The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding is the amount of attorney’s fees to be paid by Respondent, Agency for Persons with Disabilities (“APD” or the “Agency”), to the Petitioners, G.B., Z.L., through his guardian K.L., J.H., and M.R.
Conclusions This matter is related to the promulgation of proposed rules 65G-4.0210 through 65G-4.027 (the “Proposed Rules”) by the Agency in May 2013 in its effort to follow the mandate issued by the Florida Legislature concerning the iBudget statute, section 393.0662, Florida Statute (2010). Petitioners challenged the Proposed Rules in DOAH Case No. 13-1849RP. The Proposed Rules were upheld by the Administrative Law Judge, but Petitioners appealed the Final Order to the First District Court of Appeal (the “Court”). The Court’s decision was rendered July 21, 2014. G.B. v. Ag. for Pers. with Disab., 143 So. 3d 454 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014). The Fee Order was entered by the Court on the same date. The Fee Order had been entered upon the filing of a motion for appellate attorney’s fees filed with the Court by Appellants/Petitioners. The motion set forth three bases for an award of fees, to wit: Section 120.595(2), Florida Statutes, which provides: Challenges to Proposed Agency Rules Pursuant to Section 120.56(2).– If the appellate court or the administrative law judge declares a proposed rule or portion of a proposed rule invalid pursuant to s. 120.56(2), a judgment or order shall be rendered against the agency for reasonable costs and reasonable attorney’s fees, unless the agency demonstrates that its actions were substantially justified or special circumstances exist which would make the award unjust. An agency’s actions are “substantially justified” if there was a reasonable basis in law and fact at the time the actions were taken by the agency. If the agency prevails in the proceedings, the appellate court or administrative law judge shall award reasonable costs and reasonable attorney’s fees against a party if the appellate court or administrative law judge determines that a party participated in the proceedings for an improper purpose as defined by paragraph (1)(e). No award of attorney’s fees as provided by this subsection shall exceed $50,000. Section 120.595(5), Florida Statutes, which provides: Appeals.– When there is an appeal, the court in its discretion may award reasonable attorney’s fees and reasonable costs to the prevailing party if the court finds that the appeal was frivolous, meritless, or an abuse of the appellate process, or that the agency action which precipitated the appeal was a gross abuse of the agency’s discretion. Upon review of the agency action that precipitates an appeal, if the court finds that the agency improperly rejected or modified findings of fact in a recommended order, the court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees and reasonable costs to a prevailing appellant for the administrative proceeding and the appellate proceeding. Section 120.569(2)(e), Florida Statutes, which provides: All pleadings, motions, or other papers filed in the proceeding must be signed by the party, the party’s attorney, or the party’s qualified representative. The signature constitutes a certificate that the person has read the pleading, motion, or other paper and that, based upon reasonable inquiry, it is not interposed for any improper purposes, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay, or for frivolous purpose or needless increase in the cost of litigation. If a pleading, motion or other paper is signed in violation of these requirements, the presiding officer shall impose upon the person who signed it, the represented party, or both, an appropriate sanction, which may include an order to pay the other party or parties the amount of reasonable expense incurred because of the filing of the pleading, motion, or other paper, including a reasonable attorney’s fee. The Court did not specifically address which of Petitioners’ stated bases for award of attorney’s fees was being relied upon when granting Petitioners’ motion. Petitioners assert that it must therefore be presumed that the Court granted the request for fees on the basis of all three of Petitioners’ bases. There is no other support for that presumption, as the Fee Order is silent on the issue. It could equally be presumed that only one of the bases was relied upon by the Court. Thus, a determination of the appropriate basis for fees is critical in the determination of the amount of fees to be awarded, as will be set forth more particularly below. The Fee Order establishes only that attorney’s fees are awarded, with