Conclusions This matter came before the Department for entry of a Final Order upon submission of an Order Closing File and Relinquishing Jurisdiction by Lynne A. Quimby-Pennock, Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings, pursuant to Petitioner’s Notice Of Dismissal, a copy of which is attached and incorporated by reference in this order. The Department hereby adopts the Order Closing File and Relinquishing Jurisdiction as its Final Order in this matter. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that this case is CLOSED. Filed May 17, 2012 9:11 AM Division of Administrative Hearings DONE AND ORDERED this lly day of May, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Julie Baker, Chief Bureau of Issuance Oversight Division of Motorist Services Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, Room A338 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Motorist Services this day of May, 2012. Nalini Vinayak, Deater ticense 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. JB/jde Copies furnished: John W. Forehand, Esquire Kurkin Forehand Brandes, LLP 800 North Calhoun Street, Suite 1B Tallahassee, Florida 32303 NO J. Andrew Bertron, Esquire Nelson, Mullins, Riley, and Scarborough, LLP 3600 Maclay Boulevard South, Suite 202 Tallahassee, Florida 32312 Lynne A. Quimby-Pennock Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Nalini Vinayak Dealer License Administrator STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS NAPLETON ENTERPRISES, LLC, d/b/a NAPLETON'S SOUTH ORLANDO CHRYSLER-JEEP-DODGE, Petitioner, vs. Case No. 12-1054 CHRYSLER GROUP CARCO, LLC, d/b/a CHRYSLER GROUP, LLC, Respondent. wee eye were re Sw YS YS YS YS ORDER CLOSING FILE AND RELINQUISHING JURISDICTION This cause having come before the undersigned on Petitioner's Notice of Dismissal, filed May 14, 2012, and the undersigned being fully advised, it is, therefore, ORDERED that: 1. The final hearing scheduled for May 21 through 24, 2012, is canceled. 2. The file of the Division of Administrative Hearings is closed. Jurisdiction is relinquished to the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles. DONE AND ORDERED this 14th day of May, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ie LYNNE A. QUIMBY-PENNOCK 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 14th day of May, 2012. COPIES FURNISHED: Jennifer Clark, Agency Clerk Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, Room A-430 2900 Apalachee Parkway, Mail Stop 61 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 John W. Forehand, Esquire Kurkin Forehand Brandes, LLP Suite 1B 800 North Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32303 jforehand@kfb-law.com J. Andrew Bertron, Esquire Nelson, Mullins, Riley, and Scarborough, LLP Suite 202 3600 Maclay Boulevard, South Tallahassee, Florida 32312 andy. bertron@nelsonmullins.com STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS NAPLETON ENTERPRISES, LLC, d/b/a NAPLETON’S SOUTH ORLANDO CHRYSLER-JEEP-DODGE Petitioner, vs. Case No. 12-1054 CHRYSLER GROUP CARCO, LLC, d/b/a CHRYSLER GROUP, LLC Respondent. NOTICE OF DISMISSAL Petitioner, Napleton Enterprises, LLC, d/b/a, Napleton’s South Orlando Chrysler-Jeep- Dodge, files this Notice of Dismissal and does hereby dismiss its Petition in this matter with prejudice. Respectfully submitted this 14" day of May, 2012. /s/ John W. Forehand John W. Forehand (FBN 979813) R. Craig Spickard (FBN 721751) Kurkin Forehand Brandes LLP 800 North Calhoun Street, Suite 1B Tallahassee, FL 32303 Telephone: (850) 391-5060 Facsimile: (850) 391-6242 jforehand @kfb-law.com cspickard @kfb-law.com CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE J HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing has been furnished by electronic mail on May 14, 2012 to: Andy Bertron (andy.bertron@nelsonmullins.com) Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP 3600 Maclay Blvd. S., Suite 202 Tallahassee, FL 32312 Jennifer Clark (clark jennifer@hsmv.state.fl.us) Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, Room A-430 2900 Apalachee Parkway, Mail Stop 61 Tallahassee, FL 32399 /s/ John W. Forehand Attorney
