The Issue The issue in this case is whether proposed Florida Administrative Code Rule 64-4.002 (the “Proposed Rule”) is an invalid exercise of the legislative authority delegated to the Department of Health (the “Department”).
Findings Of Fact In order to better contextualize the facts presented at final hearing and discussed below, the following excerpts from the Proposed Rule and the underlying statutory provision are provided: Section 381.986, Florida Statutes (8) Medical Marijuana Treatment Centers.- (a) The department shall license medical marijuana treatment centers to ensure reasonable statewide accessibility and availability as necessary for qualified patients registered in the medical marijuana use registry and who are issued a physician certification under this section. * * * The department shall license as medical marijuana treatment centers 10 applicants that meet the requirements of this section, under the following parameters: [Previously denied applicants meeting certain requirements not relevant to the instant action.] [One applicant from a specific class pursuant to a federal lawsuit.] As soon as practicable, but not later than October 3, 2017, the Department shall license applicants that meet the requirements of this section in sufficient numbers to result in 10 total licenses issued under this subparagraph, while accounting for the number of licenses issued under sub-subparagraphs a. and b. For up to two of the licenses issued under subparagraph 2., the department shall give preference to applicants thatdemonstrate in their applications that they own one or more facilities that are, or were, used for the canning, concentrating, or otherwise processing of citrus fruit or citrus molasses and will use or convert the facility or facilities for the processing of marijuana. (Emphasis added). Florida Administrative Code Rule 64-4.002 (Proposed) (1)(f) For applicants seeking preference for registration as a medical marijuana treatment center pursuant to ss. 381.986(8)(a)3., F.S., the applicant must provide evidence that: The property at issue currently is or was previously used for the canning, concentrating, or otherwise processing of citrus fruit or citrus molasses. In order to demonstrate the property meets this criteria, the applicant may provide documentation that the applicant currently holds or has held a registration certificate pursuant to section 601.40, F.S. A letter from the Department of Citrus certifying that the property currently is or was previously used for the canning, concentrating, or otherwise processing of citrus fruit or citrus molasses will be accepted as sufficient evidence. The applicant as an individual holds, in his or her name, or the applicant as an entity holds, in the legal name of the entity, the deed to property meeting the criteria set forth in subparagraph 1. above; and A brief explanation of how the property will be used for purposes of growing, processing, or dispensing medical marijuana if the applicant is selected for registration. * * * Subject matter experts will substantively and comparatively review, evaluate, and score applications using [the Scorecard incorporated by reference]. * * * (a)7.(b) Scores for each section of the application will be combined to create an applicant’s total score. The department will generate a final ranking of the applicants in order of highest to lowest scores . . . . (c) In accordance with ss. 391.986(8)(a)3., F.S., the two highest scoring applicants that own one or more facilities that are, or were, used for the canning, concentrating, or otherwise processing of citrus fruit or citrus molasses and will use or convert the facility or facilities for the processing of medical marijuana will receive an additional35 points to their respective total score. Licenses will be awarded, subject to availability as set forth in ss. 381.986(8)(a)2. and 381.986(8)(a)4., F.S., based on the highest total score in the following manner: The highest scoring applicant that is a recognized member of the Pigford or [the Black Farmers Discrimination Litigation] will receive a license. The remaining highest scoring applicants, after the addition of the preference points for applicants pursuant to paragraph (7)(c) above, will receive licenses up to the statutory cap set forth in ss. 381.986(8)(a)2., F.S. The remaining highest scoring applications, after removing any preference points received under paragraph (7)(c), will receive licenses up to the statutory cap . . . . (Emphasis added). The Department is an agency of the State of Florida charged with administering and enforcing laws related to the general health of the people of the state. § 381.0011(2), Fla. Stat. As part of this duty, the Department is charged with implementing the Compassionate Medical Cannabis Act of 2014. See § 381.986, Fla. Stat. Favero is a Florida corporation in good standing since its incorporation in 1974, primarily engaged in the business of growing orchids. Favero aspires to file an application for licensure as a medical marijuana treatment center (“MMTC”). Following the passage of Senate Bill 8A by the 2017 Florida Legislature, which substantially rewrote section 318.986, Florida Statutes, Favero decided to seek the citrus preference described in section 381.986(3)(a)3. (hereinafter referred to as the “Preference Statute”). To that end, Favero purchased a citrus processing business in Safety Harbor, Florida, for approximately $775,000, including the business’s real property and all facilities located thereon. The purchase took place prior to publication of the Proposed Rule. The purchase of the Safety Harbor property reduced Favero’s financial liquidity but, presumably, not its net worth as the value of the property would replace the cash expenditure made for the purchase. It is Favero’s intent to convert the citrus processing facility located on the property into a medical marijuana processing facility if Favero receives the requisite license as a MMTC. Favero contends, as stated in the following paragraphs of its Petition Challenging the Invalidity of Proposed Rule 64-4.002: The Proposed Rule grants a preference to an applicant who owns “property” that was once used for citrus processing. The statute, however, clearly grants the preference only to applicants who “own one or more facilities that are, or were, used for the canning, concentrating, or otherwise processing ” By using the broader word “property” rather than “facility,” the Department is granting the citrus preference to a broader group of applicants than the statute permits, such as owners of packinghouses and other properties that fail to meet the definition of “processor” or were not used for “canning” or “concentrating.” The statute is clear and unambiguous. The use of the word “property” rather than the statutory term “facilities” renders the rule invalid because the use of that term exceeds the Department’s rulemaking authority, enlarges and modifies and contravenes the requirements of Section 381.986(8)(a)3., is vague, fails to establish adequate standards for agency decisions, vests unbridled discretion in the agency and is arbitrary and capricious. See § 120.52(8)., Fla. Stat. * * * The Proposed Rule allows for a preference to only some applicants that own a citrus processing facility. Under the scoring system, applicants demonstrating that they own a citrus processing facility may receive an additional 35 points. However, the Proposed Rule does not guarantee that any applicant owning a citrus processing facility will actually receive those points or get a license. The Proposed Rule merely grants an additional 35 points to two applicants. The Department of Citrus has indicated that more than a dozen companies will qualify for the citrus preference. Under the Proposed Rule, most of those applicants would receive no additional points despite qualifying for the statutory preference. Additionally, the Proposed Rule provides no assurance that any applicant qualifying for the citrus preference will actually receive a license. The Form adopted by the Proposed Rule allows