The Issue The issues in these cases are whether Respondent violated sections 489.129(1)(i), 489.129(1)(o), and 489.1425, Florida Statutes (2007 & 2009),1/ and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to the administrative complaints, Mr. Organo was licensed as a certified general contractor in the State of Florida, having been issued license number CGC 1512005. At all times material to the administrative complaints, Mr. Organo was the primary qualifying agent for Bennett Marine Contracting and Construction, Inc. (Bennett Marine). On or about September 29, 2007, Jean Walker (Ms. Walker) entered into a contract with Bennett Marine to construct a dock and a tiki hut at 12305 Boat Shell Drive. The contract (the Walker contract) provided that the contractor would make application for a permit from Lee County, Florida. Mr. Organo signed the Walker contract for Bennett Marine. It is undisputed that the Walker contract did not include a written statement explaining Ms. Walker's rights under the Florida Homeowners' Construction Recovery Fund. On October 24, 2007, Bennett Marine applied for a permit to construct the dock. The application was denied October 29, 2007, because the site plan contained the tiki hut. When the tiki hut was removed from the application, the dock permit was approved. Ms. Walker paid Bennett Marine draws on the construction project. The payments were given to Mr. Organo. The payments totaled $9,200. By February 2008, a tiki hut had been constructed on Ms. Walker's property without a permit. Because the tiki hut was built without a permit, and it was in an illegal location, Lee County required that the tiki hut be removed. By April 2008, the tiki hut had been removed, and another tiki hut had been built in its place. Again, no permit was pulled for the tiki hut, and it was placed in an illegal location. Again, Lee County required that the tiki hut be removed. Mr. Organo subcontracted the construction of the tiki hut to Rick Fewell Chickees. Mr. Fewell of Rick Fewell Chickees, a Seminole Indian,2/ applied for a permit to build a tiki hut, but the application was rejected because the plot plan was not to scale, and the tiki hut did not meet the setback requirements from the water. Another tiki hut was built, and, in March 2009, Lee County again cited Ms. Walker for not having a permit for the tiki hut and for not meeting the setback requirements. In 2010, a permit was finally issued for the construction of a tiki hut on Ms. Walker's property. The permit was issued to Ms. Walker. Bennett Marine commenced work on the tiki hut without obtaining a building permit. On January 5, 2010, Bennett Marine entered into a contract with Chris Bevan (Mr. Bevan) to remove an existing dock, uninstall an existing boatlift, construct a dock, construct a tiki hut, and to reinstall the boatlift. The contract (the Bevan contract) required that the contractor obtain a City of Cape Coral building permit. The Bevan contract was signed by Mr. Organo for Bennett Marine. It is undisputed that the Bevan contract did not contain a written statement explaining Mr. Bevan's rights under the Florida Homeowners' Construction Recovery Fund. On March 17, 2010, Bennett Marine showed up on Mr. Bevan's property and commenced work, by knocking down a cantilever dock that was hanging over a seawall, removing old decking from the boatlift, and rough-framing part of the new dock. Bennett Marine worked until approximately March 25, 2010. That was the last that Mr. Bevan heard from Mr. Organo or Bennett Marine. Mr. Organo applied for a building permit for the Bevan contract on April 1, 2010. The permit was approved on April 13, 2010, but it was not issued. On May 14, 2010, the City of Cape Coral placed a stop-work order on the Bevan project. Mr. Bevan applied for an owner-builder permit for the dock construction, and the permit was issued on June 9, 2010. Mr. Bevan completed the dock construction at additional expense.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Mr. Organo violated sections 489.129(1)(i), 489.129(o), and 489.1425; imposing a fine of $250 each for the Walker contract and the Bevan contract for a total of $500, for failure to advise the owners of the recovery fund; imposing a fine of $3,000 and placing Mr. Organo on probation for two years for beginning work without a permit for the Walker contract; and imposing a fine of $1,000 and placing Mr. Organo on probation for one year for beginning work on the Bevan contract without a permit with the one-year probation to run concurrently with the probation imposed for the Walker contract. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of April, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUSAN B. HARRELL 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 13th day of April, 2011.
