The Issue The issue is whether Respondent discriminated against Petitioner on the basis of national origin or race in violation of Section 760.08, Florida Statutes (2005),1 during Petitioner’s visit to a Burger King Restaurant on June 3, 2006.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is in a protected class within the meaning of Subsection 760.02(6). Petitioner’s national origin is Haitian, and his race is Black. Respondent operates a Burger King restaurant located at 1260 North Fifteenth Street, Immokalee, Florida 34142 (the Restaurant). The Restaurant is a place of public accommodation, defined in Subsection 760.02(11)(b). Petitioner and two friends visited the Restaurant on June 3, 2006, for the purpose of purchasing and consuming food served by the Restaurant. Petitioner waited in line to order food for himself and his two friends. Petitioner placed his order and paid for the food he ordered. The cashier and food service employee on duty at the Restaurant was Ms. Jessica Lopez. Ms. Lopez is a Hispanic woman who is married to a Haitian man. At the time the food was ready, Ms. Lopez called the order number. Petitioner attempted to retrieve the food and Ms. Lopez asked him for his receipt with the order number on it. Petitioner indicated that he did not have the receipt. Ms. Lopez directed Petitioner’s attention to a sign stating that customers must have a receipt in order to be served. After a short conversation about the store’s policy and requirement to have a receipt, Ms. Lopez served Petitioner his food. The food order was correct, but Petitioner objected to the manner in which Ms. Lopez placed his food service tray on the counter. Petitioner claims that Ms. Lopez threw the tray on the counter. None of the food spilled out of containers or off the tray. Petitioner demanded that she serve him correctly or refund his money. Ms. Lopez refunded Petitioner’s money. It is undisputed that Petitioner had concluded his business transaction with the Restaurant after requesting the refund. Petitioner intended to leave the Restaurant. Petitioner claims that before he left the Restaurant, Ms. Lopez cursed at him and referred to his national origin by saying, “Get the fuck out, fucking Haitians.” Ms. Lopez testified that she may have cursed at him at the time she refunded the money. However, Ms. Lopez denied making any comments related to national origin. The fact-finder finds the testimony of Ms. Lopez to be credible and persuasive. During the incident at the Restaurant, Petitioner’s two friends and another gentleman joined Petitioner at the counter as he argued with Ms. Lopez. None of the men testified at the hearing. It is undisputed that the alleged comments by Ms. Lopez are the only alleged references to the national origin or race of Petitioner by any employee or manager at the Restaurant. Respondent’s store manager, Mr. Lewis Sowers, a Caucasian male, heard the disturbance at the counter of the Restaurant. Mr. Sowers asked Petitioner and the other gentlemen to leave the Restaurant. Mr. Sowers contacted the police department regarding the disturbance, and the officer on the scene completed a police report. A copy of the police report was admitted into evidence as Respondent’s Exhibit 2 without objection. The alleged discrimination by Ms. Lopez did not impede Petitioner’s ability to contract for goods or services at the Restaurant. The absence of a receipt did not prevent Respondent’s employee from serving Petitioner his food order, and the order appeared to be correct. Once Petitioner received his refund, Petitioner had no intention of staying in the Restaurant and does not have a practice of visiting Burger King restaurants unless he is eating there. Thus, any attempt to contract for goods and services with Respondent had terminated before the alleged discrimination. Petitioner did not see any other customers who lost or did not produce their receipts. Petitioner did not recall the race or national origin of any other customers who may have had their food order served in a different manner. Petitioner presented no evidence of any damages sustained as a result of the alleged discrimination. Petitioner failed to answer Respondent’s Request for Documents evidencing mental anguish, suffering or punitive damage awards he believed to be appropriate.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order finding Respondent not guilty of the alleged discrimination and dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of October, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of October, 2008.