Department evaluators to award a maximum of 1,150 points in several categories. The additional 35 points available under the Proposed Rule amount to an addition of just a 3% bonus. If those extra 35 points are not enough to exceed the scores of other applicants, then no citrus-preference qualifying applicant will receive a license. Favero contends that reduction of its liquid assets could have a negative impact on its overall financial condition when considered by the Department as it reviews Favero’s MMTC application. Favero is concerned that this negative impact may not be completely offset by the citrus preference it is seeking. Mecca is a Florida corporation located at 7965 Lantana Road, Lantana, Florida. It has existed since November 15, 1973, has operated in Florida since the early 1970s, and began citrus farming on approximately 2,000 acres in 1983. Mecca has been and is currently licensed as a citrus dealer and a regulated citrus processing plant and citrus packinghouse. The “processing” done by Mecca does not involve canning or concentrating citrus. Mecca “processes” citrus in its “fresh fruit form” (discussed more fully below). Mecca intends to convert its property and facilities for the purpose of growing, processing or dispensing medical marijuana if its application for an MMTC license is approved. Mecca contends the citrus preference in the Proposed Rule needs further clarification. Mecca also asserts the evaluation and scoring system with respect to the citrus preference constitutes an invalid exercise of the Department’s delegated legislative authority. The Scoring System The MMTC application has 16 separate sections. An applicant may be awarded up to 50 points on some sections, up to 100 points on other sections. The total number of points any application might receive is 1150, presuming a perfect score on each section. Each of the individual sections, whether for 50 or 100 points, is graded in accordance with an evaluation rubric. The rubric contains five categories of scores which are used by reviewers, allowing for a range of points in each section. The five categories each have a range depending on whether the section allows 50 or 100 points. The rubric directs that a category 5 response could be awarded between 40 and 50 points in the 50-point sections, or between 80 and 100 points in a 100-point section. A category 4 response could get between 30 and 39 points (or 60 to 79 points); a category 3 could award 20 to 29 points (or 40 to 59 points); a category 2 could be worth 10 to 19 points (or 20 to 39 points); and a category 1 might award 0 to 9 points (or 0 to 19 points). Thus, an applicant may be awarded points anywhere within the range in each category for each section of the application. By way of example, category 5 under the rubric (wherein a reviewer may give an application 40 to 50 or 80 to 100 points) directs the reviewer as follows: Applicant addressed all items. When necessary, each item has multiple, specific examples of experience and knowledge. Experience and knowledge are connected to specific, identifiable people in the application. Plans are clear, detailed, well documented, and thorough. All charts, photographs, maps, sketches, and other supplemental information are clear and legible. When necessary, applicant provides full documentation for representations of future performance. Responses related to financial reflect robust financial resources and clear lines of authority within the organizations. By comparison, under Category 3, which could award 20 to 29 or 40 to 59 points, the rubric directs the reviewer to consider: Either: Applicant responded to all items. Applicant responds to items addressing experience and knowledge, though answers tend to lack specificity. Plans are provided, but are lacking in clarity, documentation, or thoroughness. When necessary, some supplemental information is provided. Responses related to financials do not reflect robust financial resources, but do not raise doubts of applicant’s financial viability, or the organization has unclear lines of authority, or; Most responses are sufficient to be considered Category 4 or 5 Responses, but applicant fails to address some items. Favero asserts that allowing a reviewer to award points from an allowable range gives unbridled discretion to the Department. The argument misses the point that the ranges in each category direct the reviewer on how to score, while allowing some leeway in determining which applications are slightly better or worse than their competitors. Depending on the strength or weakness of one applicant’s response vis-à-vis another applicant, it is reasonable to assign more or fewer points in a comparative review. The rubric is quite descriptive and allows for a nuanced review of responses by the Department reviewers. The Preference The Preference Statute asserts a preference “for up to two of the licenses issued,” i.e., past tense. There are no licenses “issued” during the application review process, so the preference is actually assigned before licensure. The Preference Statute is somewhat confusing in this regard. The Proposed Rule attempts to reconcile this discrepancy by assigning preference points as a part of the application review process, while still approving the most qualified applicants. That approach is reasonable and has merit; it allows the preference to be assigned but does not attempt to insert it into the actual licensure process. The Proposed Rule assigns the preference points at the end of the review, i.e., after an application receives its “total score.” Thus, an applicant could conceivably be awarded 1185 points on the 0 to 1150 point scale. Regardless of how the points are assigned, Favero contends that the 35 preference points are too insignificant as compared to a possible (perfect) score of 1150 during application review. That number of points (35) would be only about three percent of a perfect score. The lower the average scores of all applications, however, the more the 35 points might come into play. If all applicants received an average score of 575 total points, the preference points would be twice as important as compared to perfect 1150 scores. The assignment of the preference points only after totaling the scores is a legitimate and acceptable method. Taking the 16 sections of the application separately, 35 points assigned in any one section could be quite significant. In fact, the Department arrived at the 35 points by taking the average number of possible points per section, i.e., 72, and assigning approximately half of that amount to reach the 35- point preference. The preference points are not just an arbitrary number assigned by the Department. Favero also objects that the Proposed Rule only assigns the 35 preference points to the two highest scoring, eligible applicants, i.e., those who will convert a citrus facility to process medical marijuana. If those two eligible applicants were more than 35 points below other, non-eligible applicants’ scores, assignment of the preference points would not result in the approval of any eligible applicants. The plain language in the Preference Statute and the Proposed Rule allows for a preference of “up to two” applicants. There is, therefore, no mandate that any applicants must receive the preference. While the Legislature can be presumed to have wanted preference points to be awarded (else why would the Preference Statute exist?), the language of the statute merely limits the number of entities which could get such a preference. The Department, interpreting a statute it is charged with implementing, interprets section 381.986(8)(a)3. to mean the issuance of available licenses to as many as two entities which are eligible for the preference. The Proposed Rule allows the Department to assess an applicant’s entitlement to the preference, to assign the preference, and to meet its statutory obligation. Property versus Facility The Legislature clearly intended to give a preference to applicants who “own . . . facilities that are, or were, used for canning, concentrating, or