The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner, Michael Anthony Dipple, is entitled to an award of attorney's fees against Respondent, Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board, pursuant to Section 57.111, Florida Statutes (2007).1
Findings Of Fact On January 3, 2008, Petitioner filed the Motion, seeking attorney's fees and costs as the prevailing party in DOAH Case No. 07-3664. On November 5, 2007, Respondent filed its Notice of Voluntary Dismissal of DOAH Case No. 07-3664, and the file of the Division of Administrative Hearings was closed by an Order entered on November 6, 2007. Respondent concedes that Petitioner is a prevailing small business party in the underlying proceeding, pursuant to Section 57.111, Florida Statutes. In the underlying proceeding, Respondent received a complaint from Joseph Lassen on January 26, 2007. Mr. Lassen stated that Mr. Dipple claimed to have run out of money and was therefore unable to complete the room addition he had contracted to perform on Mr. Lassen's house. Mr. Lassen stated that he feared Mr. Dipple was moving out of state and never had any intention of completing the work. With his complaint, Mr. Lassen included a copy of the contract, dated May 22, 2006, in which Mr. Dipple undertook to build the new room addition for the price of $76,350. The contract called for an initial deposit of $28,000, followed by three draws of $22,000, $17,000, and $10,000, to be paid as different phases of the work were undertaken. Mr. Lassen also included three canceled checks: one dated May 22, 2006, in the amount of $28,000; one dated August 8, 2006, in the amount of $22,000; and one dated September 25, 2006, in the amount of $18,000. In a letter dated March 2, 2007, signed by investigator Connie Garriques-Sang and sent to Mr. Dipple's business address in Largo, Respondent informed Mr. Dipple of the complaint. The letter stated, in relevant part: The enclosed complaint has been filed against you. If you wish to resolve this matter before the Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board takes further action, you may do so. Upon resolution, you should notify our office so that we may update your file on this matter. Please use the attached form in response to the complaint and return it to my office within ten (10) working days. (Emphasis added.) Respondent's probable cause panel convened on March 22, 2007. At that time, no response from Mr. Dipple had been received by Respondent. The probable cause panel considered Mr. Lassen's complaint and the attachments thereto. The panel also considered information obtained by Ms. Garriques-Sang from the City of Largo's building inspector indicating there were code violations regarding electrical work that were holding up the final inspection. Based on the information before it, the panel found probable cause to proceed with disciplinary action against Mr. Dipple. Mr. Dipple's response to Ms. Garriques-Sang's letter was received by Respondent on March 23, 2007, the day after the probable cause panel met and voted to proceed with an Administrative Complaint against Mr. Dipple. The delay in Mr. Dipple's response was due in part to the fact that he had moved to Oklahoma and the letter had to be forwarded to his new address. Nonetheless, he dated his response March 13, 2007, indicating that he must have received Ms. Garriques-Sang's letter on or before that date. However, the postmark on the envelope containing Mr. Dipple's response indicates that he waited an additional week, until March 20, 2007, to actually mail the response. Mr. Dipple's response included a letter from his attorney to Mr. Lassen and a copy of a phone message3 that Mr. Lassen left at Mr. Dipple's place of business stating that Mr. Lassen wanted another company to finish the work. Mr. Dipple generally contended that Mr. Lassen thwarted his attempts to complete the job. Respondent issued an Administrative Complaint, dated March 30, 2007, alleging the following facts: Mr. Dipple contracted with Mr. Lassen on February 22, 2006, to build a room addition at Mr. Lassen's Largo home; that Mr. Dipple obtained a permit for the work on June 23, 2006; that the permit was active, but work was not complete and there were outstanding tags for code deficiencies; that Mr. Dipple had changed his business address and had not performed any work on Mr. Lassen's house for over 90 days; that Mr. Dipple had informed Mr. Lassen that he