Findings Of Fact A transcript of the proceeding before the Administrative Law Judge was not filed with the Commission. We adopt the Administrative Law Judge’s findings of fact. FCHR Order No. 05-093 Page 2 Conclusions of Law We find the Administrative Law Judge’s application of the law to the facts to result in a correct disposition of the matter. We note that the Administrative Law Judge concluded, “Mr. Dill, on a single occasion, behaved in a prejudiced, rude and verbally abusive manner to Petitioner. Although he was named in the Petition for Relief, no valid address was provided for him. He has had no notice of this proceeding, and therefore, jurisdiction over him by the Division has not been acquired. To rule with regard to his rights at this time would be a denial of due process...the undersigned is not satisfied that, as a mere employee of the other Respondents, Mr. Dill could bear any liability to Petitioner under the facts of this case...” Recommended Order, {| 29. We note that the Commission has concluded that individuals can bear liability under the Fair Housing Act. See, Thorhill v. Admiral Farragut Condominium Association, et al., FCHR Order No. 01-018 (March 15, 2001); see, also, Sections 760.22(8) and 760.34(1), Florida Statutes (2005). Further, we note that in a case involving findings of the utterance of racially repugnant remarks, a Commission panel has stated, “We note the Hearing Officer’s finding that, ‘The racially repugnant comments of the Respondent, in the absence of any acts infringing on the tenants’ free use of the leasehold, are not a violation of Section 760.23, Florida Statutes.’... We hereby clarify that this finding does not mean that racially-repugnant comments can never amount to a violation of the Fair Housing Act.” Fletcher v. Hatfield, 18 F.A.L.R. 1590, at 1591 (FCHR 1995). Nevertheless, given the Administrative Law Judge’s finding that Mr. Dill had no notice of the proceeding, and the finding that “[bly firing Mr. Dill, Oak Pointe and Flournoy took steps to prevent further bad acts or bad words by him against Petitioner and others (Recommended Order, § 28),” and in the absence of a transcript of the proceeding before the Administrative Law Judge, we adopt the Administrative Law Judge’s conclusions of law, with these clarifying comments. Exceptions Neither party filed exceptions to the Administrative Law Judge’s Recommended Order. Dismissal The Petition for Relief and Housing Discrimination Complaint are DISMISSED with prejudice. The parties have the right to seek judicial review of this Order. The Commission and the appropriate District Court of Appeal must receive notice of appeal within 30 days of the date this Order is filed with the Clerk of the Commission. Explanation of the right FCHR Order No. 05-093 Page 3 to appeal is found in Section 120.68, Florida Statutes, and in the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.110. DONE AND ORDERED this _9"__ day of September , 2005. FOR THE FLORIDA COMMISSION ON HUMAN RELATIONS: Commissioner Mario M. Valle, Panel Chairperson; Commissioner Dominique B. Saliba, M.D.; and Commissioner Billy Whitefox Stall Filed this_ 9" day of September 2005, in Tallahassee, Florida. Vit braferd Violet Crawford, Clerk Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, FL 32301 (850) 488-7082 Copies furnished to: Karla Maxwell Post Office Box 438 Monticello, FL 32345 Oakpointe Apartments and Flournoy Properties c/o Jack R. Lee Vice President, Flournoy Properties 2673 Mountain Brook Road Canton, GA 30114 Ella Jane P. Davis, Administrative Law Judge, DOAH James Mallue, Legal Advisor for Commission Panel 1 21S wom ernest FCHR Order No. 05-093 Page 4 THEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing has been mailed to the above listed addressees this gt day of September , 2005. By: Vite Cumefrsl Clerk of the Commission Florida Commission on Human Relations
Findings Of Fact On May 27, 1975, the Public Employees Relations Commission certified the Petitioner as the exclusive presentative for the purpose of collective bargaining for a unit of employees of the City of Riviera Beach. All issues respecting the appropriate collective bargaining unit were resolved by the Commission in its order, except that no determination was made as to whether police lieutenants should be included in the unit. There are a total of approximately 67 sworn personnel in the City of Riviera Beach Police Department. The Chief of Police and the Inspector of Police are of the top management officials. There are three police captains, six police lieutenants, and thirteen police sergeants. The department is divided into four divisions: Uniform Division, Detective Division, Records Division, and the Services Division. Until approximately four years ago, the divisions were headed by police lieutenants. At that time the rank of captain was created. Captains are regularly charged with heading the Uniform Division, the Detective Division, and the Records Division. Due to the illness of the captain who formerly headed the Uniform Division, a lieutenant is in charge of the Uniform Division, and the captain who formerly headed the Uniform Division now heads the Services Division. Lieutenants are charged with the command of units within the divisions. Lieutenants are in charge of each of the three regular shifts and of the relief shift within the Uniform Division. A lieutenant is in charge of the 4:00 P.M. to midnight shift in the Detective Division. Ordinarily a