The Issue Whether the Respondents committed the offenses alleged in the administrative complaint and the penalties, if any, that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Adeking, Inc. is a corporation that was incorporated under the laws of the State of Florida on August 8, 1990. Adeking, Inc. was incorporated by Bamidele Adeoba and by Shakirat Adeoba, who became the corporation's initial president and vice-president, respectively. The corporate document number issued by the Department of State, Division of Corporations for this incorporation was L92905. Adeking, Inc. registered the name Adeking Security Services as a fictitious name with the Department of State, Division of Corporations, on November 7, 1994. The number assigned to this fictitious name registration by the Division of Corporations was G94311900006. At the times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent, Adeking Security Services, was the holder of license number B9400128, which is a Class "B" Security Agency License issued by Petitioner. That license reflects that Alice A. Aina is the president of Adeking. 1/ Adeking, Inc. registered the name King's Security Services, Inc. with the Department of State, Division of Corporations, as a fictitious name on September 4, 1991. The number issued for this fictitious name registration was L92905. At a shareholder's meeting of King's Security Services, Inc. on May 14, 1994, Ms. Aina was elected president and Bamidele Adeoba was elected chairman of the board of directors of King's Security Services, Inc. By Final Order entered July 19, 1994, Petitioner revoked the Class "B" Security Agency License of King's Security Services, Inc. and also revoked the Class "D" Security Officer and Class "MB" Security Manager Licenses of Bamidele Adeoba and Shakirat Adeoba. The Final Order provided, in part, that Bamidele Adeoba and Shakirat Adeoba ". . . shall CEASE AND DESIST engaging in activities regulated by Chapter 493, Florida Statutes . . . " Ms. Aina was president of Adeking, Inc. and of King's Security Services, Inc. when the Final Order was entered on July 19, 1994. Ms. Aina knew or should have known of the entry of this Final Order. Ms. Aina allowed Bamidele Adeoba and Shakirat Adeoba to have operational control over Adeking Security Services after the entry of the Final Order on July 19, 1994. The activities of Adeking Security Services over which Mr. and Mrs. Adeoba exercised operational control are regulated by Chapter 493, Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner enter a final order that incorporates the findings of fact and conclusions of law contained herein; revokes the Class "B" Security Agency License B9400128 held by Adeking Security Services; revokes any license held by Alice A. Aina that had been issued to her by Petitioner pursuant to Chapter 493, Florida Statutes; imposes an administrative fine against Adeking Security Services in the amount of $500.00; and imposes an administrative fine against Alice A. Aina in the amount of $500.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of March, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of March 1996.
The Issue Whether on or about November 28, 1993, Petitioner committed an act of violence or used force on another person which was not for the lawful protection of himself or another and was sufficient grounds for denial of Petitioner's application for a Class "D" Security Officer and Class "G" Statewide Firearm Licenses, pursuant to Sections 493.6118(1)(j) and (2), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact By application dated February 10, 1994, Petitioner applied to Respondent for a Class "D" Security Officer license and a Class "G" Statewide Firearm license. The applications prepared by Petitioner were complete, and included the required photos and copy of a certificate evidencing successful completion of security officer training as required by statute. On November 28, 1993, the Petitioner met his estranged spouse in the Lakeland police station lobby to exchange custody of their baby daughter. This transfer of custody was videotaped, allegedly by the Petitioner's mother-in-law. As the transfer was ending, the Petitioner became agitated at the person holding the camera. Petitioner picked up the baby car seat and moved towards the camera. The Petitioner swung the baby car seat, while the baby was in it, in the direction of the camera. No competent evidence was produced which proved that the car seat, while being swung by Petitioner, struck another person or an object held by another person.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered approving Petitioner's application for a Class "D" Security Officers license and a Class "G" Statewide Firearm license as provided for in Section 493.6118, Florida Statutes (1993). DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of January, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of January, 1995. APPENDIX Petitioner is eligible for licensure under either stand Petitioner did not submit proposed findings of fact. Respondent proposed finding of fact: Accepted in substance: paragraph 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 (in part). Rejected as not supported by the greater weight of competent (non-hearsay) evidence: paragraphs 6 (in part), 7. COPIES FURNISHED: Angel E. Figueroa 5331 David Street Lakeland, Florida 33813 Richard R. Whidden, Jr., Esquire Department of State Division of Licensing The Capitol, MS-4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Honorable Jim Smith Secretary of State Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Phyllis Slater, Esquire General Counsel The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250