did not have enough money to finish the job; and that Mr. Lassen was forced to hire another contractor to finish the job, at additional expense. The Administrative Complaint had three counts. Count One alleged that Mr. Dipple abandoned the job in violation of Subsection 489.129(1)(j), Florida Statutes, and Section 24(2)(k), Chapter 75-489, Laws of Florida, as amended. Count Two alleged that Mr. Dipple committed financial mismanagement or misconduct in the practice of contracting that caused financial harm to a customer in violation of Subsections 489.126(2) and (4), Florida Statutes, Subsection 489.129(1)(g), Florida Statutes, and Section 24(2)(h), Chapter 75-489, Laws of Florida, as amended. Count Three alleged that Mr. Dipple committed fraud or deceit or gross negligence, incompetency, or misconduct in the practice of contracting in violation of Subsection 489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes, and Section 24(2)(m), Chapter 75-489, Laws of Florida, as amended. The case was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings on August 16, 2007, and assigned DOAH Case No. 07-3664. With the Administrative Complaint, Respondent forwarded Mr. Dipple's Motion to Dismiss and Statement of Facts, originally served on Respondent on August 9, 2007. Mr. Dipple denied the allegations of the Administrative Complaint, stating that Mr. Lassen had interfered with the contract by refusing to allow Mr. Dipple to work on scheduled days; that Mr. Lassen wrongfully terminated the contract before the work was completed and refused to allow Mr. Dipple to complete the work; that Mr. Lassen owed money to Mr. Dipple; and that all portions of the work performed by Mr. Dipple had passed all building inspections. Mr. Dipple moved that the charges be dismissed on the ground that the alleged facts did not support any of the three counts stated in the Administrative Complaint. With the Administrative Complaint, Respondent also forwarded Mr. Dipple's notice to Respondent of his intent to recover attorney's fees and costs, originally served on Respondent on July 20, 2007. DOAH Case No. 07-3664 was scheduled for hearing on September 24, 2007, in Largo, Florida. On Mr. Dipple's motion, the hearing was continued and rescheduled for November 27, 2007. On November 5, 2007, Respondent filed its Notice of Voluntary Dismissal of the Administrative Complaint. The Division of Administrative Hearings' file in DOAH Case No. 07- 3663 was closed by Order dated November 6, 2007. Mr. Dipple's contends that the probable cause panel lacked other available information that could have and in fact did subsequently exonerate him of the charges,4 and that Respondent violated its own rules, Chapters 455 and 489, Florida Statutes, and fundamental principles of due process in precipitously arriving at a probable cause determination before Mr. Dipple had a fair opportunity to respond to the March 2, 2007, letter from Ms. Garriques-Sang. It is found that the information before the probable cause panel was sufficient to support the panel's decision to pursue an Administrative Complaint against Mr. Dipple, in the absence of any contrary information. The evidence submitted in Mr. Dipple's March 23, 2007, response to Mr. Lassen's allegations provided an insufficient basis for a finding that the response would have altered the probable cause panel's decision. While it does appear that Mr. Dipple submitted evidence that Mr. Lassen had instructed him to stop work, such evidence did not necessarily refute Mr. Lassen's allegations that Mr. Dipple's actions had forced him to seek another contractor to complete the job. Mr. Lassen also alleged something approaching fraud against Mr. Dipple, stating that he feared Mr. Dipple was planning to move away from Largo and never intended to complete the work. Mr. Dipple's response did not directly address this allegation. Further, even if the probable cause panel had timely received Mr. Dipple's response, the fact that the response was mailed from Mr. Dipple's new residence in Oklahoma would, if anything, have provided circumstantial support to Mr. Lassen's allegations.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Respondent, the Department of Insurance, should pay reasonable attorney fees and costs to Crudele under Section 57.111, Florida Statutes (1997), the Florida Equal Access to Justice Act, after Crudele appealed and reversed the Department's Emergency Order of Suspension.
