Findings Of Fact Petitioner designs, manufactures, and sells the "Little Casino" video game machine. The machine is designed to enable a player, through the insertion of either one or two quarters, to play one of four games: poker, high-low, blackjack, or craps. The machine contains two switches which enable the owner to control the cost per game, whether 25 cents or 50 cents per game. Upon deposit of the appropriate amount of money, the player of the game receives 10,000 points to play the selected game. If the operator utilizes the entire 10,000 points in less than four hands or rolls, the game is over. If, however, the operator earns or wins 100,000 points by the conclusion of the fourth hand or roll, a free fifth hand or roll is allowed. If the operator earns 200,000 points by the conclusion of the fifth hand or roll, a free sixth hand or roll is allowed. The player of the game is allowed no more than six hands or rolls in the chosen game, regardless of the number of points scored. Depending upon the game option selected, cards or dice appear on the video screen. So far as can be determined from the record in this cause, the dealing of the cards or roll of the dice is entirely determined by the programming of the machine, and the player is wholly unable to control or influence the initial selection of cards or the roll of the dice. Little Casino does not allow free replays, does not accumulate free replays, and makes no permanent record of free replays. The game is not classified by the United States as requiring a federal gambling tax stamp under any applicable provisions of the Internal Revenue Code. The machine can be set to eliminate what Respondent considers to be the objectionable fifth and sixth hands.
Conclusions This matter came before the Department for entry of a Final Order upon submission of an Order of Dismissal by P. Michael Ruff, Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings, pursuant to a lack of response to the Order to Show Cause. The Department hereby adopts the Order of Dismissal as its Final Order in this matter. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED and the Dealer Sales and Service Agreement entered into by Rhino Motorcycles, Inc. and Mega Power Sports Corporation remains in full force and effect. DONE AND ORDERED this Aw of August, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ‘ARL A. FORD, Director Division of Motor Vehicles Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Motor Vehicles this _! Lh day of August, 2009. nae kee ‘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. CAF/vlg Copies furnished: David Levison Mega Power Sports, Corp. 921 West International Speedway Boulevard Daytona Beach, Florida 32114 Alex Chividian Rhino Motorcycles, Inc. 229 North Central Avenue, Suite 304 Glendale, California 91203 Michael J. Alderman, Esquire Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building 2900 Apalachee Parkway, Room A432 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 P. Michael Ruff Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Nalini Vinayak Dealer License Administrator Florida Administrative Law Reports Post Office Box 385 Gainesville, Florida 32602
The Issue Whether Florida Administrative Code Rules 61D-11.001(8) and (13), 61D-11.002(1), 61D-11.005(2) and (9), and 61D- 11.027(1)(b), (1)(e), (2)(a) and (2)(b), are invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority pursuant to Subsection 120.52(8), Florida Statutes (2004).
Findings Of Fact Stipulated Facts Petitioner, Calder Race Course, Inc., a Florida Corporation, is a pari-mutuel permitholder permitted and licensed by the Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering (Division) pursuant to Chapter 550 and Section 849.086, Florida Statutes. Petitioner, Dania Jai Alai, a division of The Aragon Group, a Florida Corporation, is a pari-mutuel permitholder permitted and licensed by the Division pursuant to Chapter 550, and Section 849.086, Florida Statutes. As cardroom operators, Florida Administrative Code Chapter 61D-11 governs the activities of Petitioners in the operation of their respective cardrooms, pursuant to their cardroom licenses at their pari-mutuel facilities. The challenged rules have the effect of directly regulating the operation of Petitioners' cardrooms. Petitioners are substantially affected by the challenged rules and have standing to bring this rule challenge. A tournament is a series of games. Multi-table tournaments eliminate players until there are only enough remaining players to play at one table before the tournament concludes. Tournaments which consist of nine players at a single table, often referred to as mini-tournaments, are commonly used by Florida Native-American cardrooms as a form of poker tournament play. Pari-mutuel pools, operated by pari-mutuel permitholders and the rules regulating pari-mutuel wagering, currently allow jackpots. Facts based upon the evidence of record History of the Rules The Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering, is the state agency responsible for administering Section 849.086, Florida Statutes, and regulating the operation of cardrooms in the state. In 1996, the Florida Legislature created Section 849.086, Florida Statutes, authorizing cardrooms to be located at licensed pari-mutuel facilities. § 20, Chap. 96-364, Laws of Florida. In response to this legislation, Florida Administrative Code Chapter 61D-11 was adopted, governing the operation of cardrooms at pari-mutuel facilities. Section 849.086, Florida Statutes, was amended in 2003 by Section 4, Chapter 2003-295, Laws of Florida. Of particular significance to this case, the 2003 amendments eliminated a $10.00 limit on winnings and imposed a $2.00 bet limitation, with a maximum of three raises per round of betting. In response to this legislation, the Division began the process of amending Florida Administrative Code Chapter 61D-11. During this rule amendment process, the Joint Administrative Procedures Committee (JAPC) sent two letters to the Division expressing concerns with respect to provisions of the proposed rules regarding the Division's approval of authorized games and lack of criteria for such approval, a requirement for submission of a form, the Division's authority to approve a series of games (tournaments), and the Division's authority to prohibit jackpots. As part of the rule adoption process, the Division responded to these letters and informed JAPC that the Division was filing a Notice of Change regarding certain adjustments to the proposed rules. As part of the rule adoption process, the Division also conducted a rule development workshop on September 16, 2003, and a public hearing on January 7, 2004. The amendments were adopted May 9, 2004. Some of these rules amendments are the subject matter of the instant proceeding. Concerns of the Division Royal Logan is the chief operations officer for the Division. He has held that position for a total of approximately ten years. He was a member of a committee established in the Division as part of the process of amending Florida Administrative Code Chapter 61D-11 as a result of the 2003 amendments. According to Mr. Logan, the committee was concerned with several issues including compliance with the legislative intent of strict regulation of gambling, the Division's manpower in regulating cardrooms, and tax reporting concerns relating to auditing. More specifically, the Division was concerned that jackpots and re-buys have the potential of violating the $2.00 bet and raise limitations, the potential opportunity for collusion in single-game tournaments, and pose difficulties for accurate tax reporting. The Division does not have a group of employees specifically devoted to cardrooms. The Division has employees designated as chief inspectors at racetracks. The chief inspector has many duties including monitoring cardrooms to ensure compliance with statutes and rules. Monitoring cardroom compliance comprises no more than 10 to 12 percent of their time, as that person is the primary licensing official at the site. Not all racetracks have chief inspectors. The