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is a certified general contractor holding license number CG C012556 issued by the State of Florida. Since June 30, 1979, this license was in an inactive status. The Respondent qualified Clark Sales & Service, Inc., with the Construction Industry Licensing Board. On or about March 16, 1983, the Respondent went to the City of Hollywood Building Department to obtain a building permit for fence installation at 2029 Adams Street in the City of Hollywood. In order to obtain such a permit in the City of Hollywood, the contractor or owner must first complete a permit application which must be approved by the Engineering Department for the Hollywood Building Department. Once the completed application is approved, it is submitted to the permit section for the City of Hollywood. In order to pull permits in the City of Hollywood, a contractor must be either certified by the State of Florida, or the holder of a certificate of competency issued by Broward County, in the particular trade category. Either the contractor's state certificate or the county certificate of competency must be presented to the city permit section, which then issues the permit based upon the approved application. The Respondent presented his general contractor's certificate to Barbara Gesino, who is the administrative assistant for the Hollywood Building Department, in order to obtain a certificate of competency so he could pull the building permit for the fence proposed to be erected at 2029 Adams Street in Hollywood. The general contractor's certificate which the Respondent submitted to Barbara Gesino had been altered to reflect Clark Fence, Inc., as the company which the Respondent qualified. The Respondent's certificate had been further altered to reflect June 30, 1983, as the expiration date for the certificate, whereas the Respondent's certificate had expired on June 30, 1979. Further, the Respondent qualified Clark Sales & Service, Inc., only at the time he submitted the altered certificate to Barbara Gesino. At no time did the Respondent qualify Clark Fence, Inc., with the Construction Industry Licensing Board. Clark Fence, Inc., was qualified by Donald Burke, who had been licensed as a specialty fence contractor in the City of Hollywood, but the certificate of competency issued to him by the City of Hollywood was delinquent. Without a valid certificate of competency, Donald Burke could not obtain permits in the City of Hollywood. On March 16, 1983, the Respondent obtained the building permit for erection of the fence at 2029 Adams Street in Hollywood. This permit showed Clark Fence as the contractor and was signed by the Respondent in the space designated for the owner, licensed contractor, or agent. This permit was issued based upon an application signed by Donald Burke, whose certificate of competency was delinquent. After the Respondent obtained this permit, Barbara Gesino asked him to come back to her office so that she could be certain that the paperwork was in order for Clark Fence, Inc., to obtain permits in the City of Hollywood. She prepared two City of Hollywood certificates of competency, one for the Respondent and the other for Donald Burke. The Respondent was instructed to take one of these certificates of competency to Donald Burke, who was to sign it and return it to the City of Hollywood Building Department. The Respondent signed his certificate of competency while he was at the City of Hollywood Building Department. While he was there, Barbara Gesino copied his state certificate and returned it to him. Later, when Barbara Gesino reviewed the photocopy of the Respondent's state certificate, she realized that this certificate had been altered, and filed a complaint with the Petitioner. After the Respondent completed the erection of the fence for which the building permit was obtained, he received a letter from the City of Hollywood Building Department stating that the subject building permit had been cancelled.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that license number CG C012556 held by the Respondent, Norman C. Clark, be revoked. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER ENTERED this 8th day of November, 1983. WILLIAM B. THOMAS, 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 8th day of November, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Stephanie A. Daniel, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Roger D. Haagenson, Esquire Suite 601 Cumberland Building 800 East Broward Boulevard Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 James Linnan, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Frederick Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Petitioner filed an application or request for reactivation of his license to practice medicine in the State of Florida pursuant to Section 458.313(8), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Carlos Warter, M.D., 4/ was first issued a license to practice medicine in the State of Florida on August 2, 1977. It was a license by endorsement. For several years following 1977, the Petitioner practiced medicine in Chile. By letter dated July 2, 1980, the Florida Board of Medical Examiners wrote to the Petitioner about the status of his Florida license. The letter included the following: Pursuant to Section 458.051(3), Florida Statutes, a license obtained by endorsement in this State shall become void and of no force and effect