The Issue Petitioner claims that Respondent owes approximately $6,000.00 for the purchase of grass sod. Respondent argues that the funds claimed by Petitioner are for repairs on equipment, not sod, and that its only indebtedness to Petitioner is $6.00, mistakenly omitted from a payment. The issue is whether Petitioner's claim is proper and cognizable under section 604.31, F.S., related to complaints of breach of agreement by a licensed dealer in agricultural products.
Findings Of Fact Hillside Sod Farms, Inc. (Hillside) produces grass sod for sale to landscaping firms and similar customers. Its business address is 1620 East State Road 46, Geneva, Florida. Bill Hatfield Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a Bill's Landscaping (Hatfield) is a licensed dealer in agricultural products, bonded by Ohio Casualty Insurance Company, as surety. Hatfield's business address is 1116 State Road 434, Winter Springs, Florida. Sometime around April 1989, Hatfield began purchasing sod from Hillside. Hatfield uses a lot of sod in his landscaping business. The arrangement between the parties was that Hillside would charge an extra 1/2 cent a square foot on his price for the sod for the use of heavy equipment (forklifts). Hillside owns twenty-seven such machines and loaned three out to Hatfield. The equipment stayed at Hatfield's job sites and was operated by Hatfield's crew. When the equipment broke down, Hatfield notified Hillside, who had it repaired. At least some of the repair bills were sent to Hatfield, who paid them. Sometime around the end of September 1989, Avery Wisdom complained to Bill Hatfield about what he thought was an excessive amount of repairs on his equipment. He felt Hatfield's workers were rough on the machines. He suggested several alternatives, including pulling the machines off the jobs and letting Hatfield provide his own machines. He also suggested that he could purchase new equipment and let Hatfield pay all its expenses over a period of time, ultimately buying the equipment, in a lease-purchase type of arrangement. Another suggestion was that he would get the equipment overhauled and let Hatfield pay all the repair bills. Suggestions one and two were apparently rejected, and it is not clear that suggestion three was formally accepted. Nothing was put in writing. Hatfield claims now that he offered to pay an additional 1/2 cent per square foot of sod for the use of the equipment. Avery Wisdom claims that he did raise the price of his sod, but that it was an across-the-board price increase for all of his customers due to increased costs of production, and not related to rental. The October 9, 1989 invoice #13290 from Hillside to Bill's Nursery reflects an increase of $2.00 per pallet of Bahia sod and $2.50 per pallet of Floratam sod, or 1/2 cent per square foot increase. Debra Ludewig, the bookkeeper and general office manager for Hatfield, asked Hatfield why the price" went up, and he told her it was for the equipment. Hillside continued to bill Hatfield for repairs on the equipment after October 1989. These repair costs are reflected on invoices to Bill's Landscaping and are backed up by separate special "repair order" forms itemizing each repair bill. The "special repair order" forms were also furnished to Bill's Landscaping. The repairs are listed on the invoices with a date, reference to the "special repair order" (SRO number), and a total cost which is calculated into the purchaser's running total at the bottom of the invoice. Payments were made on a continuing basis by Hatfield in varying amounts, and rarely in an exact amount to correspond to the total on an invoice. That is, Bill's Nursery maintained a running balance of its account with Hillside, sometimes totalling as much as $20,000.00. Each time she made a payment to Hillside, Debra Ludewig wrote the invoice number on the check. Sometimes more than one check would reflect a single invoice number. After October 1989, Debra Ludewig started deducting the repair bill portion of the invoices when she computed her payments to Hillside. She did this on her own initiative, without direction from Hatfield, because she understood that the 1/2 cent price increase was to cover the repairs. She did not question why the repair bills were being sent and were still being included on the invoices; she just deducted them without any notice to Hillside. In the meantime, the invoices kept coming from Hillside, showing the running balance on Hatfield's account. The top of the invoices reflected the prior outstanding balance, then payments since the last invoice, then additional charges for sod, then repair orders (if any), and then the total amount outstanding. It is clear from the invoices maintained by Hillside and provided to Hatfield, that Hillside was applying Hatfield's checks to the total outstanding balance, which balance included any repair bills, as well as sod delivered. On the other hand, the invoice numbers referenced on Hatfield's checks to Hillside substantiate that