The Issue Whether Respondent, the holder of a Class "D" Security Officer License, committed the offenses alleged in the Administrative Complaint and the penalties, if any, that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds Class "D" Security Officer License Number D94-17752, which was issued pursuant to Chapter 493, Florida Statutes, effective October 17, 1996, to October 17, 1998. At the times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was employed by Navarro Security. On February 11 and 12, 1997, Respondent was on duty at a security post, during the evening hours, at William Lehman car dealership located in Broward County, Florida.1 That car dealership was a client of Navarro Security. Respondent's duties at this security post included patrolling the premises in a motorized golf cart. Respondent was not permitted to sleep while on duty. On February 11, 1997, Respondent was found by Corey Targia, a supervisor (captain) employed by Navarro Security, to be asleep in his own vehicle at approximately 3:34 a.m. Respondent was supposed to be on duty at that time. Respondent did not wake up until Mr. Targia knocked on the window of the vehicle. On February 12, 1997, Respondent was again found by Mr. Targia to be asleep while he was on duty. On this occasion, Mr. Targia found Respondent at approximately 3:52 a.m. sleeping in a car owned by the dealership. A sign advertising the sale of the car was positioned in a manner to obscure Respondent's presence in the vehicle. Mr. Targia called by radio Mike Crutcher, another supervisor (lieutenant) employed by Navarro Security, and asked Mr. Crutcher come to the site with a camera. Mr. Crutcher arrived at the site and observed Respondent sleeping. Respondent awakened before Mr. Crutcher could photograph him.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent's Class "D" Security Licensed be revoked. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of March, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of March, 1998.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent’s rights and benefits under the City of Tampa General Employees’ Retirement Fund are required to be forfeited pursuant to article II, section 8(a) of the Florida Constitution and the implementing statute.
Findings Of Fact The Fund is a public retirement system as defined by Florida law. The Fund is charged with administering and managing a pension plan for City employees. Respondent was an employee of the Tampa Police Department. She worked there for approximately 31 years until her employment ended on April 9, 2014. By reason of her employment with the City’s police department, Respondent was enrolled in the pension plan administered by the Fund. She was employed long enough to be a vested participant. At the time her employment ended, Respondent was a police community service officer, a position she had held since September 2007. Shortly before her employment ended, Respondent became one of the subjects of a criminal investigation regarding Tampa Police Department employees using their access to restricted computer databases to obtain personally identifiable information of individuals, such as social security numbers and birth dates. The personal information was passed on to a former police informant, Rita Girven, who was using the information to fraudulently obtain federal income tax returns. Respondent, a friend of Ms. Girven’s, was identified in the investigation as one of three employees using their access to restricted databases to obtain personally identifiable information to provide to Ms. Girven. During the course of the investigation, the City suspended Respondent and subsequently gave her the option to resign in lieu of termination, which she accepted. Respondent resigned effective April 9, 2014. The investigation culminated in a federal indictment against Respondent on multiple counts. Respondent was represented by an attorney in the federal criminal proceedings. Respondent ultimately entered into a plea agreement to plead guilty to two counts (counts two and five of the indictment) of obtaining information from a protected computer in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2) and (c)(2)(B)(ii). The crimes to which Respondent pled guilty are felonies. In the plea agreement executed by both Respondent and her attorney, Respondent admitted the following facts: Defendant is pleading guilty because defendant is in fact guilty. The defendant certifies that defendant does hereby admit that the facts set forth below are true, and were this case to go to trial, the United States would be able to prove those specific facts and others beyond a reasonable doubt.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the City of Tampa General Employees’ Retirement Fund enter a final order determining that Respondent, Tonia Bright, has forfeited all of her rights and benefits in the pension plan administered by the Fund, except to the extent of Respondent’s accumulated contributions, if any, as of the date her employment ended. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of September, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELIZABETH W. MCARTHUR Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day September, 2017.