otherwise processing of citrus . . . and will use or convert the . . . facilities for the processing of medical marijuana.” The Legislature failed, however, to provide guidance by way of definitions. While the Legislature chose the words “facility or facilities” in the Preference Statute, the Department complicated the issue by using the word “property” for the most part, but also using the words “facility” and “facilities” at times. Favero contends that a property is much broader in scope than a facility, and the Department therefore exceeded its delegated legislative authority. The Department argues that facilities used to process citrus must be located on some property, obviously. But, facilities located on a property might be leased, so that the fee simple owner of the property is different from the leaseholder of that facility. Thus, if an applicant for a medical marijuana treatment center license wants to avail itself of the preference, it would need to own the facility. Whether that means the applicant must own the property on which the facility is located is not clear in the Preference Statute or in the Proposed Rule. The Department argues that the way to show ownership of a facility is by way of a deed to the property on which the facility is located. In fact, Favero will use a warranty deed to prove ownership of the facilities it purchased in order to obtain the preference. But if Favero purchased land on which citrus had been grown but not processed, i.e., if there had been no facilities on the land to can, concentrate or otherwise process the fruit, except in fresh fruit form, the preference would not apply. And if an applicant obtained a leasehold interest in a facility, it would not be able to “show ownership” by way of a deed to the property. The Preference Statute requires the applicant to convert the facility in order to gain the preference. It is unclear how a piece of unimproved property can be “converted” to another use; land is land. This begs the question of whether growing citrus on a piece of property, and then removing all the citrus trees in order to grow medical marijuana, is a “conversion” of a facility as contemplated by the Legislature. Neither the Preference Statute nor the Proposed Rule contain any definitional assistance to answer that question. An important question to be answered is whether the growing of citrus constitutes “processing” as alluded to by the Legislature. The Preference Statute provides no definition of the word. The Citrus Code (chapter 601, Florida Statutes) also does not define “processing,” but does describe a “processor” of citrus as: ‘[A]ny person engaged within this state in the business of canning, concentrating, or otherwise processing citrus fruit for market other than for shipment in fresh fruit form.” § 601.03(32), Fla. Stat. (Emphasis added). Processing must therefore mean something other than merely growing citrus and packing it up for shipment. That being the case, a property where citrus is grown that is “converted” to a property growing marijuana would not afford an applicant a preference. There must be some “facility” that is or has been used to process citrus, i.e., doing something more with the raw product, in order to constitute “processing.” Therefore, a “packinghouse,” i.e., “[a]ny building, structure, or place where citrus fruit is packed or otherwise prepared for market or shipment in fresh fruit form,” would not be engaged in “processing” citrus. See § 601.03(29), Fla. Stat. Mecca, which owns property where citrus was grown, picked, graded, sorted, polished, cleaned and packaged for transfer “in fresh fruit form,” would not be a processor, either. Mecca owns a packinghouse only, not a processing facility as that term seems to be used by the Legislature. Its operations were not part of the “canning, concentrating, or otherwise processing citrus fruit other than for shipment in fresh fruit form.”
The Issue The issues for determination in this case are whether Respondent, as a licensed citrus fruit dealer, breached an agreement with Petitioner relating to the purchase of citrus fruit during the 1993-1994 citrus shipping season; and further whether the breach of such agreement constitutes a violation of the Florida Citrus Code for which the proceeds of the citrus fruit dealer's bond executed by Co-Respondent should be paid to Petititioner pursuant to Section 601.66, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, BBC & F Corporation, Inc., is a Florida corporation located in Zolfo Springs, Florida, which is in the business of buying and selling citrus fruit. Charles J. "Chuck" Young is the vice-president and a director of Petitioner. Respondent, Jim Robinette, is a citrus fruit dealer with an office in Lakeland, Florida, who was licensed during the 1993-1994 citrus shipping season by the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Affairs. Co-Respondent, Aetna Casualty and Surety Company, is a surety company qualified to do business in Florida, which pursuant to Section 601.61, Florida statutes, executed Respondent's citrus fruit dealer's bond for the 1993-1994 citrus shipping season in the amount of $5,000.00. On or about March 1, 1994, Petitioner, by and through its director and representative, Charles J. "Chuck" Young, entered into an oral contract with Respondent for the sale and delivery of certain citrus fruit from Petitioner's grove in Dundee, Florida. At that time, Respondent had made a prior agreement with the Redi-Made Foods Corporation to supply citrus fruit to Redi-Made's facility in Tampa, Florida. Specifically, the contract between Petitioner and Respondent provided for the purchase of valencia oranges to be used as salad fruit. The fruit was to be delivered by Petitioner to Redi-Made's facility in Tampa, Florida. The initial terms of the contract provided for a purchase price of $10 per box for fruit delivered to Redi-Made. Of the $10 contract price, $7 was for the grower (Petitioner), $1.90 was to cover the harvesting costs, $.25 was a brokerage fee paid to James Porter of Redi-Made, and $.85 was for Respondent. The first few loads were delivered to Redi-Made and paid for at the contract price of $10 per box. Subsequent to the delivery of the initial few loads, the terms of the contract were amended to incorporate a deduction of $.20 per box of fruit delivered for the purpose of expediting the processing of the payments from Redi-Made. The Petitioner and Respondent agreed to share equally this reduction from the original price. Accordingly, under the amended terms of the contract, Petitioner would receive $6.90 per box delivered, the harvesting costs remained at $1.90 per box delivered, the payment to James Porter remained at $.25 per box delivered, and the Respondent would receive $.75 per box delivered. In accordance with the terms of the amended contract, Petitioner during March of 1994, delivered six loads of valencia oranges totalling 2210 boxes to Redi-Made for which payment has not been made by Respondent. Under the terms of the amended contract, Petitioner is owed $15,249 for the fruit delivered. In addition, Petitioner paid for the harvesting costs of the fruit, for which under the terms of the amended contract, Petitioner is owed $4,199. Respondent was paid by Redi-Made for three of the six loads. These loads are evidenced by trip tickets 70144, 70146 and 82960, and show that 930 boxes of fruit were delivered by Petitioner to Redi-Made; however, Redi-Made paid Respondent for only 890 boxes of this fruit, and did not pay Respondent for the remainder of the 2210 boxes of fruit delivered by Petitioner. There is an ongoing dispute between Respondent and Redi-Made regarding Redi-Made's failure to make payment for the remainder of the fruit; however, resolution of the Respondent's dispute with Redi-Made is independent of, and does not affect the obligations of the Respondent with respect to Respondent's contract with Petitioner.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services enter a final order adjudicating that the amount of indebtedness owed to Petitioner from Respondent is $19,488.00, that Respondent shall have thirty (30) days in which to satisfy such indebtedness, and that upon failure of the Respondent to make satisfaction of this claim, the proceeds of the citrus fruit dealer's bond executed by Co-Respondent shall be distributed to Petitioner. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 9th day of May, 1995. RICHARD HIXSON 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 9th day of May, 1995. APPENDIX Petitioner's Findings 1.-3. Adopted and Incorporated COPIES FURNISHED: Commissioner Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol, P1-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Brenda Hyatt, Chief Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Mayo Building, Room 508 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Richard Tritschler, Esquire Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Allan L. Casey, Esquire Post Office Box 7146 Winter Haven, Florida 33883-7146 Jim Robinette 2025 Sylvester Road, Suite J4 Lakeland, Florida 33803