Ms. Ludewig was unilaterally deducting sums from certain invoices, which sums corresponded to the amounts being charged for repairs. It is not clear that Hillside was aware of the bookkeeping discrepancy, as nothing was said about deducting the repair bills until the parties' relationship came to an end in June 1990. Hatfield found a new sod producer, claiming that a customer complained about the quality of Hillside's sod. The total amount of repairs charged by Hillside to Hatfield between October 1, 1989, and June 1990, was $7150.25, compared to approximately $300,000.00 for sod,. The final invoice from Hillside to Bill's Landscaping reflected a total balance due of $13,872.59. This invoice #14070 is dated June 18, 1990. On June 21, 1990 and June 29, 1990, payments were made by Hatfield in the amounts of $3,000.70 and $4,641.00 respectively. This left a balance due of $6,230.89. Avery Wisdom concedes that this total should be adjusted: an invoice #13256 (9/22/89) charged $4.50 sales tax in error, and invoice #13406 (11/13/89) included a math error in the amount of $206.70. The proper adjusted total is $6,019.69. The last invoice to include repairs to equipment is dated April 16, 1990. After that date, according to invoices dated from April 23, 1990 to June 18, 1990, Hatfield purchased $39,943.98 in sod from Hillside. The most recent $6,019.69, therefore, is not attributable to repairs.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That the Department enter its final order finding Respondent indebted to Petitioner in the amount of $6,019.69 and requiring payment within fifteen (15) days after the order becomes final as provided in Section 604.21(7), F.S. DONE and ORDERED this 9th day of April, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARY CLARK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of April, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: Avery P. Wisdom, President Hillside Sod Farms, Inc. 1620 E. State Road 46 Geneva, FL 32732 Bill Hatfield, President Bill Hatfield Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a Bills Landscaping 1116 State Road 434 Winter Springs, FL 32708 Ohio Casualty Insurance Company 136 North Third Street Hamilton, OH 45025 Clinton H. Coulter, Jr., Senior Counsel Dept. of Agriculture & Consumer Services 515 Mayo Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0800 The Honorable Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture Dept. of Agriculture & Consumer Services The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0810 Richard Tritschler, General Counsel Dept. of Agriculture & Consumer Services 515 Mayo Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0800
The Issue Whether the Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Notice to Show Cause dated October 2, 1997, and, if so, the penalty which should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants, is the state agency responsible for regulating public food service establishments in Florida and is authorized to impose penalties for violations of Chapter 509, Florida Statutes. Sections 509.032 and .261, Florida Statutes. Pizza Hut #710602 is a public food service establishment located at 10394 West Sample Road, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. The establishment operates under the Division's license control number 16-0869-R. Pizza Hut #710602 is a delivery and carry-out facility with no customer seating. There is, however, a small counter where patrons may eat their pizzas on the premises, if they wish. The store is located at the end of a strip mall, and it opens for business at 11:00 a.m. On October 2, 1997, the manager of Pizza Hut #710602 arrived shortly before 10:00 a.m. and began carrying out the administrative tasks necessary to prepare to open the premises for business. Pursuant to the established routine for Pizza Hut delivery and carryout facilities, the manager turned off the alarm and set the time-release safe, which opens fifteen minutes after it is set. When the safe opened, the manager began counting the previous night's cash receipts so he could prepare the deposit and take the cash to the bank. The manager was the only employee on the premises. Shortly after 10:00 a.m., while the manager was counting the money from the safe, a woman knocked on the front door of the restaurant and requested that she be allowed into the restaurant to conduct a routine health and safety inspection. She showed the manager her clipboard, which contained a schedule showing that Pizza Hut #710602 was scheduled for inspection on October 2. Although she had identification showing that she was Lisa Bosworth, an inspector employed by the Division, the manager did not request to see her identification, and she did not show it to him. Ms. Bosworth did not see anyone in the facility except the manager. The manager refused to unlock the door for Ms. Bosworth, telling her through the door that he could not unlock the door because it was Pizza Hut's policy not to allow anyone but scheduled