leave for the parties to determine the appropriate amount or, failing to do so, obtain direction from an Administrative Law Judge on the matter. There is no issue as to whether Petitioners are entitled to fees or costs, only the amount to be awarded. DOAH has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of this proceeding under the August 6, 2014, Mandate of the First DCA, and under section 120.595(2). Although it is herein determined that section 120.595(2) is the appropriate provision to be considered for fees in this case, each of the other statutory sections argued in Petitioners’ motion for fees will be addressed nonetheless. Section 120.595(5) If section 120.595(5) is to be the basis for fees, it must be shown that Respondent is guilty of a “gross abuse” of its discretion. “Gross abuse” is not defined in statute. As stated by the Court in Allstate Floridian Insurance Co. v. Ronco Inventions, LLC, 890 So. 2d 300, 302 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004), “The troublesome nature of our review here is the admittedly high ‘gross abuse of discretion’ standard. . . . However, we have no definition of what a ‘gross’ abuse of discretion includes or how it differs from an abuse of discretion. We can only assume that it is more egregious than a typical abuse of discretion.” The Court cited Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980), in which the Supreme Court iterated that if reasonable men could differ on an issue, there was no abuse of discretion to act one way or the other. Other courts, looking at the issue of “abuse of discretion” in administrative matters, have struggled with a definitive description or definition. In Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc., et al. v. Volpe, Secretary of Transportation, 401 U.S. 402; 91 S. Ct. 814; 23 L. Ed. 2d 136 (1971), the Court was trying to determine whether the Transportation Secretary had acted within his discretion. The Court decided it “must consider whether the decision was based on clear error or judgment. [citations omitted] Although this inquiry into the facts is to be searching and careful, the ultimate standard of review is a narrow one. The Court is not empowered to substitute its judgment for that of the agency.” Id., at 416. And, as found by another Court, whether an act is arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion is “far from being entirely discrete as a matter of the ordinary meaning of language. . . . Rather than denoting a fixed template to be imposed mechanically on every case within their ambit, these words summon forth what may best be described as an attitude of mind in the reviewing court one that is ‘searching and careful’ . . . yet, in the last analysis, diffident and deferential.” Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., et al. v. Sec. and Exch. Comm'n, et al., 606 F.2d 1031, 1034, U.S. App. DC (1979). In Ft. Myers Real Estate Holdings, LLC, v. Department of Business and Professional Regulation, 53 So. 3d 1158 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011), the Court awarded fees under section 120.595(5). In that case, the agency denied party status to the applicant for services. The Court said, “The position taken by the Division in the dismissal order, and maintained in this appeal, is so contrary to the fundamental principles of administrative law that, by separate order, we have granted Appellant’s motion for attorney’s fees under section 120.595(5), Florida Statutes.” The Court did not, however, define gross abuse of discretion any more specifically than that. Likewise, in Salam v. Board of Professional Engineers, 946 So. 2d 48 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006), the Court found that an agency’s intentional delay on acting upon a petition for formal administrative hearing warranted fees under the statute. The Salam Court did not further define gross abuse of discretion; it merely found that such abuse existed under the circumstances of the case. Gross abuse of discretion must, by definition, be more difficult to ascertain than simple abuse of discretion. Gross abuse implies that the Agency first believed its intended action was improper, yet engaged in the action despite that knowledge. That is, that the Agency acted intentionally to do something it knew to be wrong. Proof of such intent would be extremely difficult.1/ One need only look at the plain language of the Court’s opinion in the rule challenge appeal at issue here to see that there was no gross abuse of discretion. The Court ultimately held that although the Agency’s rules “directly conflict with and contravene the Legislature’s clear language” concerning