The Issue Whether Respondent, The Citrus Store, a citrus fruit dealer, owes Petitioner, Hutchinson Groves, Inc., a grower of Florida citrus products, a sum of money for citrus fruit harvested from Petitioner's groves. SUMMARY DISPOSITION On or about December 16, 2003, Petitioner, Hutchinson Groves, Inc., filed a complaint with the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (the "Department"), alleging that Respondent, The Citrus Store, owes Petitioner the sum of $27,117.59, for oranges harvested from Petitioner's groves by Respondent pursuant to a written contract. Respondent conceded that it owed some lesser amount to the owner of the groves in question. However, the matter was complicated by the fact that, subsequent to the execution of the contract with Respondent, Petitioner had sold those groves to a third party who also asserted a claim to the proceeds from the sale of the fruit to Respondent. The matter was the subject of litigation in the Circuit Court of the Tenth Judicial Circuit, in and for Highlands County (Case No. GC-02-587), which caused the Department to delay forwarding the matter to the Division of Administrative Hearings until December 2, 2005. The case was assigned to the undersigned and set for hearing on February 2, 2006. The hearing was convened as scheduled. Prior to the taking of testimony, the parties discussed settlement of the matter. At the conclusion of their discussions, the parties stipulated: that the Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over this matter and the parties thereto pursuant to Section 120.569 and Subsection 120.57(1), Florida Statutes (2005); that, at all times relevant to this proceeding, Petitioner was a "producer" pursuant to Subsection 601.03(29), Florida Statutes; that, at all times relevant to this proceeding, The Citrus Store was a "citrus fruit dealer" pursuant to Subsection 601.03(8), Florida Statutes; that Respondent owes Petitioner $27,117.59 for the oranges harvested from Petitioner's groves; and that no interest would be sought or assessed against Respondent on the principal amount owing to Petitioner. Based on the foregoing stipulations, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered requiring Respondent, The Citrus Store, to pay to Petitioner, Hutchinson Groves, Inc., the principal sum of $27,117.59, without interest. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of February, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON 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 8th day of February, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Kathy Alves Fidelity & Deposit Company of Maryland Post Office Box 87 Baltimore, Maryland 21203 William Hutchinson Hutchinson Groves, Inc. 1323 Edgewater Point Drive Sebring, Florida 33870 Clifford R. Rhoades, Esquire Clifford R. Rhoades, P.A. 227 North Ridgewood Drive Sebring, Florida 33870 Anthony W. Surber, Esquire Harbsmeier, DeZayas, Harden & DeBari, L.L.P. 5116 South Lakeland Drive Lakeland, Florida 33813 Chris Green, Chief Bureau of License and Bond Division of Marketing 407 South Calhoun Street, Mail Station 38 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Richard D. Tritschler, General Counsel Office of the General Counsel 407 South Calhoun Street, Suite 520 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800
Findings Of Fact The Department is an agency of the State of Florida established pursuant to Section 20.14, Florida Statutes. Pursuant to Section 581.021, Florida Statutes, the Department is charged with the administration and enforcement of Chapter 581, Florida Statutes, governing the plant industry. Respondent operates as a nurseryman at his place of business in Haines City, Florida, doing business as Haines City Tree Farm. Respondent is the holder of a certificate of registration as a nurseryman issued by the Department. Before any nurseryman shall sell or distribute, or offer to sell or distribute, any nursery stock in this state, he shall make application to the Department to obtain a certificate of registration. An excise tax is levied per plant on the sale of citrus nursery stock to any commercial citrus fruit producer or for resale to a citrus fruit producer by any nurseryman to whom a certificate of registration has been issued by the Department. The excise tax is also imposed upon citrus plants grown by a commercial citrus fruit producer for his own use for movement within or into a citrus grove or for establishing new citrus plantings. The excise tax shall be reported and paid to the Department by the person to whom the certificate of registration is issued. All nurserymen operating certified nurseries shall submit monthly tax reports and remit the related citrus excise tax to the Department by the 15th day following the end of each calendar month. Respondent has failed to pay a total of $4,319.00 in citrus excise taxes owned to the Department for 1992. By reason of the foregoing, Respondent has violated the provisions of Section 581.193, Florida Statutes, and Rule 5B-50.005, Florida Administrative Code. Respondent offered testimony in which he attempted to prove that in 1986, in response to the citrus canker outbreak, the Petitioner burned his entire nursery stock of approximately 26,000 trees and 40,000 liners; that Respondent sought compensation from Petitioner but the Petitioner refused to allow him to file proper compensation forms because he had not received a burn order from them; and is seeking an award of $87,000 in the form of a counter- claim and set-off in this proceeding.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered: Requiring Respondent to submit payment of $4,319.00 to the Department for citrus excise taxes owed; Requiring Respondent to submit payment of a $500.00 administrative fine to the Department pursuant to Section 581.141, Florida Statutes. Suspend Respondent's certificate of registration No. 47216300, without further hearing, if the foregoing taxes and administrative fine are not paid within 15 days following issuance of the Final Order. DONE and ENTERED this 11th day of January, 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, 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 Proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioner Accepted in substance: paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11. Rejected as a conclusion of law: paragraphs 8, 9, 12. Proposed findings of fact submitted by Respondent Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial and beyond the scope of authority of this agency: paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 John S. Koda, Esquire 515 Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Edward Dickinson Haines City Tree Farm P. O. Box 1203 Haines City, Florida 33845 Richard Tritschler, Esquire General Counsel 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
The Issue What is the amount owed by D. L. Scotto and Company, Inc., d/b/a Tuxedo Fruit Company, to Thomas E. Davis, Inc., for Valencia oranges purchased in January, April, and May 2013?