employees access to the premises before the facility was open for business. The manager told Ms. Bosworth to return at 11:00 a.m. Ms. Bosworth went directly to a pay telephone in the adjacent parking lot, a short distance from the Pizza Hut, and called her supervisor to report the manager's refusal to allow her into the facility. She also spoke by telephone with the Division's regional supervisor. Meanwhile, the manager finished preparing the deposit, which totaled approximately $2,000, and left the facility to go to the bank. As he was going to his car, he noticed Ms. Bosworth at the pay telephone in the parking lot. He approached her and again invited her to return at 11:00 a.m. to conduct her inspection. After the manager left, Ms. Bosworth completed her Food Service Inspection Report while sitting in her car in the parking lot, and then she returned to her office, where she completed more paperwork and spoke with Division personnel. She returned to Pizza Hut #710602 at around 2:30 p.m. on October 2 and obtained the manager's signature on her report, which detailed the events of the morning. Ms. Bosworth usually performs five or six inspections each day and plans her daily inspections according to the location of the facilities on her list for the day. Pizza Hut #710602 appeared on the list of facilities she was to inspect on October 2, 1997, but she had no set schedule or specific order in which she was required to perform her assigned inspections. She stopped at Pizza Hut #710602 shortly after 10:00 a.m. simply because she had been working in the vicinity of the Pizza Hut that morning. It is the Division's policy to inspect food service establishments during operating hours. The Division's Sanitation and Safety Supervisor testified that, in the Division's view, operating hours includes anytime anyone is working on the premises of a public food service establishment. The supervisor also testified that the reason for inspecting establishments before and after the hours they are open for business is to observe activities involving food preparation, to take the temperature of refrigerators and freezers to ensure that they are adequate for food storage, to observe the practices used in cleaning the facilities and in receiving goods, and to observe general business practices involving food safety issues. The Division does relatively few before- and after-hours inspections, although such inspections are part of the Division's normal routine. As a result of a growing number of robberies of fast- food restaurants, Pizza Hut instituted a policy approximately four years ago limiting access to its establishments at times when they are not open for business. The policy is contained in section 2.1 of Pizza Hut's January 1996 Administrative Guide, which provides that, with respect to premises security: "Do not open front door(s) during non-business hours to anyone, except known scheduled employees or known vendors. Establish and verify picture ID of the person PRIOR to opening doors or allowing that person to enter the premises." The manager of Pizza Hut #710602 was relying on this policy when he refused to allow Ms. Bosworth to enter the premises before 11:00 a.m. When the Division inspector requested access to Pizza Hut #710602 shortly after 10:00 a.m. on October 2, 1997, the only employee on the premises was the manager, who was performing administrative duties having no relationship to the public health, safety, and welfare. Nonetheless, access for the purpose of inspection was requested at a reasonable time and during what could reasonably be considered the establishment's operating hours.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants, enter a final order finding that Pizza Hut of Titusville, Inc., d/b/a Pizza Hut #710602, violated Section 509.281(2)(b), Florida Statutes, and imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $250.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of August, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA HART MALONO Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of August, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Daniel R. Biggins, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Charles Caulkins, Esquire Law Office of Fisher & Phillips 2300 Nationsbank Tower One Financial Plaza Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33394-0005 Dorothy W. Joyce, Director Division of Hotels and Restaurants Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1011 Lynda L. Goodgame General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether Respondent operated a public food-service establishment without a valid license and, if so, the appropriate sanctions.