuant to Rules of Appellate Procedure. SCLivlg Copies furnished: J. Andrew Bertron, Esquire Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP 3600 Maclay Boulevard South, Suite 202 Tallahassee, Florida 32312 John W. Forehand, Esquire Kurkin Forehand Brandes, LLP 800 North Calhoun Street, Suite 1B Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Eric Scott Adams, Esquire Shutts & Bowen, LLP 100 South Ashley Drive, Suite 1500 Tampa, Florida 33602 William F. Quattlebaum Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Nalini Vinayak Dealer License Administrator
The Issue The issue is whether General Motors is inadequately represented in the relevant community or territory and whether Collection Chevrolet, Inc., (Collection) should be permitted to relocate as requested in its application.
Findings Of Fact Abraham timely filed with the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles its July 6, 1987 letter of protest, which became the initial petition herein. On July 24, 1987, Collection and GM filed a Motion to Dismiss that initial petition. Abraham moved for leave to file an amended Petition. Collection and GM consented to the filing of an amended petition. By Order of August 25, 1987, the undersigned granted the filing of the proposed amendments, which had not been incorporated by Abraham into a fully new petition. Collection and GM addressed these amendments in a Motion to Dismiss Amended Petition, which addressed the new matters raised in the Abraham's amendatory paragraphs. This August 24, 1987 Motion to Dismiss Amended Petition also incorporated Collection's and GM's arguments from heir earlier Motion to Dismiss. Abraham filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the August 25, 1987 Order, together with Abraham's Amended Petition on September 2, 1987; upon which pleadings oral argument was heard by telephonic conference call. Thereafter, by September 18, 1987 Orders Abraham's Amended Petition filed September 2, 1987, was deemed to be Abraham's duly filed second Amended Petition; GM's and Collection's July 24, 1987 Motion to Dismiss and August 24, 1987 Motion to Dismiss Amended Petition were permitted to stand over against Abraham's September 2, 1987, second Amended Petition; GM and Collection were permitted to file amendments to their motions to dismiss directed specifically to the September 2, 1987 second Amended Petition, which amendments Collection and GM timely filed; and Abraham was permitted to file a response to Collection's and GM's final motions/amendments, which response was filed October 5, 1987. Although untimely by the terms of the September 18, 1987 Order, Abraham's response has also been considered. Collection has applied to the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles for a license to relocate Collection's GM dealership from its existing location at 9200 N.W. 27th Avenue between 91st and 95th Streets, to a new location on the south side of the Tamiami Trail between N.W. 139th and 143rd Avenues, in Miami, Dade County, Florida. The relocation would result in the distance between applicant Collection and protestant Abraham being more than doubled from 4.4 miles to 9.6 miles. Collection's application is not an initial applications and seeks only a change of physical address. Thus, it is not an application for a new license but an application for relocation. The map attached to the second Amended Petition as Exhibit A contains the legend, "Abraham AGGSA 11" and a line drawn on the map outlining an area of central Dade County, Florida. The western boundary is irregular but is between 87th Avenue and 67th Avenue, centering around the Palmetto Expressway, State Road 826, which is approximately at 78th Avenue. On the north, the boundary is irregular but centers around N.W. 30th Street. The southern and eastern boundaries are irrelevant. In its second Amended Petition, Abraham pleads the map's boundaries as its area of primary responsibility. In its October 5, 1987 Response to the motions to dismiss, Abraham admits there is no dispute of fact regarding the further distance relocation, the existing physical location of Collection, or the proposed physical location of Collection but perversely argues that, "In dispute as well is the area of primary responsibility contractually assigned to Abraham by GM. Abraham has serviced for a number of years, the proposed area into which Collection proposes to move, with the knowledge and consent of GM." GM does not admit that the area designated on the map attached as Exhibit A to Abraham's second Amended Petition has been contractually assigned by GM to Abraham as a primary area of responsibility or by any other designation as alleged by Abraham. However, assuming arguendo for purposes of these motions, that the area specifically pled by Abraham has been so designated, then Collection's proposed new location will be no closer to Abraham's alleged area of responsibility than is Collection's existing location. The existing Collection location north of 91st Street is approximately 61 blocks north of the northern boundary of Abraham's alleged area of responsibility, which is in the vicinity of 30th Street. The proposed relocation of Collection west of 139th Avenue is similarly approximately 61 blocks west of the western boundary of Abraham's alleged area of responsibility, which is in the vicinity of 78th Avenue.