Game of Poker Poker is a card game using a single deck of 52 cards. Poker consists of a ranking system. The person holding the highest-ranking hand at the end of the game wins the pot. The traditional ranking system consists of the highest-ranking hand to the lowest. Hoyle’s Modern Encyclopedia of Card Games, by Walter B. Gibson, April 1974 Edition, contains an accurate description of the traditional ranking system in poker. Stanley Sludikoff is an expert in the game of poker, the rules of the game, and how poker is played in the United States. Mr. Sludikoff considers Hoyle's not to be the most authoritative book on the game of poker and that it applies primarily to home games as opposed to games played in gamerooms. Hoyle's does not address the subjects of tournaments or jackpots. Because Hoyle's contains an accurate description of the traditional ranking system in poker, the undersigned is not persuaded that the reference to Hoyle's in Florida Administrative Code Rule 61D-11.002(1) is inappropriate or arbitrary. In Mr. Sludikoff's opinion, tournaments are appealing because there is a low fixed risk with the potential for higher gain. They allow participants to build up to a higher limit game and potentially win entry into larger tournaments, such as the World Series of Poker. Single table tournaments are common in the United States in both large and small properties. Multi-table tournaments eliminate players until there are only enough remaining players to play at one table before the tournament concludes. Regular (non- tournament) games are played at single tables. According to Mr. Logan, the Division determined that the entry fee for a tournament should be calculated based upon the $2.00, three-raise limitation. The Division determined that "re-buys" are not consistent with the wagering limitations of Section 849.086, Florida Statutes. In Mr. Sludikoff's opinion, when the rules of the tournament allow, a re-buy is available to all players during a specified period of time. The rules are set by the cardroom operators, and each player in a tournament is aware of the ability to re-buy, how much the re-buys cost, and when it may be exercised. Re-buys are not the same thing as re-entering a tournament because participants are not permitted to re-buy unless he or she is a participant in the tournament at the time such re-buy is made available. A participant is not out of a tournament unless he or she is out of chips and there is no re-buy available to such participant. Allowing players to re-buy additional chips is a common practice in poker tournaments. Re-buys are easily recorded as a type of revenue received, thereby not presenting an accounting or auditing problem. Mr. Sludikoff's opinion in this regard persuades the undersigned that the agency's rationale regarding the entry fee and re-buy limitations are not supported by the necessary facts and are arbitrary. Most cardrooms in the United States have jackpots. Florida's statutory limitation of a $2.00 bet and raise limitation is a restrictive form of wagering. Under this limitation, the most that a participant can bet is $8.00 in any round. "Pari-mutuel" is a French term meaning wagering among ourselves, in that the participants are not wagering against the "house." Section 849.086, Florida Statutes, characterizes games authorized pursuant to that section to be "pari-mutuel style" games. Playing a game in a non-banking manner means that the "house", the cardroom operator, does not participate in the game at all and that the game participants are not playing against the house.
The Issue The issues for disposition in this case are whether proposed rules 61D-11.001(17) and 61D-11.002(5), Florida Administrative Code, which consist of the repeal of said rules, constitute an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority as defined in section 120.52(8), Florida Statutes; and whether the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering’s (Respondent), failure to prepare a statement of estimated regulatory costs constituted a material failure to follow the applicable rulemaking procedures or requirements set forth in chapter 120.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is the state agency charged with regulating pari-mutuel wagering pursuant to chapter 550, Florida Statutes, and cardrooms pursuant to section 849.086, Florida Statutes. Each Petitioner currently holds a permit and license under chapter 550 to conduct pari-mutuel wagering and a license under section 849.086 to conduct cardroom operations. Petitioners offer designated player games at their respective cardrooms. The rules proposed for repeal, rules 61D-11.001(17) and 61D-11.002(5), relate to the play of designated player games. Rule 61D-11.001(17) provides that “‘[d]esignated player’ means the player identified by the button as the player in the dealer position.” Rule 61D-11.002(5) provides that: Card games that utilize a designated player that covers other players’ potential wagers shall be governed by the cardroom operator’s house rules. The house rules shall: Establish uniform requirements to be a designated player; Ensure that the dealer button rotates around the table in a clockwise fashion on a hand to hand basis to provide each player desiring to be the designated player an equal opportunity to participate as the designated player; and Not require the designated player to cover all potential wagers. Both rules were adopted on July 21, 2014. Both rules list sections 550.0251(12), and 849.086(4) and (11) as rulemaking authority, and section 849.086 as the law implemented. Designated Player Games A designated player game is a subset of traditional poker games in which a designated player plays his or her hand against each other player at the table, instead of all players competing against each other. The term “designated player game” is used synonymously with “player banked games.”3/ However, a designated player is not a cardroom operator. In traditional “pool” poker games, each player bets into a central pool, with the winning hand(s) among all of the players collecting from the pool of bets, minus the cardroom rake. In designated player games, each player at the table makes an individual bet, and compares their hand against the designated player’s hand. If the player’s hand is better than the designated player’s hand, then the designated player pays the player from the designated player’s stack of chips. If the designated player’s hand is better than the player’s hand, then the designated player collects the player’s wager. At an eight- seat table, it is as though there are seven separate “player versus designated player” games. Designated player games were first played at the Ebro (Washington County Kennel Club) cardroom in 2011. The game, known as “double hand poker,” was demonstrated to Respondent, and subsequently approved for play. Though the internal control that describes the rules of game play was not offered in evidence, a preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the game used a designated player. After Respondent’s approval of Ebro’s double hand poker, Respondent entered an order rescinding its approval due to concerns that the use of a designated player resulted in the establishment of a banking game. That decision was challenged, and subsequently withdrawn, with the result being that “Ebro may immediately resume play of Double Hand Poker as approved by the division.” In 2012, the Palm Beach Kennel Club cardroom began offering “tree card poker” with a designated player. Although tree card poker had been approved by Respondent, the designated player element had not. Thus, since the game was not being played in accordance with the approved internal control, it was unauthorized. Respondent investigated the playing of tree card poker at Palm Beach Kennel Club. A video demonstration was provided that showed two hands of tree card poker being played with a designated player. The video depicted a single designated player playing his hand against each other player at the table, and paying or collecting wagers based on each individual hand. After having