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent operated a mobile food-dispensing vehicle in Jacksonville, Florida. Respondent held License No. 2651331. A mobile food-dispensing vehicle is a “public food service establishment” as that term is defined in section 509.013, Florida Statutes. On January 9, 2012, Michael Byrd conducted an inspection of Respondent?s mobile food-dispensing vehicle at its commissary location at 2356 West Beaver Street, Jacksonville, Florida. During the inspection, Mr. Byrd noted that Respondent?s license, which was displayed as required, had expired on June 1, 2011. Mr. Byrd entered the violation of the Petitioner?s licensing requirement on an Inspection Report, which report was thereupon signed by Oswald Higgs on behalf of Respondent. The report established March 10, 2012, as the date for a callback inspection, by which time the violation was to be corrected. On April 20, 2012, Mr. Byrd performed the call back inspection. Respondent failed to produce a current license for the mobile food-dispensing vehicle. Petitioner proved, by clear and convincing evidence, that Respondent was operating a public food-service establishment on an expired license as alleged in the Administrative Complaint.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants, enter a final order: Finding that Respondent, Ozamori Mobile Kitchen, violated section 509.241(1), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 61C-1.002(6); and Imposing an administrative penalty against Respondent, Ozamori Mobile Kitchen, in the amount of $500, payable to Petitioner within 30 calendar days of the effective date of the final order entered in this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of January, 2013, 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 3rd day of January, 2013. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Suite 42 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Oswald Higgs Ozamori Mobile Kitchen 2560 Automobile Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32209 Amy Toman, Hearing Officer Office of the General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 J. Layne Smith, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399
The Issue Whether Respondents Veg Service, Inc., and Western Surety Company are justly indebted to Dixie Growers, Inc., for Florida- grown agricultural products which Dixie Growers, as the agent for the producers of the products; sold to Veg Service?
Findings Of Fact The Parties Dixie Growers, located in Plant City, Florida, is a producer, packer, and seller of Florida-grown agricultural products. It also acts as a sales agent for growers of Florida agricultural products, and in that capacity is a producer of agricultural products. Ms. Linda T. Lawton is the Vice President/Secretary for Dixie Growers, Inc. Mr. George Locklear is a salesman for the company. It is the practice of Dixie Growers, Inc., to pay the growers who provide it with agricultural products to be sold on the open market within 10 to 14 days of shipment unless the broker or purchaser to whom the products are sold notifies Dixie of a problem. This practice was made known to Veg Service before the incidents which led to these proceedings. Whenever Dixie receives notice of a problem with the shipment prior to payment of the grower, Dixie places a "trouble" memorandum on the top of the file. In such a case, Dixie does not usually pay the grower until the problem has been resolved with the broker and then only in an amount that does not exceed what Dixie receives from the broker or purchaser. Veg Services, Inc., is a negotiating broker of Florida agricultural products, some of which it has purchased from Dixie Growers. In this capacity Veg Services is a dealer in agricultural products. The company is located in Pompano Beach, Florida. Western Surety Company is the issuer of bonds to Veg Services, Inc., in amounts sufficient to cover the disputes involved in this proceeding. Case No. 96-3995A On June 1, 1996, Dixie Growers sold 260 boxes, (1 and 1/9th bushels each), of fancy eggplant to Veg Services. The price was $8.00 per box for a price of $2,080 for the entire shipment. On June 5, 1996, the U. S. Department of Agriculture, at a cost of $278, conducted an inspection of the 260 boxes of eggplant in Providence, Rhode Island at the premises of Tourtellot and Company, Inc. Under the section marked "Grade" in the inspection certificate, the eggplant was found to fail "to grade U.S. No. 1." On the same day as the inspection, Dixie Growers received by fax a copy of the inspection, Inspection Certificate K-195345-4. In accord with its customary practice, Dixie Growers placed a "trouble" memorandum in its file so that it would not pay the grower of the eggplant until the trouble was resolved. On June 17, 1996, Dixie Growers received a fax of the invoice from Veg Services marked, "OK." Interpreting the "OK," to mean that payment would be in full, George Locklear called Veg Service to double-check. He talked with Martin Shield and Marcie, a member of the office staff. First Marcie and then Mr. Shield stated that the invoice would be paid in full. Before the growers were paid on the strength of the representations of the two Veg Service employees made June 17, however, Deborah Lawton, Dixie's bookkeeper asked Mr. Locklear to inquire