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is, RECOMMENDED that Abraham's second Amended Petition/protest be dismissed with prejudice. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 21st day of October, 1987, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of October, 1987.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: The petitioners are several of the current operators of the eleven service stations located at the eight service plazas on the Florida Turnpike. Each has considerable experience and background in the business of supplying oil and petroleum products to the motoring public on the Turnpike. Currently, the Turnpike service stations are being operated by lessees, or their sublessees, who contracted in 1977 and 1978 with the DOT for a five year term. The leases have been extended due to a series of legal proceedings. Each petitioner is a lessee or a sublessee operator. Prior to 1984, the DOT obtained service station operations on the Turnpike through the competitive bidding process. In 1984, the Legislature changed the mode of acquiring such services by requiring a request for proposal process. Eight factors, as well as such other factors as the DOT may deem pertinent, were enumerated by the Legislature to be used in evaluating proposals. Section 338.235(2)(a), Florida Statutes. By letter dated July 31, 1984, the DOT notified the petitioners and other potential proposers of the legislative change in procedures for securing concessionaire services on the Turnpike. Current operators and others were informed of the factors to be used in evaluating upcoming proposals and were informed that the DOT would require both full service and self- service fuel dispensing for each station. The DOT requested input and suggestions regarding the upcoming RFP process. Interested persons were solicited as proposers through advertisements and were advised to submit their letters of interest and statement of qualifications to the DOT. Some 38 parties, including the petitioners herein, were certified by the DOT as qualified to propose. The RFP in question was distributed to the prequalified proposers in April of 1986. On June 12, 1986, a preproposal conference was held by the DOT to answer written questions which had previously been submitted and to answer questions from the floor. The 44 questions and answers were later reduced to a single document and were mailed to each of the proposers. The DOT also issued three addendums modifying several of the original RFP requirements. In general, the RFP solicits creative and innovative proposals for modernization of the service station operations and facilities. It requires a combination of both full and self-service fuel dispensing, wrecker service, minor repair service and 24-hour a day operations. Basic remodeling changes are required, and major renovations will be considered. The RFP and its addenda provide detailed comments and directions as to the concepts which the proposers are requested to develop. The proposed service station lease agreement is attached to the RFP, and it provides further information as to the basic services required. Proposals submitted are to be evaluated based upon a point system set forth in the RFP as follows: "Management Plan (Maximum of 50 Points) 0 - 10 Points - Full intent to comply with the terms of the proposed Lease Agreement for the services as set forth in Section IV of this RFP, including specifically the provi- sions covering retail pricing of motor fuels and services to be offered. 0 - 20 Points - Meeting the needs and des- ires of Turnpike patrons; including but not limited to cleanliness of restrooms, appear- ance of the premises, fast service, quality products, reasonable prices, friendly person- nel. 0 - 20 Points - Extent and style of ser- vices to be provided; including but not limited to road and wrecker services where applicable, scope of repairs, ratio of self- service to full-service fuel pumps. Additional Considerations (Maximum of 50 Points) 0 - 25 Points - Renovation concept schedule and financial commitment to provide remodeled facilities. 0 - 15 Points - Revenue to Department. 0 - 10 Points - Qualifications - Skills and experience of the proposer to under take the Assignment." Each member of a five-member selection committee will independently award the points, the numbers will then be averaged, and the proposals with the highest score and those clustered within ten points of the highest score will be submitted to the DOT Secretary, Assistant Secretary and Deputy Assistant Secretary for final selection. Beyond the quoted point system set forth in the RFP, the DOT has not further articulated the criteria by which the scorers will differentiate between an award of 0 points and 10 or 20 points. The selection committee is comprised of five DOT employees whose range of experience includes Turnpike operations, maintenance operations, financial matters, real estate matters and the current service station operations. None of the five members has actually operated a service station. Originally, the RFP required a 5 to 7 year performance bond. However, after receiving criticism as to the availability of such a bond, the bond form was revised in a manner which would be acceptable to sureties doing business in Florida. While the form is now acceptable, an actual commitment from an insurance company may be difficult to obtain prior to actual knowledge of the ultimate terms of the contract. The RFP initially required a 5 to 7 year