The Issue Whether Respondent, the holder of a Class "D" Security Officer License and a Class "G" Statewide Firearm License, committed the offenses alleged in the Administrative Complaint and the penalties, if any, that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds Class "D" Security Officer License Number D94-10889, which was issued pursuant to Chapter 493, Florida Statutes, effective July 6, 1996, to July 6, 1998. Respondent also holds Class "G" Statewide Firearm License Number G94-02779, effective September 29, 1996, to September 29, 1998. At the times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was employed by Navarro Security. On November 18 and 19, Respondent was on duty at a security post during the evening and early morning hours. The assigned post was Star Motors, a Mercedes-Benz car dealership located on Federal Highway (U.S. 1) in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Respondent had the responsibility of providing security for the vehicles and other property located at the dealership. Respondent had been instructed to park his vehicle at the front part of the dealership property so he could observe at all times the inventory that was parked on an open lot. Respondent was to carry a two-way radio with him while on he was on duty and he was required to respond to hourly radio checks from his supervisors. Respondent was not permitted to sleep while on duty. On November 18, 1996, Randy Robinson, a supervisor (captain) employed by Navarro Security, was dispatched to Star Motors because Respondent had missed a radio check at 11:00 p.m. Mr. Robinson arrived at Star Motors at approximately 11:40 p.m. and observed Respondent to be asleep in his own vehicle at a location adjacent to, but off the premises of, Star Motors. Mr. Robinson photographed Respondent using flash bulbs and shined a flashlight on his face. Respondent did not awaken until Mr. Robinson knocked on the windshield of Respondent's vehicle. On November 19, 1996, shortly before 2:54 a.m., Respondent missed another radio check. Mike Crutcher, a supervisor (lieutenant) employed by Navarro Security was dispatched to Star Motors. Mr. Crutcher arrived at Star Motors at 2:54 a.m. and observed Respondent asleep in his vehicle. The vehicle was parked in the circular drive on the premises of Star Motors. Mr. Crutcher photographed Respondent using a flash bulb. Respondent did not awaken until Mr. Crutcher knocked on the vehicle.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent's Class "D" Security Licensed be revoked. It is further RECOMMENDED that no action be taken against Respondent's Class "G" Statewide Firearms License. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of March, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of March, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Michele Guy, Esquire Department of State Division of Licensing The Capitol, Mail Station No. 4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Arthur W. Francis, pro se 506 Northwest 3rd Street Apartment 2 Dania, Florida 33004 Honorable Sandra B. Mortham Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Don Bell, General Counsel Department of State The Capitol, Plaza Level 02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450
The Issue Whether Petitioner proved that Respondent failed to obtain workers' compensation insurance that met the requirements of chapter 440, Florida Statutes, thus warranting issuance of a Stop-Work Order and Penalty Assessment against Respondent.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for enforcing the Florida Workers' Compensation Law, chapter 440, Florida Statutes, including those provisions that employers shall be liable for, and shall secure and maintain payment of compensation for their employees who suffer work-related injuries. Respondent was, on September 12, 2011, an active Florida for-profit corporation. On September 12, 2011, Petitioner's investigator, Daniel G. Pfaff, conducted an inspection of a worksite at 333 Pablo Road, Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida. Mr. Pfaff did not testify at the hearing, and neither the Order nor the Request for Production provide a description of who Mr. Pfaff observed at the site or what they were doing, if anything. The record is silent as to the process by which Mr. Pfaff performed his investigation to determine Respondent’s status in the workers’ compensation system, or by which he received authorization to issue the Order and Request for Production. The Order required Respondent to cease all business operations statewide, and assessed a penalty equal to 1.5 times the amount the employer would have paid in premiums when applying the approved manual rates to the employer's payroll for the preceding three-year period, pursuant to section 440.107(7)(d). The Request for Production required Respondent to produce business records for the period from September 13, 2008, through September 12, 2011. At the hearing, Petitioner offered into evidence more than 1,200 pages of documents that were alleged to have been produced by Respondent in response to the Request for Production, consisting of, among other things, information provided by subcontractors and vendors, insurance certificates, tax forms, and bank records. The record contains no information regarding the date on which the documents were produced, the identity of the recipient of the documents, or the path the documents traveled before coming to rest on the desk of Mr. Mason two weeks prior to the final hearing. Although the pages are consecutively numbered, from page 0091 through page 1307, there was no indication of who numbered the pages, or when they were numbered.1/ The documents were used by Petitioner to prove the truth of the matters asserted therein, e.g., identity of employees, dates of employment, salaries, and workers’ compensation coverage. As will be discussed in the Conclusions of Law to follow, the documents are hearsay. The documents were received in evidence because they were reviewed by Mr. Mason in the performance of his duty as a penalty calculator. Mr. Mason, the only witness testifying, was not identified as Petitioner’s records custodian, and offered no testimony to suggest that he served in that capacity. The 1,200+ pages of documents were unaccompanied by any form of certification or declaration that might have substantiated their authenticity. Since Respondent did not appear at the final hearing, the documents were not authenticated, nor is there a foundation for determining that the records meet any exception to the hearsay rule. The undersigned has no doubt that Mr. Mason diligently performed his duty in reviewing the records that were provided to him and applying the various manuals and class codes that are routinely used by the Division in imputing income and calculating penalties for an employer’s failure to secure the payment of workers' compensation. However, given the lack of any contemporaneous or documented evidence as to the manner in which those documents were produced, or how they were stored, kept, and maintained by Petitioner, it is found that the documents introduced in evidence, without more, do not provide clear and convincing evidence that Respondent violated the Workers' Compensation Law during the period of September 13, 2008, through September 12, 2011, as alleged in the 3rd Amended Order. See Hunter v. Aurora Loan Servs., LLC, 137 So. 3d 570 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014); Mazine v. M&I Bank, 67 So. 3d 1129 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011); Scott v. Dep’t of Prof’l Reg., 603 So. 2d 519 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Doran v. Dep’t of HRS, 558 So. 2d 87 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Juste v. Dep’t HRS, 520 So. 2d 69 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). Finally, the records introduced by Petitioner include a document entitled “Answer,” which contains a number of hearsay statements that, if proven to be from Respondent, could be construed as an admission of liability for penalties in the amount of $7,324.98. However, the document does not bear a signature and, as with the other records described herein, has an insufficient evidentiary foundation upon which to base a finding that the document is authentic.