Findings Of Fact On July 15, 1996, the Department issued an Emergency Order of Suspension of Crudele's eligibility for licensure and license as a Florida life insurance agent and life and health insurance agent. The Emergency Order of Suspension was based on alleged violations of the insurance code in connection with the surrender of insurance annuities for purchase of a startup company's unsecured promissory notes. It stated: Based on the foregoing specific facts and for the reasons of protecting the insurance-buying public and insurers from further harm, preventing further abuses of fiduciary relationships, and preventing further defrauding of insureds and insurance companies by the [Petitioner], the Insurance Commissioner finds that [Crudele] constitutes and is an immediate and serious danger to public health, safety, or welfare necessitating and justifying the Emergency Suspension of all licenses and eligibility for licensure and registrations heretofore issued to [Crudele] under the purview of the Department of Insurance. The danger, more specifically, is to the insurance-buying public which must place its trust in the honesty and competence of insurance agents. The trust involves the responsibility that insurance agents have for fiduciary funds accepted by them and insurance matters entrusted to them. The danger is clear and present that failure to properly handle such funds and matters may cause serious losses and damage to the insurance-buying public. Prior to issuance of the Emergency Order of Suspension, the Department received two verified complaints--one by the alleged victim, and the other by her adult daughter. The complaints alleged essentially: Crudele was introduced to Mary Clem, an 84 year-old widow of a tenant farmer, by Charles Perks, Clem's insurance agent, in 1992. In 1992, Crudele and Perks solicited and sold Clem two annuities for a total of $50,000, representing Clem's life savings from working in sick people's homes as a nurses aide. A year after selling the annuities, Crudele and Perks returned to Clem and convinced her to invest the money she had in her annuities into a new company called Zuma that was to recycle automobile tires into useful products. Crudele and Perks represented that Zuma was a "sure fire business." They said they were offering Clem the opportunity to get "in on the ground floor" and that the stock would then go on the open market and double in value. Clem did not have a great deal of education and had no experience investing in stocks or bonds. Her sole source of income was Social Security plus her modest savings. She conceded that when she was offered a 12% interest rate, she found the offer too irresistible to refuse. Neither Crudele nor Perks gave Clem a prospectus or any other descriptive brochure about Zuma. Clem purchased a total of three Zuma promissory notes at three separate times for a total of $60,000. This represented the bulk of her retirement savings. Clem acted based on her trust and confidence in Crudele and Perks. Clem later went to a lawyer to draft a will. The lawyer became very concerned about Clem's purchases of the Zuma promissory notes and her inability to understand the nature of the transaction. Clem was not getting any of her payments from Zuma as promised. Clem was "going out of her mind" with worry. She summoned her daughter, Roberta Anderson, to come down to Florida from Indiana to investigate the matter. Anderson was unable to contact Crudele, and he did not contact her. Anderson and Clem were not aware of any efforts on Crudele's part to recover the funds or otherwise remedy the situation. After a great deal of effort, Anderson was able to recover approximately $23,000 of her mother's money. Crudele apparently played no part in helping Anderson recover the $23,000. The Zuma notes went into default, and apparently the remainder of the money was lost. Clem suffered a very serious financial loss that, given her circumstances, she could ill afford. It may be inferred from the evidence that the Department based its Emergency Order of Suspension on the Clem and Anderson verified complaints. There was no evidence of any other basis for the Emergency Order of Suspension. There was no evidence as to whether the Department conducted any investigation of any kind prior to entry of the Emergency Order of Suspension. Nor is there any evidence as to the Department's decision-making process. The Emergency Order of Suspension stated: (1) that it was being issued pursuant to "sections 120.59(3) [and] 120.60(8) [now Section 120.60(6), Florida Statutes (1997)], Florida Statutes [1995]; (2) that Crudele had "the right to request a hearing in accordance with the provisions of Section 120.59(4), Florida Statutes [1995]"; and (3) that Crudele "was entitled to seek review of this Order pursuant to Section 120.68, Florida Statutes [1995], and Rule 9.110, Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure." The Emergency Order of Suspension also stated that an Administrative Complaint seeking final disciplinary action would be filed within 20 days. On July 15, 1996, the Department filed an Administrative Complaint on essentially the same allegations as those in the Emergency Order of Suspension. Crudele sought judicial review of the Emergency Order of Suspension in the District Court of Appeal, First District. On August 19, 1997, the court issued an Opinion reversing the Emergency Order of Suspension because it did not "set forth particularized facts which demonstrate sufficient immediacy or likelihood of continuing harm to the public health, safety, and welfare to support a suspension of his license without notice and hearing." The court's Mandate issued on September 4, 1997; it referred to the court's Opinion and commanded that "further proceedings, if required, be had in accordance with said opinion, the rules of Court, and the laws of the State of Florida." The Administrative Complaint filed against Crudele was given Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) Case No. 97-2603. On February 17, 1998, a Final Order sustaining some of the charges and suspending Crudele's license and eligibility for licensure for six months was entered in Case No. 97-2603.
Findings Of Fact 8. The factual allegations contained in the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment issued on February 23, 2009, and the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment issued on February 25, 2009, which are fully incorporated herein by reference, are hereby adopted as the Department’s Findings of Fact in this case.