supply contract agreement with oil companies. The current operators who are petitioners in this proceeding have never been guaranteed a 5 to 7 year commitment by their oil and fuel suppliers. One prequalified proposer had obtained a least one letter of commitment from a major oil company for six and seven year terms. In one of the preproposal questions regarding the reasonableness of the length of the required supply commitment, the DOT responded: "The proposer should indicate in his proposal what is reasonable in the oil industry, i.e., a one year, two year, or three year lease, etc., or the best lease that can be secured from an oil company." The terms of the lease agreement under the RFP require a Holmes Model No. 440W wrecker. Although some of the current operators utilize this model, the DOT, when informed that the 440W wrecker may be obsolete, responded that "the proposers can propose use of an equiva- lent or this model number with appropriate attachments to ensure compatibility with latest model vehicles." Previously submitted proposals may be modified at any time prior to the proposal's due date, but modifications will not be considered after that date. The DOT does reserve to itself the right to negotiate certain changes and resolve questions with the successful bidder relating to the final lease agreement. However, this reservation is limited. There can be no substantial changes in the general plan or character of the work such as to evade the competitive process. Actual and prospective proposers were notified in the cover sheet attached to the RFP that disputes as to the reasonableness, necessity or competitiveness of the terms and conditions of the RFP could be resolved by filing a protest in accordance with Section 120.53(5), Florida Statutes, and applicable agency rules. In the questions and answers provided to all qualified proposers, the DOT stated that protests concerning the RFP could be handled differently from the Section 120.53(5) procedure for protests of competitive bidding, and would be adjudicated like all agency decisions affecting substantial interests under the provisions of Section 120.57. Qualified proposers were also advised that the DOT would rely upon Department of General Services' Chapter 13A-1, Florida Administrative Code, where it pertains to bid invitations. The DOT has not promulgated separate rules for the instant request for proposal process. As indicated above, it has instead stated its intent to rely upon Chapter 13A, the Department of General Services rules, in its administration of the present RFP process. The petitioners currently have pending in the Circuit Court of the Second Judicial Circuit for Leon County (Case No. 86-3546) a declaratory judgment suit for statutory interpretation of Section 338.235, Florida Statutes. The primary issue in that proceeding is whether the Legislature required the DOT to adopt rules before utilizing the RFP process for obtaining service station operations on the Turnpike.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the petition for hearing be DISMISSED, and that the Department of Transportation reschedule the proposal deadline after reasonable notice to all prequalified proposers. Respectfully submitted and entered this 17th day of February, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of February, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-3732 The proposed findings of fact submitted by the petitioners and the respondent have been fully considered and have been accepted and/or incorporated in this Recommended Order, except as noted below. Petitioner Page 4, last 2 sentences: Rejected; irrelevant and immaterial. Page 6, last paragraph through page 7 through 1st full paragraph: Rejected; not supported by competent, substantial evidence, and argumentative. Page 7, 2nd full paragraph: Rejected; see Finding of Fact 10. Page 8, last sentence of 1st paragraph: Rejected; argumentative. Page 8, 2nd paragraph: Rejected; irrelevant and immaterial. Page 9, subsection c: Rejected; irrelevant and immaterial to the issues in dispute. Respondent #2, beyond 1st two sentences: Rejected; irrelevant and immaterial. #3: Rejected; irrelevant, immaterial and argumentative. #7: Rejected in so far as it contains argument of counsel and legal conclusions as opposed to factual findings. #8: Same as above. #11, 2nd paragraph: Rejected insofar as it includes legal conclusions as opposed to factual findings. #12, 1st paragraph: Rejected; irrelevant and immaterial. #12, 2nd paragraph: Rejected; argumentative. #13, 2nd paragraph: Rejected; argumentative. COPIES FURNISHED: Paul D. Newnum, Esquire Giles, Hedricks & Robinson, P.A. 109 E. Church Street, Suite 301 Post Office Box 2631 Orlando, Florida 32802 Judy Rice and Linda G. Miklowitz, Esquire Haydon Burns Building, MS-58 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James J. Richardson, Esquire Route One, Box 12669 Tallahassee, Florida 32317 Kaye Henderson, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 =================================================================