reviewed the demonstration video, Respondent ultimately determined that the use of a designated player did not violate the prohibition against banking games as defined. The Adoption of the Designated Player Rules As requests for approval of internal controls for games using designated players became more common, Respondent determined that it should adopt a rule to establish the parameters under which designated player games would be authorized. On December 16, 2013, after having taken public comment at a series of rulemaking workshops, Respondent published proposed rule 61D-11.002(5) which provided as follows: 61D-11.002 Cardroom Games. * * * Card games that utilize a designated player that covers other players’ wagers shall: Allow for only one designated player during any single hand; Not require the designated player to cover all wagers that could be made by the other players in the game; Not allow other players to cover wagers to achieve winnings that the designated player could have won had he or she covered the same wagers; Not allow or require a player to buy in for a different amount than any other player in the game in order to participate as the designated player; and Rotate a button or other object to designate which player is the designated player. The button or other object shall rotate clockwise around the table to give each player the opportunity to participate as the designated player. On February 14, 2014, a challenge to the proposed rule was filed that objected to restrictions on the manner in which designated player games could be conducted. The rule challenge hearing was continued, and the case placed in abeyance pending negotiations between the parties. On March 14, 2014, Respondent filed a Notice of Change to the proposed rule 61D-11.002, which added the following provisions to proposed rule 61D-11.002: The designated player shall: Cover the table minimum for each participating player; and Pay each player an amount above the table minimum equal to their pro rata share of the pot in the event the designated player cannot cover all wagers. A public hearing on the changes to the proposed rule was held on May 8, 2014. As to the designated player provisions of the proposed rule, Respondent received the following comment: [I]f we could modify this . . . taking the existing paragraph 5 and come up with three new criteria, one being uniform requirements for a designated player included within the house rules; allowing for the dealer button to rotate on a hand-by-hand basis for qualified designated players; also, not requiring the designated player to cover all potential wagers, but nonetheless allowing the house rules to set a designated minimum buy-in amount or just a chip count. I think if we had those particular parameters, we would allow the preservation of this game to continue in its current fashion . . . . And . . . we’re going to avoid [] any argument that the department has somehow created a banked card game, because the biggest thing here is that we’re not requiring that the designated player meet all the theoretical payouts of the game. On May 19, 2014, written comments were submitted on behalf of several pari-mutuel facilities. Those comments included proposed language that is identical to the rule that was ultimately adopted, and included the following: Multiple jurisdictions have determined a key element to banked card games is the house requiring all wagers be covered. We propose this language to distinguish between lawful games and impermissible banked games. On June 9, 2014, Respondent filed a Notice of Change that adopted the industry’s proposed language, and changed proposed rule 61D-11.002 to its present form. On June 13, 2014, the challenge to proposed rule 61D-11.002(5) was voluntarily dismissed, and the case was closed. On July 21, 2014, rule 61D-11.002(5) became effective. There can be little doubt that Respondent understood that it was, by its adoption of rule 61D-11.002(5), recognizing player banked games in which a designated player plays his or her hand against each other player at the table. The rule is substantial evidence that, as of the date of adoption, Respondent had determined that designated player games did not violate the prohibition against “banking games” as that term is defined in section 849.086. Internal Controls Over the course of several years, beginning generally in 2011 and extending well into 2015, Respondent was presented with internal controls from cardrooms around the state for playing designated player games. Internal controls are required before a particular game may be offered, and describe the rules of the game and the wagering requirements. The internal controls submitted by the Jacksonville Kennel Club; the Daytona Beach Kennel Club; the West Flagler Associates/Magic City Poker Room; and the Naples/Ft. Myers Greyhound Track Cardroom, described games in which designated players played their hand against those of the other players at the table, and paid and collected wagers from the designated player’s chip stack based on the rank of the designated player’s hand against the individual players. The games described did not involve pooled wagers, and clearly described player banked games. Respondent approved the internal controls for each of the four facilities. The process of approving internal controls occasionally included the submission of video demonstrations of the games described in the internal controls for which approval was being sought. Approval of internal controls was never done without the review and assent of Respondent’s legal department or the division director. With regard to the rules of the designated player games that underwent review and approval by Respondent, “all of them are about the same, few differences.” From 2011 through mid-2015, Respondent approved internal controls for playing one-card poker, two-card poker, three-card poker, Florida Hold ‘Em, and Pai Gow poker using designated players at numerous cardroom facilities. A preponderance of the evidence establishes that Respondent was aware of the fact that, for at least several facilities, “eligible” designated players were required to meet minimum financial criteria, which ranged from a minimum of $20,000 in chips, up to $100,000 in chips. In the case of the Daytona Beach Kennel Club cardroom, internal controls called for a designated player to submit an application, agree to a background check, and submit a deposit of $100,000. Respondent approved those internal controls. DBPR Training In August 2015, Mr. Taylor was invited by the Bestbet cardroom in Jacksonville4/ to participate in a training session it was offering for its employees. Mr. Taylor is an investigator for Respondent, and visited the pari-mutuel facilities at least once per week. Mr. Taylor was invited by the facility to get an overview of how the cardroom games that had been approved by Respondent, including designated player games, were played. The games that were the subject of the training were substantially similar to those depicted in the April 2012 training video, and those he had observed during his weekly inspections. The designated player games for which training was provided had been approved by Respondent. In September 2015, training in designated player games was provided at Respondent’s Tallahassee offices to several of its employees. Mr. Taylor perceived the training “as an overview to give us an idea of what we are going to see.” Neither Mr. Taylor nor any other participant in the training offered any suggestion that the training was being provided in anticipation of a shift in Respondent’s practice of approving the internal controls for designated player games. Current Rulemaking On September 23, 2014, Respondent published a Notice of Development of Rulemaking. The notice cited 15 of the 30 subsections of chapter 61D-11 as being the subject areas affected by the notice, and provided that “[t]he purpose and effect of the proposed rulemaking will be to address issues discovered in the implementation and practical application of cardroom rules adopted on July 21, 2014.” There is nothing