development of an algorithm to assist with the distribution of funds to needy Floridians, “[W]e recognize the difficulty in adhering to the Legislature’s command to create an algorithm solely capable of determining each client’s level of need. Further, we accept that [Respondent] is attempting to find a reasonable way to administer funds to the tens-of-thousands of people in need that it assists.” G.B. et al., supra, 143 So. 3d 454, 458. Nothing in that language suggests that the Agency knew its proposed rule was improper or that it was doing anything intentionally wrong. Rather, the language of the Court’s decision indicates that Respondent was certainly attempting to exercise its discretion properly in the adoption of the Proposed Rules. Despite the Agency’s attempts to justify the rules both at final hearing and on appeal, the Court found that the Proposed Rules did not comport with the specific authorizing statute. That failure did not, ipso facto, establish that there was a gross abuse of the Agency’s discretion. Besides, upon hearing all the testimony and reviewing the evidence, the undersigned initially upheld the Proposed Rule; that, in and of itself, is some indication that the Agency’s efforts were legitimate. Thus, in the present matter, there is no rational basis for finding that gross abuse of discretion was involved in the Court’s award of attorney’s fees. Section 120.569(2)(e) As for section 120.569(2)(e), there is no evidence to support Petitioners’ contention that the proposed rule addressed in the rule challenge proceeding (DOAH Case No. 13-1849RP) was interposed for any improper purpose. The appellate court said, “[W]e accept that APD is attempting to find a reasonable way to administer funds to the tens-of-thousands of people in need that it assists.” Id. Clearly, the Agency did not act for an improper purpose; its best efforts to follow the Legislative mandate for an iBudget simply fell short. The Proposed Rules contravened certain specific requirements of the governing statute. In order to find a way to meet its mandate, the Agency made a Herculean effort, yet failed. Although Petitioners argue that an “improper purpose” was implied by the Court in the Fee Order, there is no substantive support for that position. Not only was APD’s attempt to find a “reasonable way” to discharge its responsibility found wanting by the Court, experts in the field who testified at the underlying hearing disagreed as well. There was no dispute about the intended purpose of the Proposed Rules, only as to how that intent was to be effectuated. There was never any dispute as to the Proposed Rules’ intended purpose; they were meant to find a way to serve the tens-of-thousands of people in need. There is nothing in any of the Agency’s actions in this case that would be even arguably described as “interposed for any improper purposes, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay, or for frivolous purpose or needless increase in the cost of litigation.” This attorney’s fee section does not apply to the facts of this case. Section 120.595(2) Finally, in section 120.595(2), the Legislature has declared that if an appellate court or administrative law judge declares all or part of a proposed rule invalid, an order will be entered awarding reasonable attorney’s fees and costs (unless the agency demonstrated that its actions were substantially justified). The Court ultimately concluded that the proposed rules “directly conflict with and contravene the Legislature’s clear language.” That being the case, the Court seems to be finding that the Agency’s actions--promulgating the Proposed Rules--was not substantially justified, even if the Court did recognize the difficulty faced by APD in its efforts to comply with the statutes at issue. By process of elimination, section 120.595(2) is the basis for the Court’s award of attorney’s fees in the present case. That being so, the award is capped at $50,000. The Agency has conceded that Petitioners are entitled to at least $50,000 in fees, as well as costs in the amount of $41,609.65. There remains the issue of whether each of the four Petitioners is entitled to an award of the maximum fee. In their (singular) Petition for Administrative Determination of the Invalidity of Proposed Rules, the parties sought the following relief: That a Final Order be entered finding the Proposed Rules to be an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority; and That Petitioners be awarded their reasonable attorney’s fees; and Such other relief as the Administrative Law Judge deems appropriate. That is, the relief sought by each of the Petitioners was the same: invalidation