Conclusions THIS PROCEEDING came on for final agency action and Alex Sink, Chief Financial Officer of the State of Florida, or her designee, having considered the record in this case, including the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment and the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment served in Division of Workers’ Compensation Case No. 09-047-D7-09-WC, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, hereby finds that: 1. On February 23, 2009, the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation (hereinafter “Department”) issued a Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment in Division of Workers’ Compensation Case No. 09-047-D7-09-WC to BEBEE ROOFING, INC. The Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment included a Notice of Rights wherein BEBEE ROOFING, INC. was advised that any request for an administrative proceeding to challenge or contest the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment must be filed within twenty-one (21) days of receipt of the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment in accordance with Sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes. 2. On February 23, 2009, the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment was served by personal service on BEBEE ROOFING, INC. A copy of the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment is attached hereto as “Exhibit A” and incorporated herein by reference. 3. On February 25, 2009, the Department issued an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment in Case No. 09-047-D7-09-WC to BEBEE ROOFING, INC. The Amended Order of Penalty Assessment assessed a total penalty of $86,762.54 against BEBEE ROOFING, INC. The Amended Order of Penalty Assessment included a Notice of Rights wherein BEBEE ROOFING, INC. was advised that any request for an administrative proceeding to challenge or contest the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment must be filed within twenty-one (21) days of receipt of the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment in accordance with Sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes. 4. On February 25, 2009, the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment was served by personal service to BEBEE ROOFING, INC. A copy of the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment is attached hereto as “Exhibit B” and incorporated herein by reference. 5. On March 12, 2009, BEBEE ROOFING, INC. filed a petition for administrative review with the Department. The petition for administrative review was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings on March 27, 2009, and the matter was assigned DOAH Case No. 09-1604. 6. On August 25, 2009, BEBEE ROOFING, INC. filed a motion with the Division of Administrative Hearings requesting cancellation of the hearing. 7. On August 26, 2009, the Administrative Law Judge issued an Order Relinquishing Jurisdiction and Closing File which relinquished jurisdiction to the Department for final agency action. A copy of the Order Relinquishing Jurisdiction and Closing File is attached hereto as “Exhibit C” and incorporated herein by reference.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Petitioner is entitled to an award of attorney's fees and costs pursuant to section 57.111, Florida Statutes (2011).1/
Findings Of Fact By a three-count Administrative Complaint dated June 7, 2011, the Respondent charged the Petitioner with alleged violations of law related to the sale of certain products. The allegations of the Administrative Complaint were prosecuted in the disciplinary case. A final hearing in the disciplinary case was conducted on January 24 and 25, 2012. On April 18, 2012, the ALJ issued a Recommended Order determining that the products referenced in the Administrative Complaint were unregistered securities and that the Petitioner "violated section 626.611(16) [Florida Statutes,] by selling an unregistered security that was required to be registered pursuant to chapter 517." The Administrative Complaint also charged the Petitioner with additional violations of statute including a "[d]emonstrated lack of fitness or trustworthiness to engage in the business of insurance," in violation of section 626.611(7). As set forth in the Recommended Order, the ALJ determined that the evidence failed to establish the additional violations. Based on violation of section 626.611(16), the ALJ recommended that the Petitioner's license be suspended for a total of six months, two months for each product sale alleged in the three separate counts of the Administrative Complaint. On July 6, 2012, the Respondent issued a Final Order determining that in addition to the violation of section 626.611(16) found by the ALJ, the Petitioner had also violated section 626.611(7). Despite finding the additional violation, the Respondent adopted the penalty recommended by the ALJ. The Petitioner took an appeal of the Final Order to the District Court of Appeal for the Fifth District. The Court determined that the products sold by the Petitioner were not securities that required registration at the time they were sold by the Petitioner, and, on June 21, 2013, issued an order reversing the Final Order issued by the Respondent. The parties have stipulated that the Petitioner was the prevailing party in the disciplinary case and is a "small business party" as defined by section 57.111(3)(d).
The Issue The issue is whether this case should be dismissed based on Petitioner's failure to appear at the hearing.