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent violated Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes, and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a state licensing and regulatory agency charged with the duty of prosecuting administrative complaints pursuant to Chapters 455 and 475, Florida Statutes. Respondent is and was, at all times material hereto, a licensed Florida real estate salesperson. He holds license number 0487661. Respondent was working as a real estate salesperson in association with Global Realty of Volusia, Inc. (Global Realty) in Deltona, Florida, when he received his current license. In 1993, Paul Costello owned a residence (hereinafter "the property") in Deltona, Florida. Mr. Costello lived in Miami, Florida. He rented the property to tenants who informed him that cracks were developing in the property's driveway. Additionally, the house was settling and cracking. Mr. Costello subsequently made a claim for the property's reported distress on his homeowner's insurance policy with Republic Insurance Company. The insurance company retained a geotechnical engineering firm to determine the cause of the reported distress. The engineering firm made a site visit to the property on August 22, 1993. A visual inspection revealed cracks up to one and one-half inches wide in the exterior walls of the garage. The engineering firm completed its investigation in September 1993 and concluded that the property was subject to sinkhole conditions/activity. Based on the recommendations of the engineering firm, the insurance company hired a grouting contractor. Deep cement grout injections and shallow grouting (mudjacking) were performed in an attempt to stabilize the loose soil conditions on the property. Steel piles were used to raise and support the structure's footing. The stabilization effort took approximately two months to complete. In 1995, Shawna Lee Christenson and Janice Beery worked as licensed real estate salespersons for Choice Properties, Inc., (Choice Properties) in Deltona, Florida. Jean Gillian, a licensed real estate broker and owner of Choice Properties, gave Ms. Christenson and Ms. Beery their first employment as real estate sales associates. Because they were new to the real estate profession, Ms. Gillian directed Ms. Christenson and Ms. Beery to work as partners. Respondent was also working at Choice Properties when Ms. Gillian hired Ms. Christenson and Ms. Beery. He worked for Choice Properties for several weeks before returning to Global Realty as a sales associate. Sometime prior to October 22, 1995, Ms. Christenson received a call from a woman in Orlando. The woman, a friend of Mr. Costello's, requested Ms. Christenson to perform a market analysis on the property. Ms. Christenson and Ms. Beery performed the market analysis on the property. Subsequently, they received permission from Mr. Costello to list the property for sale as a multiple listing. Ms. Christenson and Ms. Beery signed a listing agreement with Mr. Costello. About that time, or soon thereafter, Ms. Christenson had a telephone conversation with Mr. Costello. During the conversation, Mr. Costello informed Ms. Christenson about possible prior sinkhole activity on the property. Ms. Christenson and Ms. Beery discussed the problem with Ms. Gillian. Everyone at Choice Properties thought the situation was humorous because the property was the first listing for Ms. Christenson and Ms. Beery. Later, Mr. Costello sent Ms. Christenson a document with the name of the geotechnical engineering firm. Ms. Christenson then contacted Mike Wilson, a friend who worked in soils engineering. Mr. Wilson contacted the engineering firm and requested that a copy of its settlement claim evaluation report be sent to Ms. Christenson. Ms. Christenson placed a copy of the engineering firm's report in the property's file at Choice Properties. She disclosed the possible sinkhole activity to everyone who called about the property. She advised all callers that the report was in the file. After learning about the possible sinkhole activity, real estate agents would not show the property to their customers. Sometime in October 1995, Barbara Redding, a single disabled female, contacted Respondent after seeing an advertisement in the newspaper. Respondent was aware that Ms. Redding was a recipient of Social Security benefits. On or prior to October 22, 1995, Respondent telephoned Ms. Christenson to inquire about the property. He told Ms. Christenson that he had a client (Ms. Redding) who was a Social Security recipient and really needed a home. Respondent was interested in the property because it was within Ms. Redding's price range and had an assumable mortgage. Ms. Christenson disclosed the possible sinkhole activity to Respondent. She told him that the engineering firm's report was in the file. Respondent declined Ms. Christenson's offer to fax the report to him. Ms. Christenson was surprised to learn that Respondent intended to show the property to Ms. Redding despite the disclosure about the sinkhole activity. Sometime after the initial phone call, Ms. Beery was outside the office of Choice Properties smoking a cigarette. Ms. Christenson was with Ms. Beery when Respondent arrived. As he walked into the office, Respondent joked about the fact that Ms. Christenson's and Ms. Beery's first listing was on a sinkhole. Respondent showed Ms. Redding four or five houses, including the subject property. After seeing the property, Ms. Redding contacted Respondent to make an offer to purchase it. Respondent prepared a contract for sale and purchase, which Ms. Redding signed on October 22, 1995. Respondent was acting as buyer's agent for Ms. Redding. The contract states that a deposit in the amount of $100 was held in escrow by "Associated Land Title upon