of the proposed rules. It cannot be argued that each Petitioner in his or her own right was seeking individual redress or damages. Collectively, they wanted the proposed rules invalidated so that they could return to the status quo concerning their benefits from the State. In fact, only one of the four Petitioners presented testimony at the underlying administrative hearing as to the impact of the Proposed Rules. There was no issue as to each Petitioner’s standing in the underlying administrative hearing. As stated by the Agency in its Proposed Final Order in that case: “Petitioners are each recipients of Medicaid Services under the DD waiver program and have been or will be transitioned to the iBudget system. Stip., pp. 23-24. Thus, Petitioners have standing to challenge the substance of the Proposed Rules.” Petitioners contend that each of the 25,000-plus recipients of benefits from the Agency could have filed petitions challenging the Proposed Rule. That is true. But in the rule challenge proceeding there were four petitioners (ostensibly representing those other 25,000), each seeking the same relief, i.e., invalidation of the proposed rules. And only one of those, K.L., testified at final hearing in the underlying rule challenge proceeding. Thus, there is no justification for an award of fees to each of the Petitioners under section 120.595(2). In light of the findings and conclusions above, and based upon the Order as stated below, the issue of contingency multipliers is not relevant to the discussion of fees herein. As a general rule in Florida, fees and costs incurred in litigating entitlement to attorney’s fees are collectible although time spent litigating the amount of the award is not compensable. See, e.g., State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Parma, 629 So. 2d 830, 833 (1993). § 92.931, Fla. Stat.; Stokus v. Phillips, 651 So. 2d 1244 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). Inasmuch as the Agency does not dispute entitlement to attorney’s fees, no fees for the fee case are warranted. The amount of fees sought in this administrative rule challenge by the Petitioners is, as set forth in their Proposed Final Order: $255,614.39 for the DOAH rule challenge proceeding; $154,662.35 for the appeal but also applied a contingent multiplier for a total of $309,324.70; $62,850.00 for the fee case but also applied a contingent multiplier for a total of $94,275.00; and $41,609.65 in taxable costs, for a total of approximately $660,000.00. While the amount of fees and costs allowed under the appropriate statute is well less than what Petitioners sought, it has been deemed legally sufficient by statute.
The Issue Whether the Petitioners are entitled to an award of attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to Sections 120.569(2)(e) and 120.595(1), Florida Statutes, and, if so, in what amounts.
Findings Of Fact On October 3, 2001, AHCA served three Administrative Complaints on HHCI, apparently intending to revoke HHCI's licenses to operate nursing homes on the basis of a retroactive application of Section 400.121(3)(d), Florida Statutes (2001). The statute states in pertinent part: (3) The agency shall revoke or deny a nursing home license if the licensee or controlling interest operates a facility in this state that: * * * (d) Is cited for two class I deficiencies arising from separate surveys or investigations within a 30-month period. HHCI filed petitions challenging AHCA's allegations in the Administrative Complaints. On October 12, 2001, HHCI filed a challenge to the non- rule policy of retroactive application (DOAH Case No. 01-3935RU) and a hearing was scheduled for October 23, 2001. The Petitions in the Administrative Complaint cases were forwarded by AHCA to DOAH on October 19, 2001, and were consolidated under DOAH Case No. 01-4124. The Final Order in Case No. 01-3935 RU, declaring AHCA's policy of retroactive application invalid, was issued on October 31, 2001. HHCI filed a Motion for Award of Attorney's fees in DOAH Case No. 01-4124 on November 2, 2001. That motion forms the basis for the instant case. At the time the Administrative Complaints were filed, the three HHCI facilities held standard licenses and were apparently operating in compliance with applicable law, with no unresolved survey violations pending. The day after the Administrative Complaints were served, AHCA issued a press release and scheduled a telephonic "media call-in" to reply to questions from interested press representatives. The result of the media attention was to cause great concern to both HHCI and the residents of their facilities as to the proposed closure of the