unless the recipient utilizes the same by actively engaging in the practice of medicine in the State of Florida within three (3) years after the issuance of the license and continues such practice in this State for a minimum period of one (1) year. This practice requirement may be postponed only if and while the holder of an endorsement license is in the active military service of the United States or in an AMA approved training program. The Petitioner never actively engaged in the practice of medicine in Florida. Accordingly, by operation of Section 458.051(3), Florida Statutes, his Florida license, obtained by endorsement, became void and of no force and effect. After practicing for many years in other jurisdictions, the Petitioner decided he wanted to live in Florida and practice medicine in Florida. To that end, he contacted the staff of the Board of Medicine to inquire as to what would be required of him to obtain a license to practice medicine in Florida. As a result of his conversations with Board staff, the Petitioner believed that he could not reactivate his prior Florida license, which had become void by his failure to ever practice medicine in Florida. 5/ Based on that belief, the Petitioner did not file an application seeking to reactivate his void license. Rather, he filed an application seeking a new license by endorsement pursuant to Section 458.313(1), Florida Statutes. The Petitioner filed an application for licensure by endorsement on or about April 19, 1998. Question 9 on the application form reads: "Are you or have you ever held any professional/medical license in any State in the U.S., to include Canada, Guam, Puerto Rico or U.S. Virgin Islands? (If yes, list profession(s), state(s), license numbers(s), and date(s) of issuance.)" The Petitioner's answer was: "California 1980 to date/A35572." The Petitioner did not list his prior Colorado or New Mexico licenses to practice medicine. More importantly, he did not list his prior, now void, license to practice medicine in the State of Florida. Further, the Petitioner's prior license to practice medicine in the State of Florida is not mentioned anywhere else in the Petitioner's application for license by endorsement filed on May 19, 1998. 6/ Following several requests for additional information, the Petitioner's 1998 application was scheduled for consideration at a meeting of the Credentials Committee of the Board of Medicine on November 14, 1998. The Petitioner was present at the November 14, 1998, meeting, at which time he was not represented by legal counsel. At the conclusion of that meeting, the Credentials Committee voted unanimously to recommend that the Petitioner's application for licensure by endorsement be denied. During the meeting on November 14, 1998, there was no mention by either the Petitioner or any member of the Credentials Committee of the subject of reactivating the Petitioner's prior void license. The Petitioner was, of course, disappointed with the vote of the Credentials Committee. He was also of the view that the members of the Credentials Committee had treated him in a shabby, rude, and disrespectful manner, and that they had failed to properly perform their duties. Following his first appearance before the Credentials Committee of the Board of Medicine, the Petitioner obtained legal counsel. On January 20, 1999, the Petitioner wrote a letter to Governor Jeb Bush, which included the following comments: I first called the Board of Medicine and asked to have my license reactivated, but was informed that was not possible, and that I would have to reapply for licensure. * * * I then hired an attorney to assist with my application. She notified me that I was eligible to receive a license under a provision that allowed for reactivation of my license in certain circumstances. Therafter, the Petitioner's legal counsel made numerous efforts to persuade the Credentials Committee and the full Board of Medicine to treat the Petitioner's application of May 19, 1998, as an application for reactivation under Section 458.313(8), Florida Statutes. Those efforts were unsuccessful and the Board of Medicine, on March 5, 1999, issued a Notice of Intent to Deny Application for Licensure by Endorsement. The stated grounds in the notice were failures to meet several requirements of Section 458.313(1), Florida Statutes. The notice did not mention Section 458.313(8), Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based on all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued in this case concluding that the Petitioner, Carlos Warter, M.D., is not eligible for licensure under Section 458.313(1), Florida Statutes, because he admittedly fails to meet all of the requirements for issuance of a license under Section 458.313(1), Florida Statutes, and that he is not eligible for licensure under Section 458.313(8), Florida Statutes, because he has never filed an application for reactivation of his prior voided license pursuant to Section 458.313(8), Florida Statutes, and the statutory deadline for filing such applications has expired. 