as to whether the cost of the inspection ($278,) would be deducted from the payment. Marcie told Mr. Locklear that payment would be in full with nothing deducted for the inspection. With the understanding that payment would be made in full with nothing deducted for the cost of the inspection, Dixie Growers paid the growers of the eggplant in full. On July 1, 1996, after payment had been made by Dixie Growers to the growers of the eggplant, it received a fax from Veg Services that it would be paid only $1.60 per box instead of the full $8.00 per box. When Mr. Locklear called to inquire about the fax, Marcie told him that Veg Services had made a mistake when it said that payment would be in full. Dixie Growers received payment in the amount of $416.00 leaving $1,664.00 still due. Case No. 96-3996A On April 27, 1996, Dixie Growers sold 65 boxes of medium squash, 200 boxes of select cucumber and 60 boxes of cabbages to Veg Service. No trouble with the produce was ever reported by Veg Service to Dixie Growers. Nor was there ever made a federal inspection of the produce. The total bill for the sale was $2610.00. On May 9, 1996, another sale was made by Dixie Growers to Veg Service: 154 boxes of medium zucchini, 72 boxes of small squash, 72 boxes of medium squash, 50 boxes of choice cucanelle and 120 boxes of large cucumbers. No trouble with any of the produce was ever reported by Veg Service to Dixie Growers. Nor was there a federal inspection conducted. The bill for the sale was $4,360.00. On June 12, 1996, payment was received for the April 27 sale in the amount of $1,280 leaving a balance of $1,330. The same day payment was received for the May 9 sale in the amount of $2,259.50 leaving a balance due of $2,100.50. Invoices showing the balances due for the two sales were mailed by certified mail to Veg Service. Following phone calls by Dixie Growers, at the request of Veg Service staff, the invoices were later faxed twice to Veg Service. The two balances, totalling $3,430.50, had not been paid as of final hearing. Had any trouble with either sale been communicated to Dixie Growers prior to the payment it made to the growers of the produce, then Dixie Growers would not have paid the growers until the problem was resolved. Since Veg Service did not communicate any problem with either sale in any way, Dixie Growers paid the growers. Case No. 4727A On June 6, 1996, Dixie Growers sold Veg Service 500 boxes of fancy eggplant, 200 boxes of choice eggplant, 600 boxes of large bell peppers, 200 boxes of extra large bell peppers and 50 boxes of long hot peppers. The invoice for the sale shows $14,200 due for the produce and a charge of $23.50 listed for "Temp.Recrd," for a total invoiced amount of $14,223.50. On July 17, 1996, Dixie Growers received a check from Veg Services for $10,262.50 for the June 6 sale leaving a balance of $3,961.00. When George Locklear of Dixie Growers inquired of Veg Service as to why the invoiced amount had not been fully paid, he was told that a federal inspection had shown that the peppers were smaller than as represented by Dixie Growers. This was the first time that Dixie Growers had received any notice from Veg Service that there was any trouble with the June 6 sale. The inspection was faxed to Dixie Growers on July 31, 1996, long after Dixie Growers had paid the growers of the produce. The fee for the inspection by the U.S. Department of Agriculture was $111.00. That fee had been deducted by Veg Service when it paid the invoice amount so that the amount claimed due by Dixie Growers in this case ($3,961) is the sum of the inspection fee ($111) and a balance not paid on the produce sold, ($3,850).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services enter a final order adjudicating Veg Service, Inc., to be indebted to Dixie Growers, Inc., in the amount of $9,055.50. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of December, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DAVID M. MALONEY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of December, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture Department of Agriculture The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 Richard Tritschler General Counsel Department of Agriculture The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Brenda Hyatt, Chief Bureau of Licensing & Bond Department of Agriculture 508 Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Charles E. Lawton, President Dixie Growers, Inc. Post Office Box 1686 Plant City, Florida 33564-1686 Herbert Shield, President Veg Service, Inc. 150 SW 12th Avenue, Suite 370 Pompano Beach, Florida 33069 Western Surety Company Legal Department 101 South Phillips Avenue Sioux Falls, South Dakota 57102
The Issue Whether the corporate names Six-Bits Food Stores, Inc., Six Bits Food Service, Inc., and Six Bits Deli International, Inc., are deceptively similar. Whether the Department of State may withdraw approval for the use of names found deceptively similar to a name previously approved.