facilities. AHCA distributed a letter to residents indicating that unless HHCI challenged the action, the facility would be closed in approximately 60 days. The AHCA letter advised residents that if HHCI challenged the proposed action, the proposed action "may be delayed." The AHCA letter did not indicate that any resolution of the dispute other than facility closure was possible. The result of the attention and statements by AHCA's representative was to cause great concern among residents and their families as to what living arrangements would be available for residents of the facilities. AHCA also placed monitors in each facility to discuss the pending action with residents and their families, as well as to observe the facility operations. There is no evidence that the placement of monitors in the facilities offered any level of comfort to residents or families. The monitors also apparently began citing the facilities for alleged additional violations of various regulations. In response, HHCI officials immediately sought legal counsel to address the situation. Counsel at the Washington, D.C., law firm, Proskauer Rose, became involved in representing HHCI. HHCI also retained Counsel in the Tallahassee office of the Broad and Cassel law firm, with whom it had no prior relationship. HHCI directed its legal team to review all possible options to resolving the matter expeditiously. Counsel considered both federal and state court action and filed a request for injunction in state court. HHCI also attempted to resolve the matter informally. On October 8, 2001, HHCI obtained an opinion from the Joint Administrative Procedures Committee (JAPC), a standing committee of the Florida Legislature, which concluded that "a strong legal argument" could be made that the retroactive application of the statute was improper. There is no evidence that AHCA considered the JAPC opinion. In any event, because informal attempts to resolve the matter were unsuccessful, HHCI legal counsel began an intensive effort to defend the company against the AHCA action. The Final Order in Case No. 01-3935RU held that there was an absence of legal authority to apply the new law retroactively. There was no appeal of the Final Order. After the Final Order was issued, AHCA abandoned the Administrative Complaints that sought to revoke HHCI's licenses and close the facilities. In this proceeding, HHCI seeks fees it incurred for the Broad and Cassel and the Proskauer Rose law firms and for presentation of the testimony of Al Clark at the fee hearing. HHCI presented nine invoices from Broad and Cassel that were admitted as HHCI Exhibit 1. The invoices submitted in this case do not duplicate time that was invoiced as part of the rule challenge-related fee case. Invoice #469914 dated November 1, 2001, is for a total of $23,835.87, including fees of $23,565 and costs of $270.87. The majority of the work in these cases was performed in October. The invoice indicates time spent considering several theories of defense to the complaints. Invoice #474211 dated December 1, 2001, is for a total of $2,282.02, including fees of $1,981.50 and costs of $300.52. Invoice #479185 dated January 2, 2002, is for a total of $257.59, including fees of $245 and costs of $12.59. Invoice #491866 dated February 9, 2002, is for a total of $5,463.05, including fees of $5,116.50 and costs of $346.55. Invoice #496833 dated April 3, 2002, is for a total of $161.74, including fees of $147 and costs of $14.74. Invoice #505207 dated June 7, 2002, is for a total of $738.68, including fees of $735 and costs of $3.68. Invoice #507485 dated July 2, 2002, is for a total of $296.17, including fees of $294 and costs of $2.17. Invoice #515997 dated October 2, 2002, is for a total of $1,625.93, including fees of $1586 and costs of $39.93. Invoice #516952 dated October 16, 2002, is for a total of $2,903.35, including fees of $2878 and costs of $25.35. HHCI presented the testimony of Al Clark, who was accepted as an expert on the issue of attorney fees. Mr. Clark testified as to the reasonableness of the fees and costs charged to HHCI by the Broad and Cassel law firm. Mr. Clark's testimony was not contradicted and is credited. The time and labor expended by employees of the Broad and Cassel law firm were reasonable in light of the legal issues presented by the administrative actions proposed by AHCA. The presumed goal of AHCA's action was to revoke the licensure of HHCI's three nursing homes. Broad and Cassel provided the substantial skill and expertise required to supply the necessary legal services. Broad and Cassel billed HHCI at an hourly rate. The hourly rates charged by Broad and Cassel