Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Darryl James McGlamry, is an inmate under the supervision of the Respondent. The Petitioner is incarcerated at Dade Correctional Institution. The Respondent is the Department of Corrections, an agency of the State of Florida. The Petitioner has challenged Rule 33-5.006(8), Florida Administrative Code. The Challenged Rule governs the visitation privileges of unmarried inmates. The Petitioner has alleged that the Challenged Rule "impairs the Petitioner's substantial interest in that it restricts the Petitioner's First Amendment Right of Freedom of Association, as it substantially limits the number of female visitors that the Petitioner may have." The Petitioner has also alleged that the Challenged Rule is invalid because the restriction on visitation of the Challenged Rule is: . . . contrary to the Civil Rights Act of Florida, Chapter 760.01, Florida Statutes. 11. As such, it is an "invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority". The Respondent does not have the authority to pass rules that are contrary to other statutes. This amounts to vesting unbridled discretion to the agency in violation of Section 120.52(8)(d), Florida Statutes. The Amended Petition is devoid of any alleged facts which, if proven, would support a determination that the Challenged Rule is invalid under Section 120.56, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact On December 20, 1991, the Petitioner, Douglas Adams, filed a Petition to Determine the Invalidity of an Existing Rule. In the Petition, the Petitioner challenged Rules 33-22.005(5) and 33- 22.007(2)(c), Florida Administrative Code pursuant to Section 120.56, Florida Statutes. The Petitioner is an inmate in the custody of the Respondent, the Department of Corrections. The Petitioner is subject to the rules of the Respondent, including the Challenged Rules. Section 944.09, Florida Statutes, requires that the Respondent adopt rules governing the administration of the correctional system in Florida. Among other things, Section 944.09, Florida Statutes, requires that rules be adopted by the Respondent governing all aspects of the operation of the prison system in Florida. Rule 33-22.005(4), Florida Administrative Code, provides the following: Section III. Report of Investigation. Upon receipt of the Disciplinary Report, the Senior Correctional Officer shall review the report and, when the facts suggest that the alleged violations is significant, he shall cause the report to be forwarded to the Correctional Officer Chief. Upon approval of the Correctional Officer Chief, or in his absence the Senior Correctional Officer, an impartial investigation of the charge against the inmate shall be conducted. This investigation shall be completed without unreasonable delay. Any delay at any state must be justified in the report. The Correctional Probation Supervisor shall review the report and cause an impartial investigation to be conducted for inmates participating in the Supervised Community Release Program. The investigating officer is responsible for obtaining the inmate's version of the offense as well as contacting the charging officer and any other staff members or inmates who have information pertaining to the allegation and the charge. The inmate charged shall be offered staff assistance and asked if he has any material witnesses to offer in his behalf. If the inmate has no witnesses, it must be noted in the report. If names of witnesses are given, the investigating officer shall then interview both inmate and staff witnesses and, if appropriate, have the Witness Statement Form DC4-856 completed. If inmate witnesses or staff witnesses are not contacted, a statement as to why they were not contacted must be included. Opinions as to innocence or guilt shall not be made by the investigating officer. The investigator shall sign and date the report. Rule 33-22.007(2)(c), Florida Administrative Code, provides the following: (2) The Hearing Officer or Disciplinary Team can request further investigation or evidence, the appearance of additional witnesses or the statements of unavailable witnesses. . . . . Witnesses shall not be called or certain information disclosed if doing so would create a risk of reprisal, undermine authority or otherwise present a threat to the security or order of the institution. The inmate witnesses must be willing to testify but may offer an oral or written statement to the investigating officer in lieu of personal appearance. Notations shall be made in the report with reasons for declining to call requested witnesses or for restricting any information. The Petitioner has alleged that the Challenged Rules are invalid because the rules are "contrary to due process contained in enabling legislation. Section 20.315, Florida Statutes (1989)" and are vague, arbitrary and capricious. The Petition does not include any alleged facts supporting the Petitioner's assertion that the Challenged Rules are "arbitrary and capricious."