Findings Of Fact The Notice of Hearing in these consolidated cases was issued on November 17, 2010, setting the hearing for January 24 and 25, 2011, in Tallahassee, Florida. The hearing was scheduled to commence at 9:30 a.m. on January 24, 2011. Also on November 17, 2010, an Order of Pre-hearing Instructions was entered. Neither the Notice of Hearing nor the Order of Pre- hearing Instructions was returned as undeliverable to Petitioner. On January 19, 2011, Petitioner filed a letter at the Division of Administrative Hearings requesting that the hearing be delayed until after February 18, 2011, due to various appointments she had made that conflicted with the hearing dates. This letter indicated that Petitioner was aware of the scheduled hearing dates. By order dated January 20, 2011, the undersigned declined Petitioner's request for failure to state grounds sufficient to warrant a continuance over the objection of Respondent. Several attempts to reach Petitioner by telephone were unavailing. At 9:30 a.m. on January 24, 2011, counsel and witnesses for Respondent were present and prepared to go forward with the hearing. Petitioner was not present. The undersigned delayed the commencement of the hearing by fifteen minutes, but Petitioner still did not appear. The hearing was called to order at 9:45 a.m. Counsel for Respondent entered her appearance and requested the entry of a recommended order of dismissal. The hearing was then adjourned. As of the date of this recommended order, Petitioner has not contacted the Division of Administrative Hearings, in writing or by telephone, to explain her failure to appear at the hearing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petitions for Relief in these consolidated cases. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of January, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON 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 26th day of January, 2011. COPIES FURNISHED: Kimberly D. Dotson 825 Briandav Street Tallahassee, Florida 32305 Kim M. Fluharty-Denson, Esquire Department of Financial Services 612 Larson Building 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mary Kowalski Department of Financial Services Human Resource 200 East Gaines Street, Suite 112 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Larry Kranert, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner's request for attorney's fees and costs should be approved.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: In these cases, Petitioner, Couch Construction, L.P., seeks to impose sanctions against Respondents, Darel Holland (Holland) and Diane Lowery (Lowery), on the ground that they allegedly filed petitions for an improper purpose challenging the issuance of a permit by the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). In responsive papers filed by Respondents, both deny that the actions were initiated for an improper purpose. The facts in the underlying DEP case involving Holland (OGC Case No. 98-3015) show that on October 30, 1998, Petitioner published a copy of DEP's Notice of Intent to Issue Permit to Petitioner authorizing the construction of a hot mix asphalt concrete plant at 2780 North Highway 95-A, Cantonment, Florida, with potential emissions of up to 29 tons per year of particulate matter. After learning of the proposed action, various citizens in the Cantonment area signed a petition opposing the project. In addition, a local attorney, John T. Reading, Jr., Esquire (Reading), offered to provide them with pro bono assistance as a "community service." Among other things, Reading prepared a form petition challenging the issuance of the permit and requesting a formal hearing. That form was apparently made available to the local citizens so that they could sign and file it, if they chose to do so. Holland says that he did, and it is fair to infer that this form was the source of Lowery's petition as well. Holland lives only 9 blocks from the proposed plant and suffers from a lung disease which has left him with only 58 percent of his lung capacity. Because of his legitimate concerns about the projected amount of particulate emissions and their potential effect on his respiratory system, on November 12, 1998, he filed in proper person a Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing challenging the proposed issuance of the permit. Holland's petition alleged that he was a property owner in the area where the plant would be constructed; that "due to respiratory problems," he would be "substantially affected by the permitted 29 tons of particulate emissions"; that his property "may be substantially reduced in value and peaceful enjoyment" as a result of the permit being issued; and that the petition was not "being interposed merely for the purposes of delay, or any other improper purpose as listed in F.S. 120.57(1)(b)(5)." There was no showing that the petition was filed for an improper purpose or that Holland's concerns were not genuine. Holland's petition also requested an extension of time "to determine which rules or statutes require reversal or modification of the Department's action" and "to obtain counsel" to assist him in his action. On December 21, 1998, DEP entered an order dismissing Holland's petition on the ground that he failed to allege the information required by Rule 28-106.201(2)(e), Florida Administrative Code. It also determined that no good cause had been shown to warrant an extension of time for Holland to determine if any rules or statutes supported his position. He was, however, granted leave to file an amended petition within 15 days from the date of service of DEP's dismissal order (December 23, 