acceptance by October 30, 1995." Respondent included the following language in the contract as an addendum: Seller agrees to remove branch from roof and repair roof and soffit where branch is presently lodged. This offer is contingent on Buyer receiving settlement from Social Security that has already been awarded. Seller agrees to close at Associated Land Title contingent on all payments being up to date. Regardless of principal balance, cash to mortgage [sic] will be $6,000 (six thousand dollars.) Respondent hand-delivered the contract for sale and purchase to Choice Properties. Mr. Costello, through Ms. Christenson and Ms. Beery, made a counter offer for a higher purchase price and a $500 deposit. The counter offer eliminated language in the contract addendum related to removal of the branch and repair of the roof. It also deleted the language related to $6,000 cash payment. The offer included an additional addendum to the contract that stated as follows: Buyer acknowledges that there has been disclosure regarding the driveway and previous activity affecting it. Seller reserves the right to leave property on market to entertain offers. Buyer acknowledges property is being sold "AS IS." Ms. Christenson and Ms. Berry asked Ms. Gillian to review the language in the contract addendum before they returned the contract to Respondent. After Ms. Gillian approved the statement, Ms. Christenson and Ms. Berry returned the contract to Respondent. Ms. Redding only had $100 in cash for a deposit. Respondent offered to loan her the other $400. Ms. Redding accepted Respondent's offer and signed a promissory note to that effect. Ms. Redding subsequently paid Respondent the $400 that she owed him. When Ms. Redding reviewed the counter offer, she asked Respondent about the additional language in the contract addendum stating that the buyer acknowledged disclosure about the driveway and previous activity affecting it. Respondent told Ms. Redding that the driveway had been cracked and that a new driveway had been put in. Respondent never discussed possible sinkhole activity with Ms. Redding. The contract closed in November 1995. After painting the house, Ms. Redding moved in on January 20, 1996. Sometime in March or April of 1996, a friend of Ms. Redding's asked her if she knew she had purchased a home on a sinkhole. Ms. Redding then discovered that all of her neighbors were aware of the problem. Ms. Redding contacted Richard Meyer, a professional geologist who works for the Volusia County Environmental Management Department. Mr. Meyer inspected the property in August 1996 and on three subsequent occasions. In the meantime, Ms. Redding contacted Ms. Christenson and Ms. Beery. They told Ms. Redding that they had advised Respondent about the sinkhole activity prior to Ms. Redding's purchase of the property. Ms. Gillian showed Ms. Redding a copy of the engineering report from the property's file at Choice Properties. Ms. Gillian gave Ms. Redding a copy of the report. Ms. Redding showed the engineering report to Mr. Meyer on one of his visits. Mr. Meyer determined that the property definitely was subject to sinkhole activity. He concluded that the property was a "slow sinking hole." Ms. Redding did not contact Respondent after she learned about the sinkhole on the property. At that point in time, Ms. Redding felt intimidated by Respondent. One day Ms. Redding heard a loud crunch as she was going into her garage. She asked the fire department to inspect the property to determine whether it was safe as a dwelling. The fire department determined that the property was not safe for habitation. Ms. Redding moved out of the house and had it demolished in October 1996 after the fire department condemned it. Ms. Redding's insurance company "totaled" the property.
Recommendation Based on the forgoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a final order revoking Respondent's real estate license. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of June, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUZANNE F. HOOD 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 28th day of June, 1999.
Findings Of Fact In May, 1983, DOT advertised for bids to separately lease the 11 service stations on the Florida Turnpike. Prospective bidders were prequalified before being allowed to submit bids. Bids were to be awarded to the bidder submitting the highest responsible bid and based solely on the amount per gallon to be paid to DOT on each gallon of motor fuel sold at the service plaza. The existing leases were all due to expire and an attempt to get bids in 1982 had been dropped after litigation delayed completion of the bid process. Turnpike prices for motor fuels are regulated somewhat by DOT, in that the Turnpike prices must be comparable to prices at off-Turnpike stations in the vicinity which offer similar services. Those stations selected for comparative prices must be acceptable to the Turnpike station operator and DOT. Equipment at the existing service plazas has been in use for many years and in the bid offering in May, 1983, several new provisions were included, as were many provisions of the expiring leases. To insure competent and qualified service to motorists on the Turnpike, retained lease provisions require the stations to be open 24 hours per day, to provide wrecker service, and to have a mechanic on duty. Few off-Turnpike stations meet these requirements. Accordingly, "comparable" stations