Findings Of Fact A "dealer in agricultural products" is defined as a person, partnership, corporation, or other business entity, "engaged within this state in the business of purchasing, receiving, or soliciting agricultural products from the producer . . . for resale or processing for sale " § 604.15(2), Fla. Stat. (2013).1/ Respondent is licensed as a dealer in agricultural products. Petitioner is a "producer" for purposes of sections through 604.34, Florida Statutes. See § 604.15(9), Fla. Stat. (defining "producer" as "any producer of agricultural products produced in the state"). Contract #077 On January 25, 2013, Petitioner and Respondent entered into citrus fruit contract #077 wherein Respondent, for the price of $9.50 per box, agreed to purchase 5,000 boxes of Valencia oranges from Petitioner's Cock Pen grove. Petitioner delivered, and Respondent accepted, 2,925 boxes of the promised oranges. To date, Respondent has only paid Petitioner for 1,962 ($9.50 x 1,962 = $18,639) boxes of oranges from the Cock Pen grove. Contract #078 On January 25, 2013, Petitioner and Respondent entered into a second citrus fruit contract (#078) wherein Respondent, for the price of $9.50 per box, agreed to purchase 4,500 boxes of Valencia oranges from Petitioner's Patrick grove. Petitioner delivered, and Respondent accepted, 2,988 boxes of the promised oranges. To date, Respondent has only paid Petitioner for 792 ($9.50 x 792 = $7,524) boxes of oranges from the Patrick grove. Contract #M012 On April 25, 2013, Petitioner and Respondent entered into a third citrus fruit contract (#M012) wherein Respondent, for the price of $11.00 per box, agreed to purchase 1,200 boxes of Valencia oranges from Petitioner's Johnson grove and 1,500 boxes of Valencia oranges from Petitioner's Allegato grove. Petitioner delivered, and Respondent accepted, 1,161 boxes of the promised oranges from the Johnson grove and 1,296 boxes of oranges from the Allegato grove. To date, Respondent has not paid Petitioner for the oranges received from the Johnson and Allegato groves. Contract #M013 On May 2, 2013, Petitioner and Respondent entered into a fourth citrus fruit contract (#M013) wherein Respondent, for the price of $11.00 per box, agreed to purchase 1,500 boxes of Valencia oranges from Petitioner's Tommy Ann grove. Petitioner delivered, and Respondent accepted, 1,674 boxes of the promised oranges from the Tommy Ann grove. To date, Respondent has not paid Petitioner for the oranges received from the Tommy Ann grove. Respondent's defense Each of the citrus fruit contracts at issue provides that the oranges "must be merchantable for fresh usage at the time of harvest and delivery." Respondent claims that significant quantities of the oranges that were received from Petitioner were not merchantable for fresh usage at the time of harvest and delivery. In reviewing the documentary evidence presented by both parties, it is evident that Petitioner's oranges were harvested and delivered to Respondent during the months of January through May 2013. From this period forward to the date of the final hearing held herein, Respondent never informed Petitioner that there was an issue with the merchantability of the oranges. Instead, whenever Petitioner contacted Respondent about the status of payment for the oranges, Respondent repeatedly assured Petitioner that payment was forthcoming. Respondent's testimony regarding the alleged compromised merchantability of the oranges that he received from Petitioner is not credible.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services enter a final order finding that D. L. Scotto and Company, Inc., d/b/a Tuxedo Fruit Company, is indebted to Thomas E. Davis, Inc., in the amount of $75,501.50 (includes filing fee) for the balance due for the oranges it purchased from Petitioner on January 25, April 25, and May 2, 2013. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of April, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINZIE F. BOGAN 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 17th day of April, 2014.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent, Citra-Life, Inc., LLC, is indebted to Petitioner for the purchase of citrus fruit; and, if so, in what amount.
Findings Of Fact The final hearing was convened, as duly noticed, on November 30, 2017, at 9:30 a.m. Neither party appeared at the final hearing. No evidence was presented by either party. Prior to the final hearing, neither party filed any correspondence or motions with DOAH requesting a continuance of, or objecting to, the hearing date.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services enter a final order dismissing Petitioner’s complaint against Citra-Life. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of December, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. BRUCE CULPEPPER 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 1st day of December, 2017.
The Issue Does the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (Department)'s proposed rule 5E-1.023 constitute an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority?
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings are made: On February 2, 1996, the Department published in the Florida Administrative Weekly, Volume 22, Number 5, the text of proposed rule to be known as Rule 5ER-1.023, which the Department indicated that it intended to adopt. The proposed rule reads: 5E-1.023 Fertilizer. Procedures for Landowners and Leaseholders to Submit the Notice of Intent to Comply with Nitrogen Best Management Practices (BMPs). Definitions "Interim Measures" means primarily horticultural practices consistent with the fertilizer recommendations published by the University of Florida or the Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University, or modified by the Department, to reflect public input. "Notice of Intent to Comply with BMPs" means a notice of intent to comply with nitrogen Interim Measures and/or BMPs, or to no longer apply fertilizers or other soil-applied nutritional materials containing nitrogen. Notice of Intent to Comply with Nitrogen BMPs and all document requests made of the department must be submitted to the Environmental Administrator, Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division of Agricultural Environmental Services, 3125 Conner Blvd., Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1650. Proof of providing Notice of Intent to the Department must be retained by the submitter. The Notice must contain the following information related to the implementation of the BMPs and Interim Measures: the name of the BMP or Interim Measures to be followed, the date of implementation, the name or other identification of the parcel or land unit upon which the practices will be implemented, the county(s) where said parcels are located, and the signature of the landowner(s) or leaseholder(s). The Department will consider requests to: (a) adopt Best Management Practices and Interim Measures as defined in this rule, other than those incorporated herein, in accordance with Section 576.045(3)(b), Florida Statutes; and, (b) modify adopted Best Management Practice and Interim Measures as defined in this rule based upon submission of adequate data in accordance with Section 576.045(3)(b), Florida Statutes. Approved Nitrogen BMPs Shadehouse Grown Leatherleaf Ferns. The BMP for Shadehouse grown leatherleaf ferns found in the University of Florida, Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences Bulletin 300 (published February 1995), Irrigation and Nutrient Management Practices for Commercial Leatherleaf Fern Production in Florida" is hereby adopted. Copies may be obtained from Central Florida Research and Education Center, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, 2807 Binion Road, Apoka, Florida 32707. The associated record keeping requirements specified in "Record- keeping For The Nitrogen Best Management Practices For Shadehouse Grown Leatherleaf Ferns" dated 12-01-95 is also adopted. Copies are available from the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division of Agricultural Environmental Services, 3125 Conner Blvd., Doyle Conner