7/ DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of September, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH 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 September, 1999.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Lopez Grocery, Inc., is the holder of alcoholic beverage license number 15-02358, series 2APS, for the premises at 214 Emerson Drive, N.W., Palm Bay, Brevard County, Florida. Serafin Lopez and his wife, Elena, are President and Vice-President, respectively and are sole owners of the business. On November 3, 1991, the Palm Bay Police Department was conducting surveillance of Lopez Grocery as a result of reports that it was selling alcoholic beverages to underage persons. Cpl. Kraynick, a seven year law enforcement officer, was assigned to the surveillance on the 3:00 p.m. to 1:00 a.m. shift. Cpl. Kraynick was positioned about 40 feet outside the store, at the edge of the woods, with a clear view of the cash register and clerk inside the store. The store is at the end corner of a small strip shopping center. The other stores were vacant at the relevant time. At approximately 7:00 p.m., the parking lot was empty and the store was well lit from within. Cpl. Kraynick observed a brown pick-up truck pull up to the store. A white juvenile female went in, brought a six-pack of beer to the counter, got cigarettes and exited. She went to the passenger side of the truck to speak with the passenger and reentered the store where she picked up several more loose beers and paid for her purchases. The clerk bagged the beer and made change without requesting identification. The juvenile left the store with the beer. Cpl. Kraynick's original instructions had been to simply conduct the surveillance and notify his partners to make a traffic stop and arrest. When he learned that the partners were called out, he pursued the brown pick-up in his vehicle, and made the stop about 1/4 mile from the store. As soon as he activated his lights, the pick-up pulled over. He obtained a driver's license from the driver, the same person who had purchased the beer, and he confirmed that she was sixteen. Cpl. Kraynick confiscated the beer, still cold, from behind the driver's seat. The passenger had stashed an opened beer in her purse, where it had spilled, leaving an empty bottle. After releasing the girls to their parents, Cpl. Kraynick returned to Lopez Grocery. When he returned, he found Mr. Lopez, who explained that his wife had gone to buy a lottery ticket. She returned around 7:45 p.m. and was arrested for selling alcoholic beverages to an underage person. At the hearing, Angela Theresa Valente, the girl who purchased the beer, unequivocally identified Ms. Lopez as the clerk who made the sale. At no time was she asked her age or was asked for identification by Ms. Lopez. Angela was 16 at the time of the sale; she was born on December 28, 1974. Her appearance is that of a teenager. Ms. Lopez denies that she made the sale and claims that she was away purchasing lottery tickets when the sale was made. She and her husband are the only employees. Ms. Lopez also denies that her store sells Coors Light beer, the loose beer confiscated by Cpl. Kraynick. The grocery does sell Michelob Light, the six- pack that was confiscated. Cpl. Kraynick observed Coors Light singles in the grocery cooler the night that the arrests were made. Ms. Lopez' testimony was substantially less credible than that of Cpl. Kraynick and Angela Valente, both of whom positively identified her as the person who made the sale. Ms. Lopez claimed to have witnesses who could establish that she was not at the store around 7:00 p.m. when the sale was made, but she did not produce those witnesses.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Respondents' alcoholic beverage license # 15-02358, series 2-APS be suspended for 30 days and that a civil penalty of $500 be imposed. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 1st day of September 1992. MARY CLARK 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 1st day of September 1992. COPIES FURNISHED: Nancy C. Waller, Esquire Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Elena and Serafin Lopez 214 Emerson Drive Palm Bay, Florida 32907 Richard W. Scully, Director Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Donald D. Conn, General Counsel Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007
The Issue Whether the age requirement for entry into the double random drawing for general liquor licenses is an invalid rule.