in the notice to suggest that Respondent had modified its position on designated player games, and its continued approval of institutional controls approving such games is strong evidence that it had not. On August 4, 2015, Respondent published a Notice of Meeting/Workshop Hearing for a rule workshop to be held on August 18, 2015. The Notice listed each rule in chapter 61D-11 as the “general subject matter to be considered,” including those related to games of dominos. Respondent asserted that it had “posted a version of amended cardroom rules that included the [repeal of rule 61D-11.005] on its website,” though such was not published, nor did Respondent provide a record citation in support of its assertion. On October 29, 2015, Respondent published its proposed amendments to chapter 61D-11. Rule 61D-11.001(17), which defines the term “designated player” as “the player identified by the button as the player in the dealer position,” was proposed for repeal. Rule 61D-11.002(5), as set forth above, which had established the standards for designated player games, was proposed for repeal. Rule 61D-11.005 was proposed for amendment to add subsection (9), which provided that “[p]layer banked games, established by the house, are prohibited.” On December 2, 2015, the Division held a public hearing on the proposed amendments. During the public hearing, Mr. Zachem made it clear that the intent of the proposed amendments was to change the Division’s long-standing and consistently applied construction of section 849.086 as allowing designated player games to one of prohibiting designated player games, and in that regard stated that: The rules pertaining to designated player games are now going to be correlated with the statute that is the prohibition against designated player games. The statute does not allow designated player games. There has to be a specific authorization for a type of game in statute, and there is none in 849.086 pertaining to designated player games . . . . When some of these definitions in other areas were created, I don’t think that the concept of what these games could even become was fathomed by the division. Given the process by which internal controls for designated player games were approved by Respondent, including written descriptions and video demonstrations of play, the suggestion that Respondent could not “fathom” the effect of its rules and decisions is not accepted. On December 11, 2015, Petitioners individually filed petitions challenging the validity of the proposed rules. The cases were consolidated and ultimately placed into abeyance pending efforts to resolve the issues in dispute. Agency Action Concurrent with Rulemaking After the December 2015 public hearing, and prior to the adoption of any amendments to chapter 61D-11, Respondent filed a series of administrative complaints against cardrooms offering designated player games. Those administrative complaints were very broadly worded, and reflected Respondent’s newly-developed position that designated player games constituted “a banking game or a game not specifically authorized by Section 849.086, Florida Statutes.” In that regard, Mr. Zachem testified that a cardroom could have been operating in full compliance with its Respondent-approved internal controls and still have been the subject of an administrative complaint.5/ The position of Respondent was made clear by Mr. Zachem’s statement that if a cardroom has an approved designated player game “where a banker is using their table, their dealer, their facility they [the cardroom] are establishing a bank.”6/ Thus, there can be little doubt that Respondent now construes section 849.086 to mean that player banked games constitute prohibited “banking games” because, by allowing the player banked game in its facility, the cardroom “establishes” a bank against which participants play. After the December public hearing, Ms. Helms was instructed that she was to no longer approve internal controls if they included provisions regarding designated players. That blanket instruction came with no conditions. Since that instruction, the internal controls for at least one facility have been disapproved, despite their being “about the same” as internal controls that had been previously approved for other facilities. Ms. Helms testified that after the December 2015 rule hearing, “things kind of turned around” with regard to Respondent’s position on designated player games. She then rethought her selection of words, stating instead that “things changed.” Given the totality of the evidence in this case, Ms. Helms’ statement that the position of Respondent towards designated player games “turned around” is the more accurate descriptor. Notice of Change On January 15, 2016, the Division published a Notice of Change/Withdrawal of proposed rules. Through the issuance of this notice, the Division withdrew proposed rule 61D-11.005(9). The proposed repeal of rules 61D-11.001(17) and 61D-11.002(5) remained unchanged. Since that notice of change, the preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that Respondent has stopped approving internal controls that propose the offering of designated player games, and has continued to take action against facilities that offer designated player games. Respondent’s statements and actions, including those made in the course of this proceeding, demonstrate that Respondent intends the repeal of rules 61D-11.001(17) and 61D-11.002(5), to effectuate the prohibition of designated player games despite the withdrawal of proposed rule 61D-11.005(9). Lower Cost Regulatory Alternative When it proposed the subject amendments to rule 61D-11 on October 29, 2014, Respondent had not prepared a statement of estimated regulatory costs. Rather, the notice of proposed rule provided that: The agency has determined that this rule will not have an adverse impact on small business or likely increase directly or indirectly regulatory costs in excess of $200,000 in the aggregate within one year after the implementation of the rule. A SERC has not been prepared by the agency. The agency has determined that the proposed rule is not expected to require legislative ratification based on the statement of estimated regulatory costs or if no SERC is required, the information expressly relied upon and described herein: the economic review conducted by the agency. Any person who wishes to provide information regarding the statement of estimated regulatory costs, or to provide a proposal for a lower cost regulatory alternative must do so in writing within 21 days of this notice. On November 19, 2015, in conjunction with the rulemaking process described above, a number of licensed cardroom operators, including some of the Petitioners, timely submitted a good faith proposal for a lower cost regulatory alternative (“LCRA”) to the proposed amendments to chapter 61D-11 that would have the effect of prohibiting designated player games, citing not only the creation of rule 61D-11.005(9), but the repeal of rule 61D-11.002(5). A preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the LCRA indicated that the rule was likely to directly or indirectly increase regulatory costs in excess of $200,000 in the aggregate within one year after the implementation of the rule. The LCRA, as described in the letter of transmittal, also concluded that regulatory costs could be reduced by not adopting the proposed rule amendments, thus maintaining Respondent’s previous long-standing interpretation of section 849.086, and thereby accomplishing the statutory objectives. Respondent employed no statisticians or economists, and there was no evidence to suggest that any such persons were retained to review the LCRA. Though Mr. Zachem did not “claim to be an expert in statistics,” he felt qualified to conclude that the LCRA was “a bit of a challenging representation.” Thus, Respondent simply concluded, with no explanation or support, that “the numbers that we received were unreliable.” Respondent did not prepare a statement of estimated regulatory costs or otherwise respond to the LCRA. Respondent argues that its abandonment