within SD miles east-west of the Turnpike and in the vicinity of a specific service plaza may not be readily available. The bid offering provided that these "comparable" stations will be selected by mutual agreement of the parties but makes no provision for settling a dispute between the lessor (DOT) and the lessee. This is significant because another of the lease provisions contained in the bid offering is that the prices at which the service plazas sell fuel must not exceed by more than two cents per gallon the prices at these selected comparable stations. New provisions in this bid offering required the successful bidder to replace all dispensing equipment (gas pumps) with modern equipment, and to provide for sale of motor fuels at self-service pumps. The bid offering contained no specifics as to where the self-service pumps are to be located with respect the existing service islands, whether self-service motor fuels are to be available by credit card or cash only sale, or whether there could be a different price for cash sales than for credit card sales. The bid offering provided that no one entity could be awarded the lease of more than five service stations on the Turnpike, and no bond was required to be posted by any bidder. DOT expected the successful high bidders to submit bids in the vicinity of eight cents per gallon. This was based on DOT's knowledge from surveys taken at frequent intervals over a long period of time, of the price motor fuels was selling bat comparable stations off the Turnpike; of the tank wagon costs of motor fuels to the station operators; of the sales of tires, batteries and accessories historically made by these stations, the profits from which are not included in the lease price; of the uncertainties inherent in the profits engendered by the to-be-offered self-service sales; other changes which increased the field of bidders; and the expected stability of motor fuel prices. When the bids were opened on September 12, 1953, the first, second, and third highest bids received for each of the 11 service plazas are as follows: Service Plaza First Second Third (Number) Highest Highest Highest Bid Bid Bid Snapper Creek (601) 13.51 12.34 5.40 Crocco, Inc. Gus Crocco William Crocco Pompano (611) 14.35 Crocco, Inc. 14.33 Gus Crocco 9.75 William Crocco Pompano (612) 14.33 Crocco, Inc. 12.76 Gus Crocco 9.20 Super Service West Palm Beach (623) 15.67 15.67 11.55 Gus Crocco Crocco, Inc. William Crocco West Palm Beach (624) 15.67 14.53 11.55 Gus Crocco Crocco, Inc. William Crocco Ft. Pierce (635) 15.67 14.83 13.90 Gus Crocco Crocco, Inc. Super Service Ft. Pierce (636) 15.67 14.53 12.40 Gus Crocco Crocco, Inc. WMG, Inc. Ft. Drum (647) 16.20 Super Service 15.67 Gus Crocco 14.53 Crocco, Inc. Canoe Creek (658) 15.67 Gus Crocco 14.90 Super Service 14.53 Crocco, Inc. Turkey Lake (669) 14.34 Gus Crocco 14.20 Super Service 13.43 Crocco, Inc. Okahumpka (670) 14.34 13.25 5.67 Crocco, Inc. Gus Crocco Gulf Oil Although Crocco, Inc., and Gus Crocco were the apparent high bidders for 10 of the 11 Turnpike service station leases, DOT, with only 20 days to award or reject bids, on October 3, 1983, issued a notice of intent to enter into leases with the high bidders. Before such leases could be executed, a petition to protest the award of these bids was filed by parities who are the intervenors herein, the case was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings and was assigned DOAH Case No. 83-3539. Gus Crocco and William Crocco are brothers, are shareholders in Crocco, Inc., are shareholders in WMG, Inc., and have operated service stations on the Florida Turnpike for the past several years. All entities named in the above sentence submitted bids for Turnpike leases at this offering. Super Service General Partnership, the high bidder for the lease at Ft. Drum service plaza, is composed of a partnership consisting of Ralph Girvin and two other partners. Girvin prepared the bid submitted by Super Service General Partnership which, at 16.02 cents per gallon of motor fuel sold, was the highest bid submitted for any lease. Gus Crocco, Crocco, Inc., William Crocco, and WMG, Inc., submitted the three highest bids for five of the 11 service station leases. During discovery in preparation for the hearing in Case No. 83-3539, it was disclosed that Gus Crocco prepared the bids submitted by Gus Crocco and Crocco, Inc.; that no market survey was taken by Gus Crocco or Ralph Girvin before establishing the selling prices for motor fuels upon which their bids were predicated; that the profit per gallon of motor fuel assumed by Crocco included a rebate from the supplier of approximately six cents per gallon even though no rebate has ever been given at a Turnpike service station for more than a short period of time; the profits to be made per gallon did not take into consideration county taxes that are applicable to some of the service plazas; that existing prices at stations accepted as comparable in the past were much lower than the sale prices which Gus Crocco and Ralph Girvin used to arrive at a bid price; that absent a requirement for the posting of a bond the high bidder could withdraw his bid without financial penalty or liability; that some communication between the Crocco brothers had taken place before the bids were submitted; that Ralph Girvin hand attempted to contact Gus and William Crocco before submitting his bid; that the data upon which Gus