Findings Of Fact On February 3, 1977, Six-Bits Food Stores, Inc., was incorporated. On November 25, 1980, Six Bits Food Service, Inc., was incorporated. On December 2, 1980, Six Bits Deli International, Inc., was incorporated. Joseph Sugarman was the primary incorporator of each corporation. On or about October 16, 1980, Six-Bits Food Stores, Inc., was sold to Christopher S. Wyatt and Cheryl Ann Wyatt pursuant to a written agreement (Petitioner's Exhibit 1). It was a stock purchase sale, and there was no reference in the agreement to good will or future competition by Sugarman. Sugarman stated at the hearing that at the time of the sale to the Wyatts his attorney, noting that the Wyatts were representing themselves, suggested that the Wyatts should be represented by counsel. Subsequent to the sale the seller, Joseph Sugarman, established a sandwich shop under the corporate name Six Bits Food Service, Inc., approximately one and a half miles from the Petitioner sandwich shop. He then opened a second sandwich shop under the corporate name Six Bits Deli International, Inc., 7 to 10 miles from the Petitioner sandwich shop. An examination of Petitioner's Exhibits 2, 3, and 4 shows that with little variation the three sandwich shops have the same type of fast food service. There was no dispute at the hearing that each shop catered to the same type of customer. A sign was located at Respondent's sandwich shop, Six Bits Food Service, Inc., with the wording, "Now selling our famous Six Bits cold cut hoagies." Customers at Petitioner Six-Bits Food Stores, Inc., sandwich shop have compared it with the Respondent's sandwich shop, Six Bits Food Service, Inc., thinking they are under the same ownership. Deliverymen often deliver merchandise to the wrong shop, and calls are received at both Respondent's sandwich shops intended for Petitioner.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that a final order be entered finding that the corporate names Six Bits Food Service, Inc., and Six Bits Deli International, Inc., are deceptively similar to the previously registered corporate name Six-Bits Food Stores, Inc., and that approval for the use of those names be withdrawn. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of September 1981 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of September 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph Mannino, Esquire Suite 480, Landmark Bank Building 4901 North Federal Highway Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33308 Stephen Nall, Esquire Office of the General Counsel Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Joseph Sugarman, President Six Bits Food Service, Inc., and Six Bits Deli International, Inc. 4251 NE 16th Avenue Oakland Park, Florida 33334
The Issue Whether respondents owe petitioner money on account of sales of potatoes?