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 14. The factual allegations contained in the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment issued on September 29, 2004, the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment issued on October 14, 2004, the second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment issued on January 20, 2005, and the 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment issued on August 25, 2010, attached as “Exhibit A”, “Exhibit B”, “Exhibit C“, and “Exhibit F”, respectively, and 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 request for administrative hearing received from Bill Veczko, d/b/a Bill’s Painting, the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment, the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, the second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, and the 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, hereby finds that: 1. On September 29, 2004, 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. 04-590-D1 to Bill Veczko, d/b/a Bill’s Painting. The Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment included a Notice of Rights wherein Bill Veczko, d/b/a Bill’s Painting 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, and must conform to Rule 28-106.2015, Florida Administrative Code. 2. On September 29, 2004, the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment was personally served on Bill Veczko, d/b/a Bill’s Painting. 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 October 14, 2004, the Department issued an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment to Bill Veczko, d/b/a Bill’s Painting. The Amended Order of Penalty Assessment assessed a total penalty of $30,844.10 against Bill Veczko, d/b/a Bill’s Painting. The Amended Order of Penalty Assessment included a Notice of Rights wherein Bill Veczko, d/b/a Bill’s Painting 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, and must conform to Rule 28-106.2015, Florida Administrative Code. 4. On May 27, 2010, the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment was personally served on Bill Veczko, d/b/a Bill’s Painting. A copy of the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment is attached hereto as “Exhibit B” and incorporated herein by reference. 5. On January 20, 2005, the Department issued a second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment to Bill Veczko, d/b/a Bill’s Painting. The second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment assessed a total penalty of $104,044.10 against Bill Veczko, d/b/a Bill’s Painting. The second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment included a Notice of Rights wherein Bill Veczko, d/b/a Bill’s Painting was advised that any request for an administrative proceeding to challenge or contest the second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment must be filed within twenty-one (21) days of receipt of the second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment in accordance with Sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes, and must conform to Rule 28- 106.2015, Florida Administrative Code. 6. On May 27, 2010, the second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment was personally served on Bill Veczko, d/b/a Bill’s Painting. A copy of the second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment is attached hereto as “Exhibit C” and incorporated herein by reference. 7. On June 8, 2010, Bill Veczko, d/b/a Bill’s Painting filed a petition for administrative review (“Petition”) with the Department. Pursuant to Sections 120.54(5)(b) and 120.569(2), Florida Statutes, the Department carefully reviewed the Petition to determine if it was in substantial compliance with Rule 28-106.2015, Florida Administrative Code. A copy of the Petition is attached hereto as “Exhibit D”. 8. After reviewing the Petition, the Department determined that the Petition was not in substantial compliance with the requirements of 28-106.2015, Florida Administrative Code, in that the Petition did not contain a statement identifying the material facts in dispute, or a statement indicating that there were no material facts in dispute. Accordingly, on June 24, 2010, the Department issued an Order Dismissing Petition for Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, Proceeding Without Prejudice. In the Order Dismissing Petition for Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, Proceeding Without Prejudice, Bill Veczko, d/b/a Bill’s Painting was given an opportunity to file, within 21 days, an amended petition curing the defects in the original Petition. 9. On August 9, 2010, Bill Veczko, d/b/a Bill’s Painting filed an amended petition for administrative review (“Amended Petition”) with the Department, which was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings and assigned DOAH Case No. 10-7312. A copy of the Amended Petition is attached hereto as “Exhibit E”. 10. On August 25, 2010, the Department filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings a Motion to Amend Order of Penalty Assessment with an attached 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment. The 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment assessed a total penalty of $103,958.56 against Bill Veczko, d/b/a Bill’s Painting. A copy of the 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment is attached hereto as “Exhibit F” and incorporated herein by reference. 11. On August 25, 2010, Administrative Law Judge W. D. Watkins entered an Order Granting Motion to Amend Order of Penalty Assessment. 12. On October 12, 2010, Bill Veczko informed the Department that Bill Veczko, d/b/a Bill’s Painting did not wish to proceed to an administrative hearing in DOAH Case No. 10- 7312. 13. On October 12, 2010, the Department filed a Joint Motion to Relinquish Jurisdiction with the Division of Administrative Hearings. As a result, Administrative Law Judge W. D. Watkins entered an Order Relinquishing Jurisdiction and Closing File. A copy of the Order Relinquishing Jurisdiction and Closing File is attached hereto as “Exhibit G”.