of proposed rule 61D-11.005(9), which was the more explicit expression of its intent to prohibit designated player games, made the LCRA inapplicable to the rule as it was proposed for amendment after the January 15, 2016, notice of change. That argument is undercut by the fact that Respondent did not amend its statement of estimated regulatory costs as a result of the change in the proposed rule. Moreover, the evidence is overwhelming that Respondent, by its decision to disapprove internal controls that included designated player games, and its enforcement actions taken against cardrooms offering designated player games, specifically intended the amendments repealing the designated player standards to have the effect of prohibiting designated player games. Thus, despite the elimination of the specific prohibition on designated player games, there was no substantive effect of the change. Therefore, the LCRA remained an accurate expression of Petitioners’ estimated regulatory costs of the proposed rule. Ultimate Findings Respondent has taken the position that the repeal of rule 61D-11.005(9) was undertaken “[f]or clarity with the industry.” That position is simply untenable. Rather, Respondent has taken an activity that it previously found to be legal and authorized and, by repealing the rule and simply being silent on its effect, determined that activity to be prohibited. By so doing, Respondent has left it to “the industry” to decipher the meaning and effect of a statute that is, quite obviously, ambiguous and in need of the interpretive guidance that has been and should be provided by rule. The evidence is conclusive that, by its repeal of rule 61D-11.002(5), Respondent simply changed its mind as to whether playing with a designated player constituted the establishment of a prohibited banking game.7/ It previously determined that such games were lawful under the terms of section 849.086; it has now determined they are not. Though there is substantial evidence to suggest that the reason for the change was related to the renegotiation of the Seminole Compact, the reason is not important. What is important is that Respondent has taken divergent views of the statute in a manner that has substantially affected the interests of Petitioners. For Respondent to suggest that its repeal of the rules is a clarification, a simplification, or a reflection of the unambiguous terms of the statute, and that Petitioners should just tailor their actions to the statute without any interpretive guidance from Respondent, works contrary to the role of government to provide meaningful and understandable standards for the regulation of business in Florida. Respondent cannot, with little more than a wave and well-wishes, expect regulated businesses to expose themselves to liability through their actions under a statute that is open to more than one interpretation, when the agency itself has found it problematic to decipher the statute under which it exercises its regulatory authority.
The Issue The first issue in this case is the amount of attorneys' fees to assess against Respondent, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering (Respondent or Division), pursuant to an Order of the First District Court of Appeal (First DCA) granting a motion by Petitioner, Ft. Myers Real Estate Holdings, LLC (Petitioner or Ft. Myers REH), for attorneys' fees pursuant to section 120.595(5), Florida Statutes (2010),1/ and remanding the case to DOAH to assess the amount. The second issue is whether Petitioner is entitled to recover attorneys' fees and costs incurred in this proceeding, and, if so, in what amount.
Findings Of Fact For reasons that the First DCA found to be a "gross abuse of agency discretion," the Division rendered a Final Order dismissing Ft. Myers REH's petition for a formal administrative hearing to contest the Division's denial of Ft. Myers REH's amended application for a quarter horse racing permit. The premise of the Division's Final Order was that Petitioner could not prove that it meets the requirements for a permit, hence its claimed injury was not "redressable." Ft. Myers REH appealed the Final Order. The Notice of Appeal to the First DCA was filed on April 5, 2010, signed by Cynthia Tunnicliff for Pennington, Moore, Wilkinson, Bell and Dunbar, P.A. (the Pennington firm). After two motions to extend the deadline for filing the initial brief, Ft. Myers REH filed its Initial Brief on July 26, 2010. With the Initial Brief, Ft. Myers REH filed a motion for an award of attorneys' fees under section 120.595(5), asserting that the agency action which precipitated the appeal was a gross abuse of the agency's discretion. The motion's prayer for relief asked for "entry of an order awarding the Appellant the attorneys' fees it has incurred prosecuting this appeal, pursuant to . . . Section 120.595(5)." As stated in the opinion, the First DCA found that the Division's Final Order was "contrary to the basic, settled principle of administrative law that a person whose substantial interests are determined by an agency is entitled to some kind of hearing . . . to challenge the agency's decision[.]" The court determined that the dismissal of Ft. Myers REH's petition was "so contrary to the fundamental principles of administrative law" that Petitioner was entitled to an award of attorneys' fees under section 120.595(5). To assess reasonable attorneys' fees, a starting place is necessarily the time records of Petitioner's appellate legal team. Although Judge Farmer offered his opinion that the time records had little to no significance in this case, nonetheless, even Judge Farmer accepted the time-based attorneys' fees shown on those time records as the base amount to which a multiplier should be applied. Therefore, the undersigned examined the time records in the context of the appellate record and considered the conflicting opinions of the parties' experts to assess whether the time incurred by Petitioner's legal team was reasonable in light of the steps needed to successfully prosecute the appeal. There was extensive motion practice in the appeal, which significantly increased the amount of time that might otherwise be considered reasonable for an appeal of an order summarily dismissing a petition for administrative hearing, with no record to speak of from proceedings below, such as would be developed in a trial or administrative hearing. Several motions were filed by the Division, including a motion to dismiss the appeal, which resulted in an Order to Show Cause directing Ft. Myers REH to demonstrate why the appeal should not be dismissed. The Division also filed two different motions to strike, one directed to Ft. Myers REH's response to the Order to Show Cause why the appeal should not be dismissed, and the other directed to the reply brief; both of these motions were denied. Ft. Myers REH filed even more motions than the Division. In addition to the motion for attorneys' fees pursuant to section 120.595(5) and two perfunctory motions for enlargement of time to file the initial brief, Ft. Myers REH also filed a motion for substitution of counsel, making the mid-stream decision that David Romanik, whose expertise was in gaming law, should be counsel of record instead of Cynthia Tunnicliff, whose expertise was in administrative and appellate law, even though both attorneys remained involved before and after the substitution. More substantively, in reaction to the Division's motion to dismiss, Ft. Myers REH filed a motion to supplement the record and a motion for judicial notice, which were denied; a motion to consolidate the appeal with a separate mandamus action it had filed, which was denied; and a motion to strike the Division's response to the motion to supplement the record, or, in the alternative, a motion for leave to respond to new legal issues raised in the Division's response, both of which were denied. The basis for the Division's motion to dismiss was that a newly enacted law rendered the appeal moot, because under the new law, Ft. Myers REH could no longer qualify for the quarter horse racing permit for which it had