Building, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1650. (a) Approved Nitrogen Interim Measures. Citrus. [The approved "Nitrogen Interim Measure For Florida Citrus", dated 12-01-95], and the associated recordkeeping requirements dated 12-01-95 [are hereby adopted and incorporated by reference into this rule]. Copies may be obtained from the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division of Agricultural Environ- mental Services, 3125 Conner Blvd. Doyle Conner Building, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1650. The foregoing documents are incorporated by reference into this rule. [Emphasis added] Specific Authority 576.045 FS. Law Implemented 576.045. History - New Section 576.011(2), Florida Statutes, provides: (2) "Best-management practices" means practices or combinations of practices determined by research or field testing in representative sites to be the most effective and practicable methods of fertilization designed to meet nitrate groundwater quality standards, including economic and technological considerations. Because of the lack of research or field testing with citrus to determine the most practicable methods of fertilization of citrus in conjunction with nitrate groundwater quality standards, the Department is proposing the Nitrogen Interim Measure for Florida Citrus rather than Best-management practices for citrus. Interim Measures is not defined by statute. However, the Department has defined Interim Measure in proposed rule 5E-1.023. For 1, 2, and 3 year old citrus groves, the Approved Nitrogen Interim Measure For Florida Citrus (Nitrogen Interim Measure), dated 12-01-95, provides for maximum nitrogen (N) rates per calendar year to be determined by set amounts of N per tree. The range of annual N rates for groves four years old or older is set out in pounds per acre. For oranges the range is 120 - 240 pounds of N per acre per year. For grapefruit the range is 120 - 210 pounds N per acre per year. On February 21, 1996, Petitioners filed a Petition challenging the Department's proposed rule 5E-1.023 on the basis that the proposed rule was an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. More specifically, the Petitioners challenges the Nitrogen Interim Measure dated 12-01-95, and more particularly, that portion of the Nitrogen Interim Measure setting the range of annual N rates for grapefruit and oranges in groves four years old or older which Petitioners contend is arbitrary and capricious. GBS Groves, Inc. is a Florida corporation which owns a grapefruit grove in Polk County, Florida and such corporation is solely owned by James T. Griffiths and Anita N. Griffiths. Withers and Harshman, Inc. is a Florida corporation owning grapefruit groves in Polk County and Highlands County, Florida with its principal place of business located in Sebring, Highlands County, Florida. Petitioners would be substantially affected by the adoption of this proposed rule and thereby have standing to bring this action. The parties have stipulated that: on November 5, 1993, the Department gave notice in the Florida Administrative Weekly of its intent to adopt proposed rule 5E-1.023; and proposed rule 5E-1.023 implements Section 576.045(6), Florida Statutes, by: establishing procedures for landowners and leaseholders to submit notice of intent to comply with nitrogen best management practices (BMPs) and interim measures; (2) adopting a specific BMP for shadehouse grown fern; and (3) adopting an interim measure for citrus. Petitioners concede that their challenge to the proposed rule is based solely on Section 120.52(8)(e), Florida Statutes, in that the proposed rule is arbitrary and capricious. Prior to, and independent of, the Department's work on proposed rule 5E-1.023, the faculty of the University of Florida, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (IFAS), had begun work on revising IFAS's citrus fertilization guidelines. This revision eventually became SP 169, Nutrition of Florida Citrus Trees (SP 169), and supersedes the Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 536 series A through D, Recommended Fertilizers and Nutritional Sprays for Citrus (Bulletin 536), which had provided guidelines for Florida citrus fertilization since 1954. SP 169 is the official position of IFAS on the subject of nutritional requirements for citrus in Florida. Sometime around August 1994, Department met with and requested IFAS to provide the Department with a interim measure for citrus fertilization which could be adopted by the Department. The Department reviewed the first draft of the proposed interim measure for citrus fertilization prepared by IFAS and concluded that it would not be acceptable to the citrus industry because it was too detailed. Thereafter, the first draft was revised by IFAS and now appears as: 6. Fertilizer Guidelines, SP 169, pages 21 through 25. While IFAS's interim measure contains many recommendations, the recommendation most relevant to this proceeding is the recommended range of the annual rate of N for groves four years old or older. The recommended rates are expressed in pounds of N per acre per year. For oranges a range of 120 - 200 pounds of N per acre per year is recommended. For grapefruit a range of 120 - 160 pounds of N per acre per year is recommended. For other varieties a range of 120 - 200 pounds per acre per year is recommended. SP 169 also provides the criteria, including, but not limited to, soil load, varieties, leaf and soil analysis, fertilizer placement and application frequency and timing for determining a rate within the recommended range and to exceed the upper level of the range. Using these criteria a range of 120 - 180 pounds of N per acre per year for grapefruit can be supported and range of 120 - 240 pounds of N per acre per year for oranges can be supported. SP 169 also recommends that all available sources of N, including, but not limited to, organic sources and foliar applications, be included in the calculation of the annual N rate. Also recommended is that while the annual N rate may be exceeded in any given calendar year, the average annual rate over three years should not exceed the guidelines. Subsequent to receiving the proposed citrus interim measure from IFAS, the Department held a series of meetings and public workshops wherein growers and representatives from the fertilizer industry and grower organizations were given an opportunity to be heard and to make suggestions. In an effort to make the interim measure more flexible so as to gain industry acceptance, the Department compromised on several of the citrus fertilization guidelines set out in SP 169. The comprises were: (a) not to include any N from foliar application in the calculation of the annual N rate; (b) to include only fifty percent of the total N content of the source from all organic sources in the calculation of the annual rate of N; and (c) increase the recommended range of the annual rate of N for grapefruit and oranges to 120 - 210 pounds per acre and 120 - 240 pounds per acre, respectively, without considering the criteria set out in SP 169 for determining a rate within the recommended range or to exceed the upper limits of the range. In deciding not to include any N from foliar application in the calculation of the annual rate of N, the Department considered: (a) the fact that N from foliar application would be quickly absorbed through the leaf and reduce the likelihood of any N leaching into the ground water; (b) that the cost of foliar application of N would prevent the indiscriminate use of foliar application of N; and (c) that foliar application would give the grower wishing to obtain maximum yield a source of N not included in the calculation of the annual rate. However, the Department did not consider the additional cost of the N to the grower who heretofore had used sources of N other than foliar application for obtaining maximum yield. In making the decision to include only 50 percent of the content of the source of N from all organic sources the Department took into consideration the public policy of encouraging the use of municipal sludge and other similar products, and the fact that on an