1998). This meant that an amended petition had to be filed with DEP no later than January 7, 1999. After learning that his petition had been dismissed, Holland had a brief conversation with Reading about the dismissal and was left with a somewhat vague understanding that Reading "would get an extension" from DEP. Thereafter, on January 12, 1999, or 5 days after the due date, Reading filed with DEP an Amended Petition of Darel Holland for Administrative Hearing. The petition was signed by Reading, and it represented that a copy of the petition had been served on Petitioner's counsel on January 5, 1999. On January 14, 1999, Reading also filed with DEP on behalf of Holland a paper styled Plaintiff's Motion to Enlarge Time in which Reading claimed that "due to circumstances not known," the amended petition had not been timely filed. Reading accordingly requested that DEP authorize the untimely filing. By order dated January 28, 1999, DEP denied the Motion to Enlarge Time and dismissed the amended petition, with prejudice, as being untimely. No appeal from that final agency action was taken. Lowery did not attend the final hearing. However, according to Holland, Lowery lives only 500 feet from the proposed cement plant. She boards horses on her property and frequently has children visit the property to ride their horses. The papers filed in her underlying case (OGC Case No. 98-2932) reflect that the facts in that case are essentially the same as those involving Holland. On November 12, 1998, Lowery filed in proper person a Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing which was virtually identical to the petition filed by Holland. As an additional ground, however, she alleged that the October 30, 1998, notice published by Petitioner was defective, and she requested that DEP require Petitioner to re-advertise the matter. There was no evidence that this petition was filed for an improper purpose or that Lowery's concerns were not genuine. On December 21, 1998, Lowery's petition was dismissed by DEP because she had failed to comply with the requirements of Rule 28-106.201(4), Florida Administrative Code. Like Holland, she was given until January 5, 1999, in which to file an amended petition. In papers filed by Lowery after this sanction proceeding arose, she denies that she had any knowledge that any further papers in the permit case would be filed on her behalf after the DEP dismissal order was entered. In any event, on January 12, 1999, or five days after the due date, Reading filed on Lowery's behalf with DEP an Amended Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing which was identical to that filed on behalf of Holland. Also, on January 14, 1999, Reading filed a Plaintiff's Motion to Enlarge Time seeking to excuse his tardiness in filing the amended petition. Both papers were served on Petitioner's counsel. On January 28, 1999, DEP entered its Final Order Denying Motion to Enlarge Time and dismissing Lowery's amended petition, with prejudice. No appeal from that final order was taken. Because no appeal was taken by either Respondent, DEP's intent to issue a permit became final, and it is fair to infer that a permit has been issued to Petitioner. On January 7, 1999, or prior to DEP's final order of dismissal, Petitioner's counsel noticed both Respondents for a deposition in Pensacola, Florida, on January 14, 1999. Because Reading had signed the amended petitions, Petitioner's counsel logically served the notices by Federal Express on Reading. However, Reading failed to notify Respondents, and neither he nor Respondents appeared at the deposition or advised counsel prior to the depositions that they would not appear. As a result, Petitioner incurred the costs and fees for having its counsel travel to Pensacola. In addition, Petitioner presumably incurred the cost of a court reporter's appearance fee. Assuming that Petitioner's claim is meritorious, those costs would be the responsibility of Reading, and not Respondents. At the hearing, it was represented that Reading is no longer a member of the Florida Bar. This is because in an unpublished order dated January 7, 1999, the Florida Supreme Court revoked his license to practice law effective 30 days thereafter, or on February 7, 1999. His current address is unknown. Petitioner has asserted that in defending against Respondents' petitions, "the bulk" of its costs and fees are related to the deposition and that a few other undisclosed fees and costs have been incurred. At the final hearing, Petitioner did not specify the amount of fees and costs that it seeks or provide any breakdown of those amounts; rather, it opted to provide an affidavit detailing those costs after this final order is rendered, assuming it prevails in this action.
The Issue This is a proceeding pursuant to the Florida Equal Access to Justice Act, Section 57.111, Florida Statutes, and Rule 60Q-2.035, Florida Administrative Code. Petitioner, Dr. Hoover, seeks to recover his attorney's fees and costs incurred in the defense of an action brought against him by the Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Medicine. The issues for determination are whether Respondent, the state agency charged with regulation of the professional conduct of physicians in the State of Florida, was substantially justified with regard to the initiation of disciplinary proceedings against Petitioner, a licensed physician, in DOAH Case No. 92-2202, DPR Case No. 0104601, and whether, in the absence of such substantial justification, Petitioner is entitled to the award of the amount of attorney's fees and costs sought, or whether special circumstances exist which would make an award unjust.