lieutenant heads the Services Division. A lieutenant in the Uniform Division will have from ten to eleven sworn officers under his command. The lieutenant in the Detective Division will have approximately four sworn officers under his command. The lieutenant who heads the Services Division will have one sworn officer under his command. Between the hours of 5:00 P.M. and 8:00 A.M. on weekdays, and on weekends, lieutenants in the Uniform and Detective Divisions are the highest ranking on-duty employees of the Police Department. The qualifications, duties, and responsibilities of police lieutenants are described in Respondent's Exhibits 5 and 6. Lieutenants in the Uniform Division spend the bulk of their work day on the road in patrol cars. They serve as backup units to other patrol cars, and act in a supervisory capacity. Lieutenants make arrests for traffic violations, but they generally do not make as many arrests as lower ranking officers. Lieutenants in the Uniform Division wear the same uniform as police captains, except that they were lieutenants bars on the shoulders of their shirts rather than captains bars. Lieutenants and captains wear white shirts and brown slacks. Police sergeants and lower ranking officers wear brown slacks and shirts. Police lieutenants play limited policy making and budgetary roles. Lieutenants are expected to make recommendations to captains respecting policy making needs. Lieutenants occasionally meet as a group with captains, the Chief of Police, and the Inspector of Police. During these staff conferences proposed policies are discussed and final policies ultimately may be adopted as a result of the meetings. Lieutenants do not have the authority to promulgate policy either individually or as a group. Their role is limited to proposing and discussing policies. The lieutenant's budgetary role is similar. Lieutenants are expected to advise captains and other superior officers of the budgetary needs of their units. Lieutenants have no authority to make binding budgetary recommendations, and have no role in promulgating a final proposed budget for consideration of the City Commission of the City of Riviera Beach. Lieutenants play no part in hiring new employees. Unless serving as an acting captain, a lieutenant would not interview job applicants, and would have no input into hiring decisions. Lieutenants do not have final authority to promote, transfer, or discharge employees. Lieutenants do make recommendations respecting promotions, transfer, and discharge. with respect to promotions, the views of the police lieutenants would be solicited, and are given great weight. Employee evaluation reports are used to evaluate probationary personnel, and permanent employees. These reports are prepared by lieutenants and reviewed by the captain. Probationary employees may be rejected for permanent status based in part on these reports, and permanent employees may be denied promotions based in part upon these reports. The evaluations are also used to determine whether employees should get step increases. Captains make recommendations for promotion to the Police Chief based upon the lieutenant's evaluation. A lieutenant makes recommendations to the captain respecting transfer or discharge of an employee. These recommendations are given some weight, but are not always followed. A lieutenant to the Uniform Division assigns the officers in the division to their jobs on a daily basis. This duty may be delegated to a police sergeant; however, the responsibility lies with the lieutenant. A lieutenant is responsible for the work performance of personnel under this command. Lieutenants can discipline employees by taking such action as removing the employee from duty for the remainder of a shift. The lieutenant must then, as soon as possible, submit a full report to the captain, who will forward it to the Inspector of Police and to the Chief. Lieutenants can make recommendations to their superior officers respecting discipline of employees under their supervision, but only the City Manager has ultimate authority to suspend an employee. Lieutenants serve as the first step in the city's formal grievance procedure; however, the police captain must approve any affirmative action taken by the lieutenant. Two police lieutenants testified at the hearing that they do not wish to be part of a collective bargaining unit with lower ranking police officers. The testimony of one witness was based upon his feeling that it would be more difficult for him to carry out his job under those circumstances. The testimony of another lieutenant was based upon his personal dislike for labor unions. Two other police lieutenants signed affidavits stating their preference to be included in the "Management Group" of the city. No basis was given for these statements. ENTERED this 18th day of February, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. G. STEVEN PFEIFFER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida COPIES FURNISHED: Curtis L. Mack, Chairman Public Employees Relations Commission Suite 105, 2005 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Irving Weisoff, Esquire Suite 804, Roberts Building 28 W. Flagler Street Miami, Florida Nicholas P. Wellman, Esquire 4655 S. Military Trail Lake Worth, Florida 33460
Findings Of Fact After the motion for continuance was again denied, petitioners declined to offer any evidence and petitioners announced that they would be pursuing certain supposed federal remedies.