Findings Of Fact The Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco (Division) is vested with general regulatory authority over the alcoholic beverage industry within the state and the creation of double random selection drawings for beverage licenses. § 561.11, Fla. Stat (2005). The Division issues both general and special alcoholic beverage licenses. See Chapter 561-565, Fla. Stat. and §§ 561.11, 561.17, and 561.19, Fla. Stat. (2005). General licenses, also known as quota licenses permit the sale or consumption of various types of beer, wine or distilled spirits on the licensed premises. General licenses are 1-COP licenses, 2-COP licenses and 4-COP licenses Ultimately licenses are issued after an application for licensure has been filed and investigated by the Division. §§ 561.17 and 561.18, Fla. Stat. (2005). Section 561.17, Florida Statutes, only requires an “applicant” to be a person or legal entity. The section does not place an age limitation on the applicant. The Beverage Law bars the issuance of an alcoholic beverage license to a person less than 21 years old. § 561.15(1), Fla. Stat. (2005). The statute also prohibits the issuance of a license to people who have committed certain crimes, violated the beverage law or have had their beverage license revoked or suspended. Similarly law enforcement officers cannot be issued a liquor license. Section 561.15(1), Florida Statutes (2005), applies only to the issuance of a beverage license. The statutes do not specifically bar a person under 21 years of age from entering the double random drawing process or applying for a beverage license. General beverage licenses are issued under a quota system based on the population of the county and are limited in number. § 561.20(1), Fla. Stat. (2005). To issue a quota license, the Division conducts a double random drawing pursuant to Section 561.19(2), Florida Statutes (2005). The drawing determines the order in which individuals may apply for issuance of available licenses in each county. Section 561.19 does not use the term ”entrant,” but only uses the term “applicant.” Florida Administrative Code Rule 61A-5.0105 establishes a list of procedures that shall be followed when entry forms are accepted for the issuance of new state liquor licenses. This rule outlines time deadlines, what forms shall be utilized for making an application for an alcoholic beverage license, how notification of winners will be conducted, how alternates are selected, and defines certain terms. Subsection (2) of Rule 61A-5.0105 provides for the use of DBPR Form 4000-033L, titled “Quota License Entry Form,” and the instructions that accompany it. This form and the accompanying instructions state that an applicant must be 21 years of age in order to gain entry into the quota license drawing. This form is not the form used to apply for a quota license. This form is simply an entry form to the quota license drawing. Under the system established by the Division, when additional quota licenses become available by reason of an increase in the population of a county or by reason of existing licenses being revoked and re-included in the available license pool, the Division annually publishes a notice in the Florida Law Weekly of the number of licenses available and establishes the 90-day application period for entry into the double random drawing. Entry into the double random drawing does not mean that the entrant has applied for or may receive a quota license. The entry form only permits the applicant to participate in the drawing to determine the order of the entrants that will later receive the opportunity to apply for a quota license. If a person or entity files a properly completed entry form and pays a nonrefundable $100.00 entry fee, the entrant is included in the quota drawing if the entry application does not disclose on its face any matter rendering the entrant ineligible. § 561.19(2)(d), Fla. Stat. (2005). After the 90-day application period ends, the Division publishes notice in the Florida Administrative Weekly of the date scheduled for the quota drawing. There is no set time after the application period that the Division holds the quota drawing. The interim period is used to process the various entry applications. Drawings held during the last three years have been delayed from 7 to 10 months after the close of the application period. In this case, the drawing has not been held. After the drawing, the Division notifies the person selected first of their entitlement to apply for a quota license. Under Section 561.19(2)(c), Florida Statutes (2005), the selected person has 45 days from the date of the Division’s mailing of the notice of selection to file an application for a quota license. At this point, the Division investigates the person’s eligibility to possess a quota license and either grants or denies the application. Depending on the action taken, the Division proceeds down the list, notifying each entrant of his or her right to apply for a quota license. For example, a felony conviction does not necessarily render an applicant ineligible to hold an alcoholic beverage license. Thus the simple disclosure of such would not render the application ineligible on its face. There are circumstances in which an individual with a felony conviction may hold an alcoholic beverage license. Such a person may enter the quota drawing. Likewise, a previously revoked alcoholic beverage license would also not necessarily render the application ineligible on its face. The determination would be based on the type of license revoked, and the date of the revocation. On August 12, 2005, the Division published notice in Volume 31, Number 32 of the Florida Administrative Weekly that quota licenses were available in several Counties. The entry period was established from August 15, 2005 through November 12, 2005. Entry could only be made using DBPR Form ABT 4000-033L. The instructions to this form prohibit a person who is under 21 years old at the close of the application period from entering the quota drawing. The Petitioner, Brent A. Moody, is a resident of Tallahassee, Florida. He was born on December 11, 1984. On November 1, 2005, the Petitioner properly completed and filed entry applications with the Division for the year 2006 quota license drawings for Bay, Duval, Franklin, Indian River, Lee, Lake, Manatee, Polk, Walton, Volusia, Sarasota, St. Johns, Palm Beach, Orange, Martin, Leon, Broward, Dave, Collier, Hillsborough, Hernando, and Brevard. At the end of the application period for the 2006 quota license drawing, the Petitioner was 29 days shy of his 21st birthday. He is now over 21 years old. The applications filed by the Petitioner were rejected for the year 2006 quota license drawing because he would not be 21 years old by the close of the entry period. There is no dispute that the Petitioner would have been 21 years old by the time any opportunity to apply for a 2006 quota license might have been extended to him. The Division relies upon an in pari materia reading of Sections 561.15, 561.17 and 561.19, Florida Statutes (2005), for the authority to require an individual to be 21 years of age in order to submit an application for entry into the quota license drawing.