Findings Of Fact In order to finance his 1991 crops, petitioner Daniel Methvin of Hastings, had to borrow money at the end of the year before. To do that, he was told, he needed to execute contracts for the sale of the potatoes he intended to grow. He had been glad to have future contracts for the 1990 season, when a glut of potatoes pushed the price below three dollars a hundredweight (cwt). Respondent J.P. Mach Agri-Marketing, Inc. (or the company of which it is a subsidiary) had honored those contracts and paid considerably more than the market price for potatoes then. On November 24, 1990, Mr. Methvin executed a contract entitled "Sales Confirmation" agreeing to sell 10,000 cwt of "REPACK REDS", Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1 ("92% US #1 INCH AND 1/2 MIN. AT LEAST 95% SKIN, Id.) to J.P. Mach, Inc. during the period April 28 to May 31, 1991, at $6.50 per cwt. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1. Consolidating smaller, earlier agreements, Mr. Methvin executed another contract entitled "Sales Confirmation" agreeing to sell 45,000 cwt of Atlantics ("85% U.S. #1") to J.P. Mach, Inc. during the period April 28 to May 31, 1991, at $5.75 per cwt, guaranteeing the potatoes would be suitable for chips. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2. With these contracts (or, as to the chipping potatoes, their predecessors) as collateral, Mr. Methvin raised the funds necessary to plant. Both contracts between Mr. Methvin and J.P. Mach, Inc. had "act of god clauses" excusing Mr. Methvin's nondelivery of potatoes he failed to harvest on account of, among other things, tornadoes or hail. As it happened, tornadoes and hail prevented Mr. Methvin's reaping all he had sown. Petitioner only harvested 6,300 cwt of red potatoes and approximately 43,000 cwt of Atlantic potatoes. Another result of the bad weather was extremely high market prices, at some times exceeding $20 per cwt. On April 27, 1991, J.P. Mach visited Mr. Methvin's farm and the two men discussed incentives to keep Mr. Methvin from "jumping his contract," i.e., selling his potatoes to others at the market price. In the course of their conversation, Mr. Methvin said he needed to realize $450,000 from that year's potatoes; and Mr. Mach replied, "I will help you out", and "I will keep you in business." There was general talk of incentives and bonuses. Eventually, Mr. Mach said he would pay a premium over the contract price if Mr. Methvin fulfilled the original contracts to the fullest extent possible, by delivering all the potatoes he had; and Mr. Mach began remitting premium prices, as promised. On June 1, 1991, however, Mr. Methvin advised Mr. Mach of his intention to sell what remained of his harvest, some 1100 cwt of Atlantics, on the open market. When he carried through on this, Mr. Methvin realized approximately $200,000. Even at that, he lost $40,000 that season. Meanwhile Mr. Mach and his companies were sued for $550,000 for failure to deliver potatoes; and were not paid another $172,000 for potatoes they shipped to chip plants and others to whom they had promised still more potatoes. (Mr. Methvin was not the only grower who defaulted on contracts to ship potatoes to J.P. Mach, Inc.) As of June 1, 1991, Mr. Mach, his companies or his agents had paid Mr. Methvin "about $200,000," which was more than the contract price of the potatoes Mr. Methvin had loaded. Neither Mr. Mach nor his companies paid Mr. Methvin anything after June 1, 1991. At hearing, Mr. Methvin calculated the value of the loads as to which nothing had been remitted as of June 1, 1991, as "a few hundred more than $36,000," assuming the contract price plus the premium. But Mr. Mach and his companies or employees recalculated the price of the loads he had paid for by eliminating the premium, since Mr. Methvin had not, as promised on his side, delivered all his potatoes. J.P. Mach, Inc. was duly licensed during the 1990 season. After its license lapsed, a new license was issued to J.P. Mach Agri-Marketing, Inc. on April 24, 1991. A $50,000 certificate of deposit was filed with First Performance Bank as a condition of licensure.
Recommendation It is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That petitioner's complaint be denied. DONE and ENTERED this 3rd day of April, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of April, 1992. COPIES FURNISHED: Daniel Methvin Route 1, Box 92 Palatka, Florida 32131 Jeffrey P. Mach, President J. P. Mach Agri-Marketing, Inc. P.O. Box 7 Plover, Wisconsin 54467 Brenda Hyatt, Chief Bureau of Licensing & Bond Department of Agricutlure 508 Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Richard Tritschler, General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810