The Issue Whether Respondent terminated Petitioner from her employment based on perceived handicap discrimination.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was hired by Respondent on March 5, 1991, to work as a server at Respondent's restaurant, Bon Appetit. Shortly thereafter, on or about April 8, 1991, Petitioner was promoted to restaurant manager. During her tenure as restaurant manager, Petitioner was counselled about her appearance and personal hygiene. Additionally, Petitioner had problems with Respondent's performance including balancing the cash and credit card receipts collected during her shifts. Respondent required its managers to notify Respondent in advance of any absence due to a medical condition where possible. In all cases; however, managers were required to communicate with Respondent concerning their absence so that Respondent could schedule and plan for a manager's absence to avoid any disruption in its business and the scheduling of other employees. During her employment as restaurant manager, Petitioner was diagnosed as having "hammer toes". Petitioner was out of work for three weeks to have this condition surgically corrected. This absence was approved in advance by Respondent and Petitioner received full compensation for that medical leave. Following the scheduled three week absence for the surgery, there was an additional two to three week period during which Petitioner reported for work late or would leave early. Respondent considered those late arrivals and early departures to be unexcused absences. Following foot surgery, Petitioner returned to her position as manager with the same pay. Subsequently, during May 1992, Petitioner was out of work for surgery to have an ovarian cyst removed. This absence was approved by Respondent and Petitioner was out of work for five days. During this period of medical leave, Petitioner received her pay and returned to work following surgery. Following the cyst surgery, Petitioner complained of lower back pain which her gynecologist attributed to swelling from the cyst surgery. On May 30, 1992, Petitioner went to the emergency room at Morton Plant Hospital in Tampa suffering from lower back pain. Petitioner contacted restaurant manager, Leo Enciso, and told him of her visit to the hospital and "not to count on her reporting for work that day". Petitioner also informed Enciso that she would call as soon as she had been examined to give an update on her status. Subsequent to her initial phone call to Enciso on May 30, 1992, Petitioner did not speak with Enciso nor did he receive any messages from Petitioner concerning her status from May 30, 1992 to June 8, 1992. Following her treatment in the emergency room at Morton Plant, Petitioner sought treatment on that same date, May 30, 1992 from chiropractor Dr. Lynn Colucci. At that time, Petitioner knew she would be out of work until at least one more day. Petitioner did not communicate that information to Respondent or any of its management personnel. Petitioner's next consultation with her chiropractor to evaluate her condition was June 1, 1992. Following that session, Petitioner was advised that she would be out of work for at least two more days. Petitioner did not communicate this information to Respondent or any of its management staff. Petitioner again met with her chiropractor on June 3, 1992 and was told that she would be unable to return to work until June 8, 1992. Petitioner failed to communicate this information to any of Respondent's management or staff. Kailie Borzoni, Peter Kreuziger and Sharon Verhage, all managerial employees of Respondent, made several unsuccessful attempts to contact Petitioner by phone. Verhage left a message on Petitioner's answering machine but Petitioner did not return her phone call. Petitioner was released to return to work by her treating chiropractor on June 9, 1992. There were no restrictions placed on her when she was released for work and her physician related that Petitioner's back problem had "resolved itself". Petitioner was discharged by Respondent on June 9, 1992, when she reported for work. Peter Krueziger made an independent decision to discharge Petitioner based on what he considered to be poor performance, poor appearance, excessive absences and failing to truthfully advise of her work status and whereabouts from May 30, 1992 to June 8, 1992. When Petitioner was initially employed as a restaurant manager, Respondent's manager, Krueziger, noticed that Petitioner's dress apparel did not meet up to the standards of a "four