personnel are reasonable. The rates ranged from $245 per hour for lead counsel to $90 per hour for support counsel. There was no prior business relationship between Broad and Cassel and HHCI. Broad and Cassel counsel has significant experience and skill in health care law and provided their services efficiently throughout the dispute. Because the proposed sanction was severe, and because the agency publicized its legal action, HHCI required an immediate legal response resulting in an intense initial amount of work by Broad and Cassel. Broad and Cassel personnel represented HHCI legal interests throughout the administrative proceedings and prevailed in defending against the proposed administrative action. Subsequent to the hearing, HHCI submitted Mr. Clark's invoice for $1,012.50. Mr. Clark's invoice reflects a reasonable effort expended in addressing the costs and fees at issue in this case. At the hearing, Mr. Clark further testified that an amount up to $10,000 would be possible for the resolution of this fee case. At this time, none of this expense has been incurred and is not properly awarded. Based on the foregoing, HHCI has satisfied the factors set forth in Florida Bar Rule 4-1.5(b) related to awards of fees and costs in this case, and is entitled to an award of fees and costs for the Broad and Cassel billing and for Al Clark's invoice. Mr. Clark was not asked for, and did not offer, an opinion about the reasonableness of the Proskauer Rose fees. There is no credible evidence supporting an award of fees for work performed by the Proskauer Rose firm. Based on the testimony presented during the hearing, the evidence fails to establish that the charges by the Proskauer Rose firm as set forth on the exhibit are reasonable. Billing records admitted into evidence as HHCI Exhibit 3 contain references to regulatory matters not directly at issue in the proceedings giving rise to this request for fees. Such additional matters include nursing home surveys performed in October 2001, preparations for informal dispute resolution (IDR) meeting related to survey issues, and regulatory matters occurring in other states. The IDR preparations, although apparently prompted by alleged problems identified by the monitors, were not at issue in the Administrative Complaints that form the basis for this fee request. Although HHCI asserts that an Administrative Law Judge, hearing the Administrative Complaints seeking license revocation, could have considered the alleged problems, such allegations would have required amendment of the pending Administrative Complaints. More likely, the allegations would have been the subject of new Administrative Complaints that would have been litigated separately, and, as such, costs related to IDR preparation are not properly awarded in the instant case. Further, the Proskauer Rose invoices indicate that hours billed on one invoice in "File #84028.0014" for October 12 (description beginning with "review faxed 256") and October 22 (description beginning with "Meeting with S. Davis and C. Schessler re preparation for IDR") were also billed on another invoice in "File #84028.0015." Duplicate billings would not support an award of attorney fees. AHCA'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT On April 9, 2002, HHCI, a foreign limited partnership operating in the State of Florida, canceled the registration of HHCI Limited Partnership with the Florida Department of State. HHCI Limited Partnership continues to operate in other states and is registered in Massachusetts.
The Issue The issue for disposition is whether Mary McCarty, Respondent in a complaint to the Florida Commissions on Ethics, is entitled to costs and reasonable attorney's fees from the complainant, Leslie F. McDermott, pursuant to Section 112.317(8), F.S.
Findings Of Fact Mary McCarty has resided in Delray Beach, Florida for approximately twenty years. She is politically active as a Republican; she served as a Delray Beach city commissioner from 1987 until 1990, and now currently serves as chairperson of the Palm Beach County Commission. William (Bill) Andrews, also a Republican, was elected to the Delray Beach City Commission approximately one year after Ms. McCarty. The two worked together on certain issues, including an issue regarding the firing of the city manager, and more often than not, they voted on the same side. Leslie F. McDermott lives in Lake Worth, Palm Beach County, Florida. He has never resided in Delray Beach. He is employed as an engineer for a computer company and is well known and respected in the community as an active member of the NAACP. He served as president of the south county branch of