Findings Of Fact The Department of Professional Regulation, a state agency, initiated action against Dr. Hoover by filing an Administrative Complaint on May 16, 1991, in DPR Case No. 0104601 (Hoover I); Dr. Hoover by election of rights requested a formal hearing; the case was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) and was assigned DOAH #91-4068. (DOAH Case No. 91-4068: Administrative Complaint, Election of Rights form) The case was set for final hearing on November 13-14, 1991. Dr. Hoover requested a continuance on October 16 because he would be unavailable to assist counsel prepare for hearing. Hearing Officer Robert Meale denied his request. (DOAH Case No. 91-4068: Request for Continuance, Order Denying Continuance) The Department moved for a continuance on October 29th because the primary expert witness had gone to Japan and could not return in time for the hearing or depositions by Dr. Hoover. The Hearing Officer also denied this motion. (DOAH Case No. 91-4068: Petitioner's Motion for Continuance, Order Denying Continuance) On November 5, 1991, the Department filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal, Without Prejudice. (DOAH Case No. 91-4068: Notice) The Hearing Officer closed the DOAH file on November 13, 1991. (DOAH Case No. 91-4068: Order) Dr. Hoover then filed a Petition for Fees and Costs on November 21, 1991, and the case was assigned DOAH Case No. 91-7526F. (DOAH Case No. 91- 7526F: Petition) After formal hearing the Petition was denied by the Hearing Officer, who on March 31, 1992, ruled that "the Department has met its burden of showing that the filing of the Administrative Complaint was substantially justified." (DOAH Case No. 91-7526: Final Order) Immediately, without returning the case to the Probable Cause Panel, the Department served the same Administrative Complaint in DPR Case #0104601 on Dr. Hoover (Hoover II). By election of right, he again requested a formal hearing. (DOAH Case No. 92-2202) On April 8, 1992 two cases against Dr. Hoover were referred to DOAH, DPR Case #0104601 and #110008. They were assigned DOAH Case #92-2202 and 92- 2201, respectively, and were assigned to Hearing Officer Mary Clark, who consolidated them without objection. (DOAH Case Nos. 92-2201, 92-2202) Dr. Hoover's counsel withdrew and Mr. Brooten became counsel of record on May 4, 1992. (DOAH Case No. 92-2202) On May 14, 1992, Dr. Hoover filed his Motion to Dismiss DOAH Case #92- 2202. After oral argument the motion was granted by the Hearing Officer on September 16, 1992. (Recommended Order of Dismissal, DOAH Case No. 92-2202) The Hearing Officer held in her Conclusions of Law that the Department of Professional Regulation had no jurisdiction to dismiss a complaint, hold it in abeyance, and refile at its convenience without a new probable cause determination. The Hearing Officer also noted that the passage of time might yield changed circumstances and a changed result. (Recommended Order of Dismissal, DOAH Case No. 92-2202) On October 12, 1992, Dr. Hoover filed a Motion for Attorney's Fees and Costs which was denied without prejudice by the Hearing Officer on October 21, 1992, on the grounds that, without a final order, he was not a prevailing small business party. (DOAH Case No. 92-2202) On October 4, 1992, a Probable Cause Panel of the Board of Medicine again found probable cause in DPR Case #0104601. (Memorandum of Finding of Probable Cause, filed by DPR in DOAH Case No. 93-0168F) By Final Order filed on December 30, 1992, the Board of Medicine dismissed DPR Case #0104601 without prejudice. The Board of Medicine in its Conclusions of Law in the Final Order expounded and clarified the Board's intentions and interpretation of the governing statutes. The Board rejected the Hearing Officer's conclusions, but "in the interest of equity" determined that ". . . the disposition recommended by the Hearing Officer be ACCEPTED AND ADOPTED." (DOAH Case No. 92-2202) On February 8, 1993, the Department served the Administrative Complaint in DPR Case #0104601 (Hoover III) on Dr. Hoover. (Motion to Abate, filed 3/8/93 in DOAH Case No. 92-2201). DPR Case #0104601 (Hoover III) is now pending in the Fifth District Court of Appeal, Case #93-455, on a petition for writ of prohibition by Dr. Hoover. DOAH Case #92-2201 (DPR Case #0110008) is in abeyance, at the request of the parties, awaiting determination by the appellate court on the extraordinary writ. (Order of Abeyance dated 3/17/93 in DOAH Case No. 93-2201) It is uncontroverted that DOAH Case #92-2202 was initiated by a state agency, that Dr. Hoover prevailed when the case was dismissed, and that Dr. Hoover is a "small business party" as defined in Section 57.111(3)(d), F.S. The reasonableness of the claimed fees and costs, $10,376.22, total, is likewise uncontroverted.