star" restaurant that Respondent was operating. As a result, Respondent spoke with Petitioner about his expectations with regard to her dress and advised the controller to advance Petitioner some funds to purchase a wardrobe. Respondent sent one of its managerial employees to accompany Petitioner on a shopping trip to upgrade her wardrobe to reflect what Respondent considered to be appropriate dress for a restaurant manager. Respondent's managerial staff noted and complained to Petitioner on several occasions after she was given a new wardrobe, that her attire did not measure up to the standards that they expected of a manager. Negative comments were made about Respondent's stained clothing, her fingernails and her unkempt hair. Petitioner conceded that she had an exceptionally hard time balancing her cash and credit card accounts at the end of each shift. While some managers experience difficulty at the outset of their employment because an antiquated accounting system was being used, they soon became proficient in closing out the cash and credit card accounts following their shift. Respondent discharged Petitioner based on her failure to properly notify it of her absence from work during the period May 30, 1992 through June 8, 1992. Petitioner's medical condition, real or perceived, played no part in Respondent's decision to terminate her.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that: The Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing Petitioner's petition for relief as she failed to establish that she was terminated from employment because of a perceived handicap. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of December, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 6th day of December, 1994. APPENDIX Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Paragraph 3 adopted as modified, paragraph 2 recommended order. Paragraph 4 rejected, contrary to the greater weight of evidence, paragraph 5 recommended order. Paragraph 5, adopted as modified, paragraph 4 recommended order. Paragraph 7, adopted as modified, paragraphs 9 and 10 recommended order. Paragraph 8 rejected, irrelevant. Paragraphs 9 and 10 rejected, contrary to the greater weight of evidence, paragraph 15 recommended order. Paragraphs 11-16 rejected, contrary to the greater weight of evidence. Paragraph 17 rejected, irrelevant and unnecessary. Paragraphs 18 and 19 rejected, conclusionary. COPIES FURNISHED: C. A. Sullivan, Esquire 311 S. Missouri Avenue Clearwater, FL 34616 Charles A. Powell, IV, Esquire Peter W. Zinober, Esquire Zinober and McCrea, P.A. 201 E. Kennedy Blvd., Ste. 1750 Tampa, FL 33602 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Commission on Human Relations Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-1570 Dana Baird, General Counsel Commission on Human Relations Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-1570
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent, a Florida-licensed yacht salesman, should be disciplined for violation of Rule 61B- 60.006(2), Florida Administrative Code, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated May 10, 2000.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, DBPR, through its Division of Florida Land Sales, Condominiums and Mobile Homes (the Division) was the state agency in Florida responsible for the licensing and discipline of yacht salespersons and brokers in this state and the regulation of the yacht-brokering profession. Respondent, Justo Lamar (Lamar), has been licensed as a yacht salesperson since November 1976. Prior to this action, Lamar has never been the subject of disciplinary action arising out of the practice of his profession. This action was precipitated by a yacht owner, Juan A. Galan (Galan), who unsuccessfully attempted to sell his yacht to a client of Lamar's. In July 1998, Galan listed his yacht, the Caliente, for sale through Ardell Yacht and Ship Brokers (Ardell). The listing resulted in negotiations for the purchase of the Caliente by one Larry Griggs (Griggs), a prospective customer represented by Lamar. At all times relevant to this case, Lamar was acting as a sales agent for Allied Marine and its broker, Dwight Tracy (Tracy). As set forth in more detail below, the negotiations between Galan and Griggs took place over a three-month period from October 1998 through December 1998 with no meeting of the minds. On July 12, 1999, some seven months after negotiations between Griggs and Galan terminated, Galan lodged a complaint with DBPR. Although the complaint was ostensibly