the NAACP for seven or eight years until recently, and now serves on the executive board of that local branch. Jeanette (Jay) Slavin is a "grass roots" political activist in the south county area. As a Democrat she has been very involved in political campaigns and has openly supported candidates and issues in heated opposition to Mary McCarty. Malcolm Byrd, a Republican, served on the Delray Beach City Commission from 1979 until 1987, and was city manager from 1989-90. At first he supported Mary McCarty, but as city manager he had differing views of how the city should proceed and how the city manager should function. In early 1990, Malcolm Byrd learned that Bill Andrews had attended a Republican fund-raiser in Orlando, with transportation by chartered jet and limousine provided by a third party. Bill Andrews openly discussed the trip and how lavish it was. Andrews displayed a photograph of himself at the event with President Reagan or other noted Republicans. Malcolm Byrd became aware that Andrews had not reported that trip on his financial disclosure form, and shared that information with Jay Slavin. There was also some talk that Mary McCarty had attended the fund-raiser, as Andrews referred to "we" when discussing the trip. Mary McCarty's financial disclosure form for 1990 did not reflect the alleged gifts related to the trip. Jay Slavin had lunch with Leslie McDermott and urged him to file ethics complaints against both Andrews and McCarty. Ms. Slavin had obtained the requisite forms from the commission. She felt that Leslie McDermott's complaint would have more credibility as she, Slavin, was known to be politically opposed to Andrews and McCarty. Leslie McDermott was reluctant at first to file the complaint against McCarty, as the only basis that Jay Slavin gave him was that Bill Andrews said "we" went on the trip, and everyone knew that Mary McCarty frequently attended fund-raisers and political events. Leslie McDermott drafted the complaint based on information from Jay Slavin, and Ms. Slavin typed it for his signature, as he has a visual handicap. Before sending the complaint, McDermott spoke with Malcolm Byrd, who told him that he did not have the evidence on McCarty that he had on Andrews and that he could not encourage him to file on McCarty. McDermott heard rumors from other people who believed she had attended the function, but no one told him they had personal knowledge of the trip or had actually seen McCarty. At the hearing, and during the investigation by the commission, Leslie McDermott refused to divulge the names of those other persons who told him they believed Mary McCarty took the trip. After sending the complaints, McDermott gave Jay Slavin permission to give them to three newspapers which he specified: the Palm Beach Post, the Sun Times and the Fort Lauderdale Sentinel. He personally called the papers and told them that the matters in the complaints needed to be investigated. He also told the reporters that the complaints had no official connection with the NAACP. He considered the three papers to be responsible, non-sensational publications and he had experience in the past with issuing press releases. On February 6, 1992 the Sun-Sentinel published a story with the headline, "ETHICS COMPLAINTS FILED", stating that an NAACP official filed ethics complaints alleging that Mary McCarty and Bill Andrews attended a $1000 a plate fund-raiser paid for by a group of bond brokers, and failed to disclose the gifts. Mary McCarty contacted the NAACP, and Leslie McDermott was chastised for involving the organization. He did not call the newspaper to demand a corrective article as he did not want to "add fuel to the fire". He avowed distress, however, that people associated the issue with the NAACP. Meanwhile, the Ethics Commission conducted its investigation and found that, indeed, Mary McCarty did not attend the event. That was a conclusion that should have been reached by Mr. McDermott prior to his filing the complaint. Instead, on the complaint form, he signed the following statement under oath: COMPLAINT THAT THE COMMISSIONER NAMED ABOVE, THEN A DELRAY BEACH CITY COMMISSIONER DID VIOLATE FLORIDA STATUTE 112 IN THAT THE COMMISSIONER ACCEPTED GIFTS VALUED IN EXCESS OF $100.00 AND FAILED TO REPORT SAME IN ACCORDANCE WITH STATE LAW. THE GIFTS WERE PROVIDED BY MEMBERS OF A BOND UNDERWRITING GROUP HEADED BY SMITH BARNEY. THEY INCLUDED: ROUND TRIP TRANSPORTATION ON A CORPORATE JET FROM WEST PALM BEACH TO ORLANDO AND BACK; AND, ROUND TRIP LIMOUSINE SERVICE FROM THE ORLANDO AIRPORT TO THE ORANGE COUNTY CONVENTION AND CIVIC CENTER AND RETURN TO THE AIRPORT; AND, A TICKET TO ATTEND THE $1000 PER