Crocco, Crocco, Inc., and Super Service General Partnership based their bids was insufficient to account for all expenses to be incurred; and that there was a high probability that the service station could not provide adequate service to the motorists while paying the price bid for the leases and selling motor fuels at a price comparable to that charged by off-Turnpike stations in the vicinity. This information was passed to DOT. Sam Roddenberry, Turnpike engineer for DOT, is the individual primarily responsible for the operation of the Turnpike in accordance with policies established by DOT. He was the DOT employee primarily responsible for the provisions of the bid proposals and lease, for the award of the lease to the highest qualified bidder, and for the policy changes, including the sale of motor fuel at self-service pumps. After receiving information discovered during trial preparation for Case No. 83-3539, Roddenberry compared Gus Crocco's projected selling price of $1.239 per gallon of regular leaded self-service gasoline with the 1983 average price in Jacksonville of $1.0991; compared the Crocco price estimate for unleaded self-service gasoline of $1.349 per gallon with the Jacksonville price of $1.1789; and the Crocco price estimate of $1.3996 for self-service super unleaded with the Jacksonville price of $1.2997. A similar comparison was made with respect to Super Service General Partnership's bid. These comparisons, the close relationship between the three high bidders at all stations (except for Super Service) and his knowledge that rebates, when given, are good only for short periods of time, led Roddenberry to conclude that all bids should be rejected. On October 1, 1984, Chapter 84-276, Laws of Florida, became effective. This discontinued the high-bid system upon which the bids here involved were solicited and substituted therefor a request for proposal (RFP) system upon which the Department selects the applicant deemed best qualified to satisfy the statutory criteria established by this statute. On June 25, 1984, each of the high bidders was notified by DOT that Respondent intended to withdraw its notice of intent to award leases and that it intended to reject all bids. These bidders at the same time were advised of their right to a Chapter 120.57 hearing, and the petitions for hearing, here involved, followed.
Findings Of Fact Prior to July 10, 1984, Son-Mar Propane, Inc. (Son-Mar) was licensed by the Department as a dealer in liquefied petroleum gas, in appliances and in equipment for use of such gas and installation. Virgil Berdeaux was the president of Son-Mar and he and his wife were the sole stockholders. Virgil Berdeaux passed the competency exam which qualified Son-Mar for licensure. Sonny Wade Berdeaux Virgil Berdeaux's son, was the manager of Son-Mar. Son- Mar's business address and place of operation was 16034 U.S. Highway 19 North in Hudson, Florida. Virgil Berdeaux and his wife owned the property located at that address and leased it to Son-Mar. A propane pumping station and a building was located on the property at 16034 U.S. Highway 19. The building housed a pawn shop and supply store for mobile home and RV equipment. Son-Mar operated the pumping station and the stores. It also installed tanks and delivered gas to customers. 1/ On July 10, 1984, a final order was entered by the Department which ordered "[t]hat any and all of [Son-Mar's] licenses issued by the State Fire Marshal Division of Liquefied Petroleum Gas and eligibility to hold said licenses are hereby revoked." The revocation of Son-Mar's licenses was due to its violation of certain safety standards and rules. Specifically, it was found that an employee of Son-Mar, Mr. John Delham, filled a cylinder that had not been recertified, that he lay it horizontally in the customer's van, and that he failed to secure the tank in the van. While the van was still parked at Son-Mar an explosion occurred which destroyed the van and killed its occupant. On July 19, 1984, nine days after Son-Mar's licenses were revoked, Virgil Berdeaux submitted an application for licensure as a dealer in appliances and equipment for use of liquefied petroleum gas, listing the business address as 16034 U.S. Highway 19, Hudson, Florida, and listing the business name as Son- Mar Pawn Shop. On August 3, 1984, twenty-four days after the revocation of Son- Mar's licenses, Sonny Wade Berdeaux submitted an application for licensure as a dealer in liquefied petroleum gas, listing the business address as 16034 U.S. Highway 19, Hudson, Florida. The Department issues several different types of liquefied petroleum gas licenses. A Type 06, Class 02 license, known as a 602 license, is issued to a dealer in appliances and equipment for use of liquefied petroleum gas. The 602 license allows the holder to sell propane appliances and equipment, such as stoves, heaters, and gas grills but it does not permit the holder to install appliances or sell propane gas. A competency examination is not required for this type of license, and there is no inspection of the place of business prior to issuance of the license. Virgil Berdeaux applied for a 602 license. He completed the application and submitted the required fee. The application listed W. C. Johnson, Virgil Berdeaux's son-in-law, as the manager of the business. Bill Johnson had run the pawn shop for Son-Mar. Sonny Wade Berdeaux applied for a Type 06, Class 04 license known as 