average only fifty percent of the content of the source of N would be an available source of N. Although IFAS disagreed with the Department on not counting all the N in organic sources, IFAS did agree that since it was not known how much of the N in organic sources was immediately available, the figure of 50 percent of the content of the source was as good a figure as any. Increasing the range of the annual rate of N per acre from 120 - 160 pounds to 120 - 180 pounds for grapefruit and from 120 - 200 pounds to 120 - 240 pounds for oranges came about as a result of a meeting on April 20, 1995, at Florida Citrus Mutual. Apparently, the justification for the increase was due to the recommendations contained in the Criteria for selecting a rate within the recommended rate set out in SP 169, Fertilizer Guidelines which provides: Crop load. Nitrogen requirements vary as crop load changes. Replacement of N lost by crop removal is the largest requirement for N. Groves producing low to average crops do no require high fertilizer rates. Higher rates may be considered for very productive groves. Rates for oranges up to 240 lb per acre may be considered for groves producing over 700 boxes per acre. However, rates above 200 lb per acre should be used only if there is a demonstrated need based on leaf analysis, and if optimal fertilizer placement, timing, and irrigation scheduling are employed. For grapefruit producing over 800 boxes per acre, 180 lb N may be considered. The increase in the range of the annual rate per acre of N from 120 - 180 pounds to 120 - 210 pounds for grapefruit came about as result of Dr. Koo's concern over a potassium deficiency. Most fertilizers are formulated on a 1 to 1 ratio of N and potassium, and the application of only 180 pounds of potassium could result in a potassium deficiency. The Department did not consider if citrus trees could absorb N and potassium in a ratio other than a 1 to 1 which would have allowed the proper application of potassium without increasing the annual N rate. The following language appears in SP 169, Fertilizer Guidelines, 6.2 Bearing Trees: Rates of 0.4 lb N per box for oranges land lb N per box for grapefruit were recommended previously. With good manage- ment, oranges frequently exceed 600 boxes per acre and grapefruit production is commonly above 800 boxes per acre. Use of lb N per box in groves producing over 500 boxes per acre results in application of over 200 lb N per acre. The advantage of rates above 200 lb has not been demonstrated. Economic benefits are quest- ionable, and the potential for groundwater contamination increases. A significant yield response to rates above 200 lb N per acre appears unlikely, and other management practices should be first evaluated if grove performance at 200 lb N per acre is not satisfactory. Experts, both growers and researchers, testifying for Petitioners and previous IFAS Research Bulletins on citrus fertilization, disagree with the statements: (a) that the advantage of annual rates of N above 200 pounds per acre has not been demonstrated; (b) that economic benefits of annual rates of N above 200 pounds per acre are questionable; and (c) that a significant yield response to annual rates of N above 200 pounds per acre appears unlikely. This language also appears to be in conflict the language quoted above dealing with the criteria, "Crop load". Petitioners' experts and previous IFAS Research Bulletins disagree with the conclusion that there is a basis for a higher annual rate of N per acre for oranges over grapefruit. On November 14, 1995, the Department presented the citrus Interim Measure which recommended a range of 120 - 210 pounds N per acre annual rate for grapefruit and a range of 120 - 240 pounds N per acre annual rate for oranges to the Fertilizer Technical Council. After hearing testimony on the merits of the citrus Interim Measure, the Fertilizer Technical Council voted to recommend changing the citrus Interim Measure to provide that oranges and grapefruit be treated the same with a range of annual N rate per acre of 120 - 240 pounds for both. The Commissioner of Agriculture did not accept the recommendation from the Fertilizer Technical Council. In addition to the Fertilizer Technical Council, a large segment of the citrus industry, including, but not limited to, growers and grower organizations, expressed their approval of using the same range of annual rates of 120 - 240 pounds of N per acre for both oranges and grapefruit. However, the Department had already compromised by increasing the maximum annual rate of nitrogen per acre for grapefruit by 30 pounds above the maximum annual rate suggested by IFAS in SP 169, while leaving the maximum annual rate of nitrogen per acre for oranges at 240 pounds, the maximum rate suggested by IFAS in SP 169.
The Issue Whether Respondent, Citrus Direct, LLC, owes Petitioner, Marvin Hajos, the sum of $5,397.00 for citrus that was purchased, but not harvested.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to the instant case, Petitioner and Citrus Direct were involved in the growing and marketing of citrus fruit in the State of Florida. On June 12, 2008, Citrus Direct agreed to purchase fruit from Petitioner. The terms of their agreement were reduced to writing. The "Fresh Fruit Contract" provided that Citrus Direct would purchase from Petitioner all of the varieties of citrus fruits of merchantable quality as delineated in the contract. More specifically, Citrus Direct was entitled to purchase "Valencia" oranges from Petitioner for "$3.00 on tree net" per box. The terms of the contract suggests that it is for "citrus fruit for the year 2005/2006 and merchantable at the time of picking. . . ." The contract does not identify a total amount of fruit expected from the grove. Prior to entering into the above-referenced contract, Petitioner had made arrangements with an unidentified third party to have the grove picked, but for some reason, that agreement fell through. Jason Cooper, known in the citrus business as a "bird dog," brought the parties together. Mr. Cooper is an independent contractor who finds grove owners who need to have their groves picked and refers them to buyers. The "Fresh Fruit Contract" was signed on June 12, 2008. The grove was picked on June 15, 17, 26 and 30, 2008. Two hundred and sixty-four boxes of fruit were picked from Petitioner's grove. Petitioner received payment of $603.00. Citrus Direct forwarded an additional check for $189.00 to Petitioner; however, Petitioner did not receive the check. No admissible evidence was received regarding the number of boxes of fruit that were anticipated from the grove. However, on June 30, 2008, all the fruit that was reasonably available to be picked in the grove had been picked.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Department Agriculture and Consumer Services enter a final order dismissing Petitioner, Marvin Hajos', Amended Complaint, but requiring Respondent, Citrus Direct, LLC, to pay Petitioner $189.00, if that amount has not already been paid. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of April, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JEFF B. CLARK 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 27th day of April, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Charles H. Bronson Commissioner of Agriculture Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Richard D. Tritschler, General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 407 South Calhoun Street, Suite 520 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Christopher E. Green, Esquire Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Office of Citrus License and Bond Mayo Building, Mail Station 38 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Marvin Hajos 3510 Northwest 94th Avenue Hollywood, Florida 33024 State Farm Fire and Casualty Company One State Farm Plaza Bloomington, Illinois Hans Katros Citrus Direct, LLC 61710 1406 Palm Drive Winter Haven, Florida 33884