Findings Of Fact Standing. The Petitioner, David Ansgar Nyberg, is an inmate in the custody of the Respondent, the Department of Corrections. The Petitioner is subject to the rules of the Respondent, including the rule at issue in this proceeding. The Petitioner has challenged Rule 33-12.001(2), Florida Administrative Code. The Respondent. Section 944.09, Florida Statutes, requires that the Respondent, an agency of the State of Florida, adopt rules governing the administration of the correctional system in Florida. Among other things, Section 944.09, Florida Statutes, requires that rules be adopted by the Respondent governing all aspects of the operation of the prison system in Florida. Rule 33-12.001(2), Florida Administrative Code. Rule 33-12.001, Florida Administrative Code, provides in pertinent part: Prior notice of adoption, amendment or repeal of a rule shall be made available to persons or parties directly affected by the rule as required in 120, F.S. Notice to those directly affected by a proposed rule shall be by: . . . . (b) Publication in the Florida Administrative Weekly at least 14 days prior to any proposed hearing. . . . . (d) Posting by memorandum notice of the intended action on the inmate and personnel bulletin boards of all major institutions, road prisons, community correctional centers, community vocational centers and offices throughout the state directing that complete proposed rules are available in each institutional library or office. A copy of the notice shall be circulated among the inmates in all disciplinary, administrative or close management confinement areas of all facilities.
Findings Of Fact The initial Petition for Administrative Hearing was filed on November 18, 1991. The Petition was filed by Ervin James Horton. 3. In the Petition Rules "33-3.002, 33-19.006, 33-19 et. seq., 33-19.012, 33-23 et. seq." were challenged. Most of the Challenged Rules are lengthy and deal with a number of subjects. The common thread of the Challenged Rules concern medical care of inmates. The Petition is, to say the least, confusing. This confusion is caused by the Petitioner's frequent use of legal terms and phrases with little in the way of factual explanation. As an example, paragraph 17, State of the Case and Facts, provides the following: 17. That the (Petitioner) has learned that the (Respondent) act [sic] pursuant to an invalid delegation as 33-3.002 33-19 et. seq., 233-23 et. seq. that fail to establish adequate standards for agency decision making, and vests unbridled discretion in the agency or employees that's inconsistant [sic] to the statutory requirements of 120.54 and 944.09. This paragraph is fairly typical of most of the Petition. Although it contains some "legalese", it does not, read alone or in conjunction with all of the Petitioner's pleadings, adequately put the Respondent on notice as to what the Petitioner is challenging or the basis for his challenge. Apparently, the Petitioner is complaining of the actions of employees of the Respondent in allegedly releasing confidential medical information to "security staff and psychologist or and other staff or employees with criminal intent" and other medical practices of the employees of the Respondent. The Petitioner has also attempted to raise constitutional arguments to support his challenge to the Challenged Rules. The statements concerning constitutional issues consist of mere statements that constitutional rights are being violated without any facts to support an argument that the Challenged Rules are unconstitutional. Again, most of the Petitioner's arguments apparently concern violation of constitutional rights by the acts of employees of the Respondent as opposed to the violations of constitutional rights in the Challenged Rules. Insufficient alleged facts concerning why it is believed that the Challenged Rules are an "invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority", as defined in Section 120.52(8), Florida Statutes, were included in the Petition. On December 10, 1991, an Order Granting Motion to Dismiss with Leave to Amend was entered. The Petitioner was informed that his Petition was being dismissed and the Petitioner was given an opportunity to file an amended petition. No amended petition has been filed by the Petitioner. On January 14, 1992, an Order Concerning Amended Petition was entered dismissing the Amended Petition and giving the parties an opportunity to file proposed final orders.