applied. The Division sought to invoke the general rule that the law in effect at the time of a final decision applies to determine whether to grant or deny an application for a permit or other form of license. See Lavernia v. Dep't of Prof'l. Reg., 616 So. 2d 53, 54 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). Ft. Myers REH's motion flurry, even though unsuccessful, was a reasonable response to the Division's position in that Ft. Myers REH sought to demonstrate that one of the exceptions to the general rule, as recognized in Lavernia, was applicable. See, e.g., Dep't of HRS v. Petty-Eifert, 443 So. 2d 266, 267-268 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)(under the circumstances of that case, applicants were entitled to have the law applied as it existed when they filed their applications). In its opinion, the First DCA acknowledged both the Division's mootness argument and Ft. Myers REH's contention that there were circumstances that would preclude the Division from applying the statutory changes to the permit application. The court deemed these issues more suitable for fleshing out in the administrative hearing on remand. See Ft. Myers, 53 So. 3d at 1162-1163. In addition to the other motions, Ft. Myers REH also filed a motion for an award of attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to section 57.105, in which Ft. Myers REH asserted that the Division's motion to dismiss the appeal was unsupported by material facts and then-existing law. The court considered and denied the section 57.105 motion. There were four attorneys who worked on the appeal on behalf of Ft. Myers REH: David S. Romanik from Oxford, Florida; and Cynthia Tunnicliff, Marc Dunbar, and Ashley Mayer, all of the Pennington firm in Tallahassee, Florida. The first three of these attorneys are long-time practitioners with substantial experience and particular areas of expertise. Mr. Romanik, who became the counsel of record in the middle of the appeal, is an attorney with 35 years' experience, gained in private practice and in executive, legal, and consulting positions in the racing/gaming industry. He was described as the "general counsel, sort of," for the Florida interests of Green Bridge Company, which is the parent company of, and primary investor in, Ft. Myers REH. While Mr. Romanik has some experience in administrative litigation and appellate practice, his primary area of expertise is in gaming law. Ms. Tunnicliff is a shareholder of the Pennington firm, with vast experience and a well-established excellent reputation for her expertise in administrative law and administrative litigation under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), chapter 120, as well as in appellate practice. Ms. Tunnicliff's appellate experience is documented in well over 100 appeals in which she has appeared as counsel of record, spanning the last 25 years. Marc W. Dunbar has been practicing law for 17 years, and he also is a shareholder of the Pennington firm. Like Mr. Romanik, Mr. Dunbar's recognized area of legal expertise is in gaming law. For the last 13 years, he has been head of the firm's gaming law practice group, and he has substantial experience in gaming law and in providing consulting services to the pari-mutuel industry. Mr. Dunbar's testimony was that this has been the focus of his practice and has grown over the years such that it is now virtually all he does. Ashley Mayer was the lone associate who worked on the appeal. Ms. Mayer graduated in 2009 with high honors from Florida State University College of Law, where she was a member of the moot court team. Those who worked with her regularly at the Pennington firm, including Ms. Tunnicliff and Mr. Dunbar, thought very highly of her work as a one-year associate. Based on the expert opinions offered for and against the reasonableness of the time records for these four attorneys, including the hourly rates applied to the time entries, the undersigned finds as follows: there are some obvious flaws and less obvious insufficiencies in the time records that require adjustment; there is a large amount of duplication, which is tolerable to some extent given the stakes, but which exceeds a tolerable degree and requires some adjustment; the hourly rates for the two gaming law experts are too high for the non-gaming law legal services they each provided, requiring adjustment; and that the hourly rate for the one-year associate is too high, requiring adjustment. The time records of each of the four timekeepers will be addressed in turn, starting with the one-year associate, Ms. Mayer. As an example of an obvious flaw in the time records, the very first time entry is for researching and analyzing case law regarding bringing a civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. section 1983, for 2.8 hours. Another time entry described work related to a separate mandamus action, which Petitioner sought unsuccessfully to consolidate with the appeal. These entries are unrelated to the appeal. In addition, Ms. Mayer performed research regarding the process for assessing appellate attorneys' fees by remand to the lower tribunal. These entries do not relate to the appeal or to litigating over the entitlement to attorneys' fees. Several of Ms. Mayer's entries do not reflect legal work, but, rather, administrative or secretarial work, such as retrieving a law review article from the law library, conferring with a secretary regarding formatting briefs, and revising documents to conform to others' edits. Other than these entries, Ms. Mayer's time records seem generally appropriate, in that she performed a large amount of research before the initial brief, she performed drafting, and she continued to carry out research assignments throughout the appeal. Of the total 66.7 hours claimed, a reduction of 6.4 hours is warranted to account for the inappropriate entries. 60.3 hours are reasonable for Ms. Mayer. An hourly rate of $225 was applied to Ms. Mayer's time. Petitioner's expert attested, in general and in the aggregate, to the reasonableness of the hourly rates in Petitioner's time records for attorneys with comparable experience and skill, but gave no specific information regarding the basis for his opinions. Respondent's expert disagreed and testified that in her opinion, an hourly rate of $225.00 for a one-year associate was excessive. She based her opinion on The Florida Bar's 2010 Economics and Law Office Management Survey, which reported that for the north region of Florida, 47 percent of all attorneys at any experience level charge an hourly rate of $200.00 or less. In the opinion of Respondent's expert, a reasonable hourly rate for Ms. Mayer would be $150.00, instead of $225.00. While Respondent's expert's information was also somewhat generalized, the undersigned finds that based on the limited information provided, a reasonable rate for a highly skilled, but not very experienced attorney one year out of law school, would be $185.00 per hour. A reasonable attorney's fee for Ms. Mayer's legal work on the appeal is $11,155.50. Turning to Ms. Tunnicliff's time records, the hourly rate for Ms. Tunnicliff of $400.00, though high, is accepted as appropriately so. The rate is comparable to the rates charged by other attorneys of comparable skill and experience in the same locale, as ultimately agreed to by both parties' experts. Ms. Tunnicliff's time entries show that in general, she limited her hours appropriately to a high level of supervision, direction, and review, while allowing others, particularly Ms. Mayer, to conduct the more time-intensive research and drafting efforts. Based on the expert testimony and a review of the time record entries, a few adjustments to Ms. Tunnicliff's records are necessary. One-half hour is subtracted for an entry related to mandamus, because the mandamus action was separate and unrelated to work done to prosecute the appeal at issue. Another adjustment is necessary because of an error in the time records: The billing summary shows that Ms. Tunnicliff's total time was 31.6 hours, which was multiplied by the hourly rate to reach the