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Deerfield Groves Company (Deerfield), is a licensed citrus fruit dealer under Chapter 601, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 20-34, Florida Administrative Code. As a licensee, Deerfield is subject to administrative and criminal prosecution for violation of the statutes and rules governing licensed citrus fruit dealers and was under administrative prosecution for alleged violations of Section 601.33, Florida Statutes, and Rule 20-34.11, Florida Administrative Code, at the time of the final hearing. Deerfield has legal standing as a party petitioner in this case. Respondent, Department Of Citrus (DOC), promulgated Rule 20-34.11, Florida Administrative Code, under the authority of Section 601.10, Florida Statutes. Rule 20-34.11 is designed to implement Section 601.33, Florida Statutes. Respondent, Department Of Agriculture And Consumer Services, (DACS), is the agency charged with the duty to enforce Section 601.33, Florida Statutes, and Rule 20- 34.11, Florida Administrative Code. Personnel of DACS' Division Of Fruit And Vegetable Inspection also are responsible for testing fresh citrus for maturity under Chapter 20-34, Florida Administrative Code. Licensees such as Deerfield furnish a testing room for DACS inspectors to perform maturity tests and certify fresh citrus, as required for marketing fresh fruit. DACS leases an extractor, used for squeezing juice from fruit samples, and subleases the extractor to the licensee. Under the sublease, the extractor is kept in the testing room for use by DACS inspectors and, when not being used by DACS inspectors, for use by the licensee in performing its own tests. Typically, the licensee furnishes the testing room with a table for two and a chair or two. When DACS inspectors perform maturity tests at the beginning of the early harvest, they bring most of the things they need for testing. The licensee provides the bins in which the fruit samples are carried into the testing room. The inspectors bring either a DACS slicing knife or their own. The licensee provides buckets it owns for use by the inspector during the test to collect juice extracted from fruit samples. The DACS inspectors also bring: a sizer to measure the fruit samples; a 2000 c.c. graduated cylinder to measure juice quantities; a 500 c.c. graduated cylinder to hold juice being tested for solids content and for temperature; aluminum pans to hold the graduated cylinders; a combination hydrometer for measuring juice solids content and temperature; a 25 m.1. pipet for transferring a measured amount of juice into a flask; the flask; a bottle of phenothaline with eyedropper top used for adding measured amounts of phenothaline to the flask of measured juice; a bottle of alkaline solution; and a burette for adding a measured amount of the alkaline solution to the flask of measured juice. During the harvest season, DACS leaves its equipment, instruments and solutions referred to in the preceding paragraph in the testing room. They are kept separate from the licensee's property and are not supposed to be used by the licensee. However, DACS allows the licensee to use its own bins and buckets and the extractor to conduct its own tests in the testing room when DACS inspectors are not using it. 1/ Some DACS inspectors request or allow licensees to assist during testing or to handle the fruit samples. 2/ Some allow licensees to attempt to influence the inspector's judgment by questioning the validity of the test or the accuracy of the inspector's observations or by comparing the inspector's results with the results of its own tests. Sometimes, this results in correction of an error the inspector otherwise would have made. It was not proved, however that there is an agency policy of requesting or allowing licensees to conduct themselves in those ways during testing. DACS has a policy to allow only one licensee representative in the testing room with the DACS inspector during testing. Violation of this policy is viewed as a violation of Section 601.33, Florida Statutes (1983). However, not all DACS inspectors strictly enforce this policy. Some allow more than one licensee representative in the testing room.
The Issue Whether Respondent, C & J Fruit and Melons, Inc. (C & J Fruit), a citrus fruit dealer and registered packer, owes Petitioner, John Stephens, Inc., a citrus dealer, a sum of money for grapefruit and oranges sold and delivered to C & J Fruit's citrus fruit-packing house for processing.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, John Stephens, Inc., is a Florida-licensed citrus fruit dealer operating within the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services' regulatory jurisdiction. Respondent, C & J Fruit & Melons, Inc., was a Florida- licensed citrus fruit dealer and operated a registered packing house in Frostproof, Florida, during the 2001-2002 citrus shipping season. Respondent, Auto Owners Insurance, was the surety for C & J Fruit's citrus fruit dealer's license in the amount of $14,000.00, for the 2001-2002 season. At the beginning of the 2001-2002 season, Petitioner and C & J Fruit entered into a verbal contract under which Petitioner agreed to contract with various grove owners and grove harvesters in the Polk County, Florida, area. The understanding was that Petitioner would obtain various varieties of grapefruit, oranges, and tangerines from the growers and harvesters and deliver the fruit to C & J Fruit's packing house. Petitioner was responsible for payment to the grove owners and harvesters. C & J Fruit would process the fruit, supply the citrus fruit to retail and wholesale suppliers, and account and pay for the fruit received from Petitioner. Petitioner and C & J Fruit had conducted business in this fashion for many years prior to this season. On October 23, 2001, C & J Fruit sought protection from creditors under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division, Case No. 01-19821-8W1. Following the filing of bankruptcy, no other supplier would provide C & J Fruit with citrus fruit. With Petitioner's consent, C & J Fruit filed an emergency motion to authorize a secured interest to Petitioner, if it would continue to supply C & J Fruit's packing house with fruit. The bankruptcy court granted the motion, and in November 2001, Petitioner began supplying C & J Fruit's packing house with fresh citrus fruit. The preponderance of evidence proves that Petitioner delivered to C & J Fruit's packing house during November 2001 pursuant to the contract: 540 boxes of grapefruit at $3.00 per box for a total of $1,620.00; 3,044 boxes of oranges at $4.00 per box for a total of $12,176.00; 330 boxes of tangerines at $3.50 per box for a total of $1,155.00; and 1,953 boxes of navel oranges at $2.00 per box for a total of $3,906.00. C & J Fruit was billed for this amount. Accordingly, C & J Fruit was obligated to pay Petitioner the total sum of $18,857.00 for the fruit. When payment was not received in a timely matter, shipment of citrus fruit to the packing house was discontinued. Petitioner performed all of its duties under the contract, and C & J Fruit failed to pay or account for the citrus fruit delivered to its packing house under the terms of the contract. C & J Fruit is, therefore, indebted to Petitioner in the amount of $18,857.00
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered requiring Respondent, C & J Fruit and Melons, Inc., to pay to Petitioner, John Stephens, Inc., the sum of $18,857.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of December, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 29th day of December, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Brenda D. Hyatt, Bureau Chief Bureau of License and Bond Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 407 South Calhoun Street, Mail Station 38 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Honorable Charles H. Bronson Commissioner of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Richard D. Tritschler, General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Clemon Browne, President C & J Fruit & Melons, Inc. Post Office Box 130 Lake Hamilton, Florida 33851-0130 John A. Stephens John Stephens, Inc. Post Office Box 1098 Fort Meade, Florida 33841 Jason Lowe, Esquire GrayRobinson, P.A. Post Office Box 3 Lakeland, Florida 33802