Recommendation Based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order dismissing the Stop-Work Order and 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment against Respondent, The Ford Company Construction, Inc., for its failure to secure and maintain required workers’ compensation insurance for its employees. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of September, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S E. GARY EARLY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of September, 2015.
The Issue At issue is whether the respondent violated section 493.6118(1)(n), Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and, if so, the penalty which should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: During the period of time specified in the Administrative Complaint, May 19, 1994, through October 10, 1994, 24-Hour Security held a Class "B" Security Agency License, number B91-00117. From May 19, 1994, through October 10, 1994, Richard R. Cullen was president of 24-Hour Security and held, among other licenses, a Class "M" Manager License, number M86-00152. 24-Hour Security, whose only office is located at 1515 South Federal Highway, Boca Raton, Florida, is in the business of providing security guards to businesses and condominiums. It employs licensed security guards and trains and supervises them to ensure that they adequately perform their duties and carry out the instructions of 24-Hour Security's clients. From May 19, 1994, through October 10, 1994, Michelle T. Reilly was employed by 24-Hour Security and worked as assistant to Mr. Cullen. She began working for 24-Hour Security in September 1992 and has always been highly regarded as an employee by Mr. Cullen. He has trained her in all aspects of the private security service business in order for her to get the experience necessary to qualify for a chapter 493 manager's license. Prior to February 16, 1995, she had never held any type of license authorized by chapter 493 of the Florida Statutes. Mr. Cullen was aware that she was not licensed. Since the agency's inception, Mr. Cullen has designated himself manager of 24-Hour Security and has considered himself ultimately responsible for the operation of the agency. During the period of time at issue in this proceeding, Ms. Reilly's business cards identified her as "Branch Manager," and she was identified as such by licensed employees of 24-Hour Security. On one occasion during the Department's investigation, Ms. Reilly expressly identified herself to an investigator of the Department as manager of 24-Hour Security. During the period of time at issue in this proceeding, in addition to performing secretarial and bookkeeping duties, Ms. Reilly assisted Mr. Cullen in (1) hiring and training licensed security guards; (2) preparing daily work schedules for the guards; (3) preparing post orders outlining the duties a guard is to carry out at a particular post, including the client's special instructions or requirements; (4) supervising the operation of the agency's dispatch center; (5) addressing clients' problems; (6) consulting with clients regarding proper security precautions; (7) conducting post inspections to ensure that the guards are at their posts, properly uniformed and carrying out their responsibilities; and (8) writing security proposals for clients and in developing new accounts. In assisting Mr. Cullen with these duties, Ms. Reilly at times was allowed by Mr. Cullen to direct and control the activities of licensed security officers and to operate the agency. When Mr. Cullen was advised by the Department that Ms. Reilly could not function as or be designated as "manager" of 24-Hour Security, he immediately removed her business cards from the office. Ms. Reilly applied for a Class "MB" manager's license on November 9, 1994. Her application was denied by the Department by letter dated January 17, 1995, because she had "not demonstrated the lawfully gained experience or appropriate training" required for licensure. Ms. Reilly was issued a Class "D" Security Officer license on February 16, 1995.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of State, Division of Licensing, enter a Final Order finding 24-Hour Security, Incorporated, and Richard R. Cullen guilty of the violation alleged in the Administrative Complaint and imposing a fine of $500 for this violation. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of April 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA HART MALONO Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of April 1995. APPENDIX The following are my specific rulings on petitioner_s Proposed Findings of Fact. Paragraphs 1 through 9: Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact numbered 1 through 8. The following are my specific rulings on respondent_s Proposed Findings of Fact. Paragraph 1: Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact numbered 2 and 5. Paragraph 2: The proposed finding of fact in the first portion of the first sentence is rejected as not supported by the evidence. The proposed findings of fact set out in the second portion of the first sentence and in the second, third, fourth, and fifth sentences are