fees sought for Ms. Tunnicliff's time. However, the individual time entries add up to a total of only 24.6 hours. With the additional deduction of one-half hour for work unrelated to the appeal, a total of 24.1 hours will be allowed for Ms. Tunnicliff's time. Applied to the agreed reasonable hourly rate, a reasonable attorney's fee for Ms. Tunnicliff's work on the appeal is $9,640.00. The time records for the two gaming law experts present more difficult issues, because the legal questions presented in the appeal were not gaming law questions; they were administrative law questions and, indeed, "basic, settled" administrative law questions. While certainly gaming law was the substantive, regulatory context in which these issues arose, it is clear from the time entry descriptions of exhaustive, duplicative legal research on rights to administrative hearings, party standing, and what law applies in license application proceedings, that at their core, the questions presented were general administrative law principles and were treated as such. Yet not only one, but two highly specialized gaming law experts whose experience and specialized expertise allow them to command hourly rates of $450 when practicing gaming law, spent most of the total attorney time prosecuting this administrative law appeal. Mr. Romanik's time records claim 195.5 total hours at $450 per hour, while Mr. Dunbar's time records claim 80.6 total hours, of which 30.2 were claimed at the rate of $450 per hour, while 50.4 additional hours were claimed at $300 per hour. The reduced $300 per-hour fee was an adjustment made at the urging of Petitioner's expert to account for research time spent not within Mr. Dunbar's area of expertise. Mr. Romanik's time records require adjustment. In general, many of the types of criticisms of these records by Respondent's expert are accepted, although the undersigned does not agree with the degree of adjustments deemed warranted by Respondent's expert. In general, Mr. Romanik's time entries reflect excessive hours spent by Mr. Romanik, doing tasks that were duplicative of tasks more appropriately performed by Ms. Mayer, which were, in fact, performed by Ms. Mayer, including research and initial drafting. Perhaps one reason for the sheer number of hours invested by Mr. Romanik was that he was performing research on basic, settled principles of administrative law, such as standing, hearing rights, licensing proceedings, what happens when the law changes while a license application is pending, and other questions of administrative procedure. Mr. Romanik's time records also reflect too many basic drafting tasks, such as initially drafting a request for oral argument. The time records also show excessive secretarial or administrative tasks, such as listing and downloading cases and uploading briefs. Not only did Mr. Romanik's specialized expertise in gaming law not facilitate his performing these tasks efficiently, but he inefficiently performed these tasks very expensively, i.e., at the claimed rate of $450 per hour. Nonetheless, Mr. Romanik apparently did the lion's share of work in redrafting the initial brief (initially drafted by Ms. Mayer), drafting the reply brief, drafting the numerous motions and responses to the Division's motions, and performing well at the oral argument. The high stakes and good outcome cannot be denied. Yet the total time claimed would be high at the hourly rate claimed, if Mr. Romanik were the sole attorney working on the appeal. Given his role as the "general contractor," it is conceivable that many of his hours were invested, or should be considered as having been invested, as "client" time in which Mr. Romanik was serving as the client liaison for the prosecution of the appeal to oversee the work done by the attorneys prosecuting the appeal. Regardless of how Mr. Romanik's hours are characterized, they were excessive and duplicative. To adjust for excessive time in tasks outside Mr. Romanik's area of expertise and for duplication, the undersigned finds that Mr. Romanik's time should be reduced by 83 hours. Reflecting the high stakes and good outcome, as well as the aggressive motion practice in the appeal, a reasonable--though still very high--number of hours for Mr. Romanik to have spent in prosecuting this appeal (with the substantial help of three other attorneys) is 112.50 hours. With almost all of the time Mr. Romanik spent in this appeal falling in areas outside of his recognized legal expertise, the undersigned finds that a high, but reasonable, hourly rate to apply to Mr. Romanik's time is $325.00. Essentially, Mr. Romanik's legal services fell more within the legal expertise of Ms. Tunnicliff. If $400.00 per hour is the acknowledged reasonable rate for someone of Ms. Tunnicliff's experience and expertise, the rate to apply to Mr. Romanik's time should be less, although not substantially so, recognizing that Mr. Romanik's gaming law expertise was a big advantage. If intricate issues of gaming law were involved in this appeal, as opposed to just being the substantive, regulatory context in which basic, settled principles of administrative law arose, then perhaps Mr. Romanik could command his standard hourly rate. Instead, with the predominant focus of Mr. Romanik's work, as reflected in his time entries on administrative and appellate law and procedure, the reasonable rate that will be applied to the reasonable time total found above is a blended rate that is discounted because of reduced expertise in the main area, but increased because of expertise in a collateral area. Applying the reasonable rate of $325.00 per hour to 112.50 hours for Mr. Romanik yields a reasonable attorney's fee of $36,562.50 for Mr. Romanik's prosecution of the appeal. Mr. Dunbar's time records suffer from the same essential problem as Mr. Romanik's--he is a gaming law expert, but his expertise was hardly utilized. If it was not necessary to tap into Mr. Romanik's gaming law expertise to any great extent, then it was not necessary and redundant to have a second gaming law expert substantially involved in the appeal. Additional problems with Mr. Dunbar's time records include several time entries with inadequate descriptions (e.g., "Research" or "Research re: key cite authority") and other entries with descriptions that did not seem to relate to the appeal (e.g., several entries two months after the initial brief was filed for "Research re: standards for appellate review of motion denial" when there was no denied motion for which appellate review was sought). Mr. Dunbar's time records had a large number of entries for performing basic research on questions of administrative law or appellate practice, such as standing, hearing rights, standards for supplementing the record on appeal, standards for motions to strike and to consolidate appeals, standards for reply briefs, and similar descriptions. Substantial adjustments are in order to remove the inadequately described time entries and the entries seemingly unrelated to this appeal and to substantially reduce the duplicative research done by Mr. Dunbar outside of his area that was also done by Ms. Mayer and/or Mr. Romanik and/or Ms. Tunnicliff. While some overlap is tolerable to ensure that all bases are covered, the time entries do not sufficiently establish what was added by Mr. Dunbar's substantial time- performing tasks outside his area of expertise to the already substantial time allowed for Mr. Romanik outside his area of expertise. Mr. Dunbar's reasonable time spent as a fourth attorney prosecuting this appeal is reduced by 43 hours, to 37.6 hours. A little more than half of the 37.6 hours found to be reasonable were in the non-research category, such as Mr. Dunbar's review and comment on the draft briefs and motions and assistance in preparation for oral argument. The research hours found reasonable were those that appeared to augment, but not duplicate, work by one or more other attorneys. As with Mr. Romanik, a blended reasonable hourly rate is applied, which recognizes that even for the non-research time allowed for Mr. Dunbar, his work was primarily