Conclusions THIS MATTER came before the Construction Industry Licensing Board (hereinafter referred to as the “Board”) pursuant to Sections 120.569 and 420.57(2), Florida Statutes, on April 10, 2008, in Indialantic, Florida, for consideration of the Administrative Complaint (attached hereto as Exhibit A), in the above styled case. Petitioner has filed a Motion for Final Order. Petitioner was represented by Jeff Kelly, Esquire. Respondent was present. Upon consideration, the Board FINDS: 1. The Petitioner’s Motion is granted. 2. The material facts are not in dispute. 3. The allegations of fact set forth in the Administrative Complaint are approved, adopted, and incorporated herein by reference as the Board's Findings of Fact. 4. The conclusions of law alleged and set forth in the Administrative Complaint are approved, adopted, and incorporated herein by reference as the conclusions of law of (A) Respondent is required to appear before the Probation Committee of the Board at such times as directed by the Board Office, approximately every six (6) months. Respondent's first probationary appearance requires a full day attendance at the Board meeting. In connection with each probation appearance, Respondent shall answer questions under oath. In addition, Respondent shall provide such other information or documentation as is requested by either the Petitioner, Department, the Board or the Probation Committee. Respondent shall forward said documentation to the Board:at least - 30 days in advance of the probation appearance or as otherwise directed. for 4 -(B) The burden shall be solely upon’ Respondent to remember the requirement for - said appearance and to take the necessary steps in advance of said appearance to contact the Board office and ascertain the specific time, date, and place of said appearance. Respondent shall not rely on notice of said appearance from the Board or the Department. (C) Should Respondent violate any condition of the probation, it shall be considered a violation of Section 489.129(1)(i), Florida Statutes, and shall result in further disciplinary action by the Board. (D) Should the Respondent fail to make a satisfactory appearance as determined by the Board, the term of the probationary period shall automatically be extended by six (6) months. If there occurs a second such failure then the term of probationary period will be extended an additional year. Should the Board determine a third failure of the Respondent to make a satisfactory appearance, the stay of suspension of the Respondent's license to practice contracting shall be lifted and the license shall remain in suspended status unless and until a further stay is granted by the Board. (E) Should Respondent's license to practice contracting be suspended or otherwise placed on inactive status, the probation period shall be tolled during the period of the suspension or inactivity and shall resume running at the time the suspension is stayed or Respondent reactivates the license and Respondent shall serve the time remaining on the term of probation. . (F) To ensure successful completion of probation, Respondent's license to practice contracting shall be suspended for the period of probation, with the suspension stayed for the period of:probation. ‘The time-of the suspension and ‘the stay shall run concurrently” ~~ --with the period of probation. If Respondent-successfully completes probation, the’ »- - suspension shall terminate.’ If Respondent fails to comply with the requirements set forth in the Final Order imposed in this ‘case, or fails to make satisfactory appearances as determined by the Board, the stay shall be lifted. Once the stay is lifted, the license shall remain in suspended status unless and until a further stay is granted by the Board. 5. In addition, Respondent shall complete seven (7) additional credit hours of continuing education which must be related specifically to Chapter 489 and related rules, within this renewal period. The seven (7) hours ordered shail be in addition to the continuing education required by Rule 61G4-18.001, F.A.C. Proof of the seven (7) additional hours must be supplied directly to Executive Director of the Construction Industry Licensing Board at 1940 N. Monroe Street MS# N14, Tallahassee, FL 32399-1039. Failure to provide such proof direct to the Executive Director will result in a violation of this Order. 6. Achangein licensure status, including the suspension, revocation, voluntary relinquishment, or involuntary relinquishment of license does not relieve Respondent of the obligation to pay any fines, costs, interest or restitution imposed in this Order. This Final Order shall become effective upon filing with the Clerk of the Department of Business and Professional Regulation. DONE AND ORDERED this O; day of oe , 2008. RAYMOND R. HOLLOWAY, Chair Construction Industry Licensing Board