directed against salesman Lamar and broker Tracy, each and every allegation in the complaint was directed to the broker's conduct, not Lamar's. Galan, who did not testify at final hearing, alleged in his complaint that "Broker presented a contract representing that deposit had been received/deposited (upon acceptance). In fact, broker never deposited check and we wasted our time and money on survey/sea trial as buyer was not (at that time or any time later) financially capable of buying boat @ $1.75 million." Galan provided some, but by no means all, of the documents which revealed the details of the prolonged and ultimately unsuccessful negotiations between Galan and Griggs. In the narrative portion of his complaint, Galan asserted that he lost money on sea trials and implied, without actually stating, that the Caliente had been taken off the market during the pendency of negotiations with Griggs. For reasons which remain unclear, the Division did not focus its investigation on Tracy, who was the obvious target of Galan's complaint. Instead, it targeted Lamar, who was an obvious add-on target of Galan's ire. The exhibits reveal a complex series of offers and counteroffers and jockeying for negotiating advantage, not just between Galan and Griggs as prospective Seller and Buyer of the Caliente, but also between Lamar and the two brokers, all three of whom stood to profit if the transaction were consummated. Negotiations for the Caliente began in late October 1998. On October 30, 1998, Lamar's client Griggs, through a corporation he controlled, issued a $150,000 check for "Deposit, 72' (sic) Caliente Sportfisherman." This check accompanied a Brokerage Purchase and Sale Agreement dated October 29, 1998, offering to purchase the Caliente for $1,500,000. That same day, Galan's representatives faxed Lamar to advise that Griggs' offer was insufficient. Lamar forthwith provided the check to his broker, Tracy. Negotiations between Galan and Griggs continued in November. Galan chose to by-pass his own Broker and negotiate directly with Lamar over lunch on November 18, 1998. Lamar wrote Galan's demands on the back of a restaurant placemat. The primary sticking point was Galan's insistence on a "bottom line" of $1,665,000 to him, after all commissions and other expenses, if any, were paid. Griggs nevertheless persevered in his effort to buy the Caliente for $1,500,000. On November 24, 2000, Griggs executed another Brokerage Purchase and Sale Agreement in which he offered an entity called Majua, Inc., of which Galan was President, the opportunity to sell the Caliente to Griggs for $1,500,000. Galan signed the November 24 agreement, but added an addendum which materially changed the terms. The addendum unilaterally purported to raise the sales prices to Galan's previously stated "bottom line" of $1,665,000. Thanksgiving passed, and negotiations wore on. On December 4, 1998, Griggs executed a third Brokerage Purchase and Sale Agreement, raising his offer to $1,755,000. The new offer expressly stipulated that Griggs' $150,000 earnest money check could be deposited when and if all parties executed this new proposed agreement. Like the October 29 and November 24 brokerage purchase and sale agreements, the December 4 document never ripened into a contract. The December 4 document was a clear and unembarrassed reminder from Griggs that an earnest money check had been written by Griggs, but was not on deposit, and was not going to be on deposit until such time as Galan had signed off on the contract as written by Griggs. Galan nevertheless permitted a sea trial of the Caliente in furtherance of negotiations, now in their fifth week. Also as part of the negotiating process, Galan permitted some, but not all, of the inspections requested by Griggs. Expenses for the sea trial and inspections were borne entirely by Griggs. By Christmas Eve, relations between the parties had deteriorated to the point where Lamar retrieved the check from the Allied Marine corporate files and returned it to Griggs. At no time did negotiations with Lamar's client Griggs preclude or interfere with efforts by Galan to negotiate with and sell the Caliente to any other prospective purchaser.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that DBPR enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint against Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of March, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. FLORENCE SNYDER RIVAS 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 1st day of March, 2001.