604 license, which is issued to a dealer in liquefied petroleum gas. This type of license permits the holder to pump liquefied petroleum gas for sale to the public. An applicant for this type of license must pass a competency test and file a surety bond or certificate of insurance. Further, if the licensee has a dispensing station, an inspection of the business location must be performed to ensure that it is in compliance with all safety regulations. Sonny Wade Berdeaux passed the competency examination, filed a certificate of insurance, and submitted the proper fee. Son-Mar held a Type 06, Class 01 license (a 601 license) as a dealer in liquefied petroleum gas, in appliances and in equipment for use of such gas and installation. A 601 license permits the holder to pump liquefied petroleum gas for sale to the public, to sell appliances and equipment for use of liquefied petroleum gas, and to install such appliances and equipment. In essence, it is a combination of a 602 license, a 604 license, and a license to install equipment. Both Sonny Wade Berdeaux and Virgil Berdeaux received letters dated October 8, 1984, which informed them that their applications for licensure had been denied. Both letters referred to the revocation of Son-Mar's licenses and pointed out that the applicants would be operating on the same premises and employing the same staff as Son-Mar. Both letters concluded as follows: Thus, it would appear that your application is seeking licensure for essentially the same entity that has only recently had its liquefied petroleum gas licenses revoked. Therefore, in the interest of public safety, this Bureau cannot permit an Order of Revocation to be obviated by a mere procedural reapplication in your name. The applications for licensure both list the business address as 16034 U.S. Highway 19 in Hudson, Florida. At the time of application Virgil Berdeaux owned that property and Sonny Wade Berdeaux had leased the pumping station. However, on July 1, 1985, the property at 16034 U.S. Highway 19 was sold. The pumping station was moved out along with the inventory that remained in the pawn shop. Neither Virgil Berdeaux or Sonny Wader Berdeaux retained any interest in the property, and at this time neither could operate a business at that location. Although there was testimony concerning the manner in which the business would have been operated and controlled had licensure been granted at the time of applications there was no testimony indicating where or how the business would now be operated. There was no attempt to amend either application to reflect a current business address, and the certificate of insurance entered into evidence lists 16034 U.S. Highway 19, Hudson, Florida, as the location covered. 2/
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law; it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying petitioners' applications for licensure. DONE and ENTERED this 21st day of May, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE A. GRUBBS 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 21st day of May, 1986.
Conclusions This matter came before the Department for entry of a Final Order upon submission of an Order Closing File by William F. Quattlebaum, Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings, pursuant to Respondent’s request for dismissal, a copy of which is attached and incorporated by reference in this order. The Department hereby adopts the Order Closing File as its Final Order in this matter. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that this case is CLOSED and no license will be issued to TT of Orlando, inc. d/b/a Maserati of Orlando to sell Maserati automobiles manufactured by Maserati (MASE) at 4225 Millenia Boulevard, Orlando, (Orange County), Florida 32839. Filed December 1, 2011 4:03 PM Division of Administrative Hearings DONE AND ORDERED this 36 day of November, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon [s SandraC. Lambert, Director Division of Motorist Services Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399 County, Florida. Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Motorist Services this _20%l>day of November, 2011. NOTICE OF APPETITES =m" Judicial review of this order may be had pursuant to section 120.68, Florida Statutes, in the District Court of Appeal for the First District, State of Florida, or in any other district court of appeal of this state in an appellate district where a party resides. In order to initiate such review, one copy of the notice of appeal must be filed with the Department and the other copy of the notice of appeal, together with the filing fee, must be filed with the court within thirty days of the filing date of this order as set out above, pursuant to Rules of Appellate Procedure. SCL:jde Copies furnished: C. Everett Boyd, Esquire Nelson, Mullins, Riley and Scarborough LLP 3600 Maclay Boulevard South, Suite 202 Tallahassee, Florida 32312 Robert Craig Spickard, Esquire Kurkin Forehand Brandes, LLP 900 North Calhoun Street, Suite 1B Tallahassee, Florida 32301 John F. Walsh, Esquire AMSI-Automotive Management Services, Inc. 505 South Flagler Drive, Suite 700 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Donald St. Denis, Esquire St. Denis and Davey 1300 Riverplace Boulevard, Suite 101 Jacksonville, Florida 32207 William F. Quattlebaum Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Nalini Vinayak Dealer License Administrator