The Issue The issue is whether Proposed Florida Administrative Code Rule 61D-2.026(4) and (6) is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority, pursuant to sections 120.52(8) and 120.56(1)(a), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Pursuant to chapter 550, Florida Statutes, Petitioner Second Chance operates jai alai games at its facility in Marion County, and Petitioner WFA owns and operates a greyhound permit and summer jai alai permit at its facility in Miami-Dade County. Petitioner WFA also indirectly owns a summer jai alai permit at the Miami Jai Alai in Miami-Dade County and owns partial interests in two jai alai permits operated at the Dania Jai Alai facility in Broward County. Pursuant to chapter 550, Intervenor owns and operates a jai alai permit at its facility in Seminole County, where it conducts live jai alai permits. Petitioners and Intervenor are regulated by the proposed rules that they challenge in these cases. Proposed rule 61D-2.026(4) (the Court Rule) provides: Jai alai games must be conducted on a three-walled court meeting the following requirements: The side wall must be at least 175 feet long and at least 35 feet in height; The front wall and back wall must be at least 35 feet in width and height; The front wall must be made of granite. All courts must have sufficient overhead coverage to ensure for the operation of scheduled performances. All courts must have a live viewing area for games. Proposed rule 61D-2.026(6) (the Roster Rule) provides: "Jai Alai permit holders must utilize a rotational system of at least eight different players or teams." The rulemaking authority cited for the Court Rule and the Roster Rule is sections 550.0251 and 550.105(3) and (10)(a). The law implemented cited for the Court Rule and the Roster Rule is sections 550.0251, 550.105, and 550.70.
Findings Of Fact On or about September 30, 1980, petitioner mailed its application to respondent for registration of the trademark "Cachet". Accompanying the application were a check for fifteen dollars ($15.00) and shoe insoles stamped "Cachet", each bearing an escutcheon and the legend "MADE IN SPAIN". On October 14, 1980, respondent returned petitioner's application, declining to register "Cachet" as a trademark in the absence of consent by Cachet, Inc., an unrelated active Florida corporation for profit with a Miami address, duly registered with respondent. Cachet, Inc. has not registered any trademark with respondent, and does not sell shoes. Ms. Nettie Sims, chief of respondent's bureau of corporate records and an employee of respondent for 27 years, testified that this action was in keeping with respondent's policy going back as far as she could remember.