rejected as merely summaries of testimony. The proposed finding of fact in the final sentence is rejected as not supported by the evidence. Paragraph 3: The proposed finding of fact in the first sentence was adopted in substance in Finding of Fact numbered 6. The remaining proposed findings of fact are rejected as argument. Paragraph 4: The proposed finding of fact in the first portion of the sentence is rejected as merely a summary of testimony; the proposed finding of fact in the second portion of the sentence is rejected as argument. Paragraph 5: Rejected as unnecessary. Paragraph 6: Rejected as unnecessary. Paragraph 7: The proposed finding of fact in the first portion of the sentence is rejected as unnecessary; the proposed finding of fact in the second portion of the sentence is rejected as not supported by the evidence. Paragraph 8: The proposed findings of fact in the first two sentences are rejected as legal argument. The proposed finding of fact in the last sentence is adopted in substance in Finding of Fact numbered 5. Paragraph 9: The proposed finding of fact in the first two sentences are rejected as unnecessary. The proposed findings of fact in the last two sentences are rejected as argument. Paragraph 10: Rejected as argument. Paragraph 11: Rejected as argument. Paragraph 12: Rejected as argument. COPIES FURNISHED: Kristi Reid Bronson Assistant General Counsel Department of State Division of Licensing The Capitol, M.S. #4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Richard R. Cullen, President 24-Hour Security, Incorporated 1515 South Federal Highway Suite 109 Boca Raton, Florida 33432 Don Bell General Counsel Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32300-0250 The Honorable Sandra B. Mortham Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250
Findings Of Fact In June, 1976, Dorothy Deedrick obtained a Certificate of Registration from the Florida State Board of Cosmetology to operate a cosmetology salon under the name "Hair Contempo" at 2926 North State Road 7, Margate, Florida (Exhibit 5). She also obtained an occupational license from Broward County to operate this salon (Exhibit 4). She has continuously operated a salon under the name "Hair Contempo" in Margate for the past five years. For the past two years this salon has been located at 2722 North State Road 7, Margate, Florida. In June and July, 1976, Ms. Deedrick complied with the "fictitious name" statute and published for four successive weeks in the Fort Lauderdale News a notice that she was operating under the fictitious name of "Hair Contempo." In January, 1981, David Aaronson and Luba Aaronson purchased a beauty salon in Margate doing business under the name "Ultissima." After learning that Ms. Deedrick's "Hair Contempo" was not incorporated, they formed a corporation called "Hair Contempo, Inc.," and in March, 1981, applied for a corporate charter. Since there was no corporation registered with the Secretary of State under that name, Charter No. F22428 was issued, effective 6 March 1981, to the Aaronsons for the name, "Hair Contempo, Inc." In the meantime, Ms. Deedrick learned Aaronson was attempting to take the corporate name "Hair Contempo, Inc.," and she called the Secretary of State, Division of Corporations, to reserve the name. When told that "Hair Contempo, Inc." was still available but she could reserve the name, Ms. Deedrick had Articles of Incorporation prepared for a corporation to be called "Hair Contempo, Inc." She then flew to Tallahassee to file the Articles of Incorporation and obtain a charter. On 15 March 1981, she was issued Charter No. F22352 for the corporation, Hair Contempo, Inc. The beauty salon which has operated under the name "Hair Contempo" since 1976 has approximately one thousand regular customers. During this period numerous advertisements have been placed in the local newspaper by Hair Contempo, thereby giving it recognition in the area. The beauty salon, "Ultissima," is located in Margate, some ten miles from the location of Ms. Deedrick's salon. The main sign on the salon reads "Ultissima" but, shortly after obtaining his corporation charter, Aaronson placed a sign in the window of the salon reading "Hair Contempo, Inc."
Recommendation From the evidence presented, it is clear that by filing for the corporate name of "Hair Contempo, Inc.," Respondent intended to defraud Petitioner of the good will and public awareness that had been acquired during the past five years of operations. Accordingly, the application of Aaronson for a corporate charter to be issued to "Hair Contempo, Inc." was not made in good faith and should be revoked. It is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that the charter of "Hair Contempo, Inc.," Charter No. 22428, be revoked. Entered this 21st day of July, 1981. K. N. Ayers Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of July, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven Squire, Esquire 500 Northeast Third Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33065 Mayer Gattegno, Esquire Post Office Drawer 8310 Coral Springs, Florida 33065 William J. Gladwin, Jr., Esquire Assistant General Counsel Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