outside his recognized legal expertise, although his expertise provided benefit in understanding the context in which the issues arose. An hourly rate of $300.00 is reasonable for 37.6 hours of work done by Mr. Dunbar in prosecuting this appeal, equaling a reasonable attorney's fee of $11,280.00. The following summarizes the number of hours, hourly rate, and resulting fee found to be reasonable for each of the four attorneys who aided in prosecuting the appeal: Attorney Hours Hourly Rate Fee Mayer 60.3 $185 $11,155.50 Dunbar 37.6 $300 $11,280.00 Romanik 112.5 $325 $36,562.50 Tunnicliff 24.1 $400 $ 9,640.00 Total hours by all attorneys: 234.50 Total time-based fees: $68,638.00 As previously alluded to, the stakes of this appeal were very high, in that without success in the appeal, Petitioner would have no chance of obtaining the quarter horse racing permit for which it had applied. While success in the appeal would not assure Petitioner that it would ultimately prevail in its effort to secure a permit, winning the appeal was a necessary step to keep the permit application alive and allow Petitioner to take the next step in the process. If, at the end of the long road ahead, Petitioner secures the sought-after permit, the value of that permit could be in the neighborhood of $70 million. Given the stakes, a higher amount of hours and greater degree of duplication were allowed than might normally be considered reasonable. The undersigned finds that there was not a huge risk factor with regard to the outcome of the appeal. While in a general sense and statistically speaking, odds always may be greatly against success in an appeal, those across-the-board statistics are mitigated in this case by such a clear violation of a "basic, settled" and "fundamental" principle of administrative law and due process. The complexity and novelty of the issues on appeal are reflected, as one would expect, in the number of hours found to be reasonable for Petitioner's team of attorneys to have spent in prosecuting this appeal. Even as reduced, the total hours found reasonable for this appeal are nearly three times the amount of time Respondent's expert would expect in the typical appeal. Thus, the hours found to have been reasonably invested were substantially higher than typical for an appeal, when one might have expected less hours than typical since this appeal did not follow a trial or administrative hearing. No evidence was presented to show that any of the four attorneys on Petitioner's appeal team were precluded from taking other work because of their role in the appeal or that there were any time constraints placed on the attorneys, either by the client or the circumstances. The evidence was not entirely clear regarding the nature of the arrangements with Ft. Myers REH for payment of attorneys' fees for the appeal. Two separate contingency fee agreements were admitted in evidence. One agreement, "[a]s of August 15, 2010[,]" was between Ft. Myers REH and Mr. Romanik (and his firm, David S. Romanik, P.A.). The operative term of the agreement provided that "[u]pon and after the execution of this fee agreement, the [Romanik] Firm shall handle this matter and all aspects of it on a contingent fee basis." The "matter" covered by the agreement was broadly described as "the pursuit of the issuance by the Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering of a quarter horse racing and wagering permit . . . ." Therefore, from August 15, 2010, forward, Mr. Romanik and his firm agreed to be compensated on a contingent fee basis for not only the appeal, but also, any subsequent administrative hearings if the appeal was successful and any other administrative or judicial litigation required to secure the permit. Services would be considered successfully completed upon commencement of Ft. Myers REH's gaming operation pursuant to the permit. For such successful services, the Romanik firm would receive $5 million. In addition, the agreement provided that the firm would be entitled to "any and all fees that may be awarded" by any court or administrative tribunal. No evidence was presented regarding the prior fee arrangement that was in place until August 15, 2010, when the contingent fee arrangement took effect. Mr. Romanik and his firm entered into a separate contingency fee agreement with the Pennington firm to secure the Pennington firm's assistance, as a subcontractor, in prosecuting the appeal of the Division's dismissal of Ft. Myers REH's request for an administrative hearing to contest the denial of its quarter horse permit application. The agreement, dated September 1, 2010, was called "a revised representation agreement," which superseded "all prior agreements related to this matter." Payment for services under the agreement was contingent on success in the appeal and was set at "the greater of $100,000 or any fee award from the court, if any." No prior representation agreement for services provided by the Pennington firm in the appeal before September 1, 2010, either with Mr. Romanik and his firm or with Ft. Myers REH, was offered into evidence. However, Mr. Dunbar testified that before the Pennington firm entered into a contingency fee arrangement with Mr. Romanik and his firm, the Pennington firm provided services to Ft. Myers REH under a standard fee agreement by which the Pennington firm attorneys provided legal services for which they billed and were paid at their standard hourly rates. As of August 16, 2010, the standard fee agreement between Ft. Myers REH and the Pennington firm was apparently still in place, because in the motion for section 57.105 sanctions served on Respondent on August 16, 2010, and subsequently filed with the First DCA on September 20, 2010, Mr. Dunbar represented that Ft. Myers REH "had retained the [Pennington law firm] to represent it in this matter and has agreed to pay its attorneys a reasonable fee for their services." This statement was not qualified by any contingency, such as that Ft. Myers REH only agreed to pay a reasonable fee to the Pennington firm if the appeal was successful. Thus, although Mr. Dunbar seemed to indicate in his testimony that the September 1, 2010, contingent fee agreement was intended to apply retroactively, that testimony is inconsistent with the representation in the section 57.105 motion signed by Mr. Dunbar. The evidence establishes that contingency fee agreements were entered into midway through the appeal. The greater weight of the credible evidence was insufficient to prove that before August 15, 2010, the attorneys providing services in the Ft. Myers REH appeal would only be paid if the appeal was successful. Thus, the undersigned finds that the fee arrangements for the appeal were partially contingent. The contingent fee agreements were reached as an accommodation to Ft. Myers REH's desire for such arrangements, rather than as an enticement that had to be offered by Ft. Myers REH in order to secure competent counsel to represent it in the appeal. No evidence was presented detailing the nature and length of Petitioner's relationship with its team of attorneys. As noted, Mr. Romanik has a relationship with Petitioner and its parent that is akin to general counsel over the parent's Florida interests, though it is unknown how long this relationship has existed. The Pennington firm, likewise, has done work for Petitioner and its parent before and has sent invoices for legal services to Mr. Romanik for his review, approval, and transmittal to the parent for payment. It is unknown how extensive or over what period of time this relationship existed. Petitioner established that it incurred an additional $28,087.00 in attorneys' fees charged for litigating the reasonable amount of attorney's fees in this proceeding, plus $44,016.00 in expert witness fees. In addition, Petitioner incurred $1,094.43 for expense items, of which $409.50 represents the cost of the final hearing transcript, and the balance represents costs for copying, courier service, and postage. Respondent did not dispute the reasonableness of those attorneys' fees, expert witness fees, and costs.