Findings Of Fact Toni M. Farmer, presently holds an active cosmetology license issued by Petitioner, License No. CL0062662, for the period July 19, 1982, through June 30, 1984. Between May 6, 1980, and July 6, 1981, Farmer worked as a cosmetologist in a salon operated by Shear Pleasure, Inc., in Jacksonville, Duval County, Florida. Shear Pleasure, Inc., is the holder of License No. CE0027634. Beginning July 13, 1981, to the present, Farmer has worked as a cosmetologist in the salon, Josef and Charles, Inc., d/b/a Josef and Charles Styling Salon, License No. CE0022674, located in Orange Park, Florida. When Farmer began her employment with Shear Pleasure she had a current and valid cosmetology license issued by Petitioner, which license expired June 30, 1980. Around August 18, 1980, Farmer forwarded a cashier's check made payable to the Board of Cosmetology for purposes of renewing her delinquent cosmetology license. Subsequent to the action on the part of Farmer and in the course of a routine inspection, Jewel Walker, an inspector for Petitioner, noted the fact of expiration of Farmer's license. This took place in 1980. When told that Petitioner had not responded to the renewal request, Walker instructed Farmer to post the indicia of payment of fees, i.e., a copy of the cashier's check of August, 1980, at Farmer's work station in the interim and to check the post office for any return of that cashier's check, due to the fact that Farmer had changed her mailing address following the transmittal of the cashier's check. Farmer made other contacts with the Tallahassee, Florida, office of Petitioner to determine the status of her renewal in 1980. In the beginning of 1981, Farmer spoke with Walker about the renewal, having failed to receive any notification confirming license renewal. (In the course of these matters, Walker had indicated certain logistical problems that were taking place, reference license renewal for cosmetologists.) The owner of Shear Pleasure, Inc., Fontaine LeMaistre, was aware of the efforts on the part of Farmer to obtain license renewal and allowed her to continue as an employee during her tenure. When Farmer took a position with Josef and Charles, her employer was made aware of the fact that she did not have the license document and the employer was made aware of the efforts which Farmer had made to obtain the license. On August 11, 1981, Farmer requested the Florida First National Bank of Jacksonville, which had issued the August 18, 1980, cashier's check to stop payment on that check, based upon the fact that the payee, Petitioner, had not cashed the check. This request was honored and on August 13, 1981, a cashier's check was issued to Toni M. Farmer in the like amount of thirty-five dollars ($35.00), which check was subsequently cashed by Farmer. On May 12, 1982, Charles Coats, an investigator with Petitioner, made an inspection of the Orange Park business of Josef and Charles and discovered that Farmer was without a license. At that time, a copy of the original thirty- five dollar ($35.00) check written to the Board of Cosmetology was shown to Coats. Farmer related the circumstances involving efforts which she had made to obtain the license. Following this conversation, and specifically in June, 1982, Farmer maid the necessary fees and offered required credentials which allowed her license to be renewed, effective July 19, 1982.
Recommendation Based upon a full consideration of the facts found, conclusions of law reached and being otherwise informed, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered which suspends the license of Respondent for a period of fifteen (15) days based upon the violation found in Count I and dismisses Count II. DONE and ENTERED this 29th day of December, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, 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 29th day of December, 1982.
The Issue Whether the Respondent committed the violation alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated January 26, 1999, and, if so, the penalty which should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Department of Business and Professional Regulation is the state agency responsible for investigating and prosecuting complaints against persons holding licenses as real estate brokers and salespersons. Section 455.225, Florida Statutes. The Florida Real Estate Commission operates within the Department of Business and Professional Regulation and is the entity responsible for imposing discipline on those holding real estate broker or salesperson licenses. Sections 475.02 and 475.25, Florida Statutes. On or about July 11, 1996, John and Darleen Bothe, as buyers, and John Zucarelli, as seller, entered into a contract to purchase and sell real property located in Rolling Hills, Florida. Donald L. Brady was the real estate salesperson who represented Mr. and Mrs. Bothe in the transaction, and David Taylor represented Mr. Zucarelli. Mr. Brady represented in the Contract for Sale and Purchase executed July 11, 1996, and in addenda thereto, that, for purposes of the transaction, he was the real estate licensee and Westar International was the brokerage firm with which he was associated. Although the real estate transaction closed, neither Westar International nor Mr. Brady received any commission on the transaction. The commission that was to have been paid to Westar International was placed into an escrow account by the closing agent when Mr. Brady was unable to present the license of his supervising broker at the closing. At the time of the transaction, Mr. Brady's supervising broker, David A. Brady, was not licensed as a real estate broker because he had failed to renew his license. Mr. Brady was not aware at the time that his broker was not licensed. At the time of the transaction, Donald L. Brady had a valid and current license as a real estate salesperson, license number 0537988, which was effective from April 1, 1995, through March 31, 1997. 2/
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a final order finding that Donald L. Brady did not violate Section 475.42(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1995), and dismissing the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of October, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA HART MALONO 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 14th day of October, 1999.