Appeal For This Case THIS FINAL ORDER CONSTITUTES FINAL AGENCY ACTION UNDER CHAPTER 120, FLORIDA STATUTES. A PARTY WHO IS ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY FINAL AGENCY ACTION IS ENTITLED TO JUDICIAL REVIEW IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 120.68, FLORIDA STATUTES, AND FLORIDA RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 9.030(B)(1)(c) AND 9.110. TO INITIATE AN APPEAL OF THIS FINAL AGENCY ACTION, A NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITH THE DEPARTMENT’S AGENCY CLERK WITHIN THIRTY (30) CALENDAR DAYS AFTER THE DATE THIS FINAL AGENCY ACTION IS FILED WITH THE AGENCY CLERK (SEE NOTICE OF FILING AND SERVICE BELOW). THE ADDRESS OF THE AGENCY CLERK IS: AGENCY CLERK DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY 107 EAST MADISON STREET, CALDWELL BUILDING, MSC 110 TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-4128 FAX NUMBER 850-921-3230 Email: James.Bellflower@deo.myflorida.com A DOCUMENT IS FILED WHEN IT IS RECEIVED BY THE AGENCY CLERK. THE NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE SUBSTANTIALLY IN THE FORM PRESCRIBED BY FLORIDA RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 9.900(a). A COPY OF THE NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST ALSO BE FILED WITH THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL AND MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY THE FILING FEE SPECIFIED IN SECTION 35.22(3), FLORIDA STATUTES. FINAL ORDER NO. DEO-13-117 AN ADVERSELY AFFECTED PARTY WAIVES THE RIGHT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW IF THE NOTICE OF APPEAL IS NOT TIMELY FILED WITH BOTH THE DEPARTMENT’S AGENCY CLERK AND THE APPROPRIATE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL. NOTICE OF FILING AND SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that the above Final Order was filed with the Department’s undersigned designated Agency Clerk and that true, and correct copies were furnished to the persons listed below in the manner described on the day of November, 2013. i“ W ‘ Ccateausd ames W. Bellflower, Agency Clerk Department of Economic Opportunity 107 East Madison Street, MSC 110 Tallahassee, FL 32399-4128 By U.S. Mail: Mr. Alan R. Friend 7600 Sun Island Drive South, No. 505 South Pasadena, FL 33707-4484 David J. Ottinger, Esq. GrayRobinson, P.A. 401 East Jackson Street, Suite 2700 Tampa, FL 33602-5841 Honorable D. R. Alexander Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-3060
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Benny R. Hardy, is a licensed law enforcement officer in the State of Florida, holding License No. GF-7656. The Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida charged with the licensing of and the regulation and enforcing of licensure, practice and conduct standards for law enforcement officers. The Respondent was hired on the police force of the City of Umatilla, Florida, on September 16, 1975, rising to the position of Chief of Police. He served in that capacity until his termination of employment by his resignation on March 23, 1983. The Respondent resigned from his employment due to his having been charged with a felony, involving obtaining drugs with a forged prescription. He entered a plea of nolo contendere to that charge and an order was entered on March 25, 1983, placing the Respondent on probation for three years and withholding adjudication of guilt, it appearing to the satisfaction of the court that the Respondent was "not likely again to engage in a criminal course of conduct . . . ." Certain conditions were imposed upon Respondent's probationary status and the court reserved jurisdiction to adjudge the Respondent guilty and impose any legally appropriate sentence if the conditions of that probation are violated. There is no evidence that Respondent has ever been the subject of any disciplinary proceeding such as this in the past. His licensure status is presently "inactive." The Respondent, however, after due and proper notice of hearing, failed to appear at the hearing at the appointed date and time and had still not appeared at 10:40 a.m., when the hearing was adjourned.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and the evidence and testimony of record, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission revoking Law Enforcement Certificate No. GF-7656 presently held by Respondent. DONE and ENTERED this 12th day of December, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 13th day of December, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Dennis S. Valente, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Mr. Benny R. Hardy Post Office Box 1014 Umatilla, Florida 32784 James W. York, Executive Director Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 G. Patrick Gallagher, Director Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
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.