PERSON FUND RAISER DINNER BENEFITING GOV. MARTINEZ AND FEATURING PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH. THE FOREGOING GIFTS HAVE AN ESTIMATED VALUE OF $1350 TO 1500 WELL IN EXCESS OF THE REPORTING REQUIREMENTS. THE COMMISSIONERS FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE FORM FOR THE CALENDAR YEAR 1990 WHICH COVERS THE DATE OF THE SUBJECT EVENT ON FRIDAY APRIL 20 1990 SHOWS NO GIFTS RECEIVED. IN ADDITION TO COMMENTS MADE TO VARIOUS INDIVIDUALS ABOUT THE DETAILS OF THE TRIP, INCLUDING THE FACT THAT ALL EXPENSES HAD BEEN PAID BY THE BOND BROKERS, THE COMMISSIONER WAS OBSERVED AT THE EVENT BY NUMEROUS LOCAL OFFICIALS AND RESIDENTS. (Exhibit 1, Complaint dated February 2, 1992) Leslie McDermott did not ask Bill Andrews or Mary McCarty whether she attended the function. He did not contact anyone, including the sponsor of the event, who would likely have personal knowledge of her attendance. Instead, he relied on rumors and indirect reports, all which he knew were based on these tenuous connections: Bill Andrews used the term "we" in bragging about the trip. Mary McCarty frequently attended political events and was politically active. Mary McCarty and Bill Andrews, both Republicans (but not the only Republicans on the city council), often voted alike. Some unnamed persons overheard conversations which made them believe that Bill Andrews and Mary McCarty were on the trip together. Leslie McDermott's explanation that he released the complaint to the press so that an investigation could be conducted is simply not persuasive. He is an educated, articulate and experienced individual. He knew or should have known that public exposure of his complaint would injure the reputation of Ms. McCarty. Despite his own initial misgivings, Mr. McDermott allowed himself to be used by individuals who could only benefit from that injury. His failure, due to hubris or extraordinarily bad judgment, to make a reasonable attempt to check the veracity of the rumors, constitutes the reckless disregard by which malicious intent may be proven. In defending against the complaint and in pursuing relief in this proceeding, Mary McCarty has incurred costs and attorneys fees in the total amount of $12,876.55. Exhibit #4a), b), and c) appropriately itemizes the 50.9 hours and $2696.55 costs incurred. The hourly rate of $200.00 was stipulated as reasonable. Leslie McDermott contests the reasonableness of any time spent and costs incurred after the commission's order finding no probable cause was issued. Based upon the unrefuted testimony of Robert V. Romani, Esquire, an experienced litigator, past-president of the Palm Beach County Bar Association and member of the Board of Governors of the Florida Bar; and after considering relevant case law discussed below, I find that the hours and costs both before and after dismissal of the complaint are reasonable.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Commission on Ethics issue its final order awarding fees and costs in the total amount $12,876.55 to Mary McCarty from Leslie McDermott. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 23rd day of August, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARY CLARK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of August, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-5168EC The findings of fact proposed by both parties are substantially adopted here, with the exception of the following findings proposed by Leslie McDermott. Paragraph 13. The "reasonable" appearance or belief as to Ms. McCarty's guilt is rejected as unsupported by the weight of evidence. Paragraph 15. The reason Mr. McDermott presents for signing the complaint is rejected as not credible, in the face of his inconsistent action in presenting the complaint to the press. Paragraphs 16-18 are rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Bonnie Williams, Executive Director Ethics Commission Post Office Box 6 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0006 Phil Claypool, General Counsel Ethics Commission Post Office Box 6 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0006 Kenneth D. Stern, Esquire Post Office Box 3878 Boca Raton, Florida 33427-3878 James K. Green, Esquire One Clearlake Centre 250 South Australian Avenue West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent should pay Petitioner's attorney's fees and costs, and, if so, the amount.
Findings Of Fact Mayor Osborne was the Mayor of Beverly Beach, Florida, during 1999 through 2001. Dr. Milanick was a dentist who owned property immediately north of Beverly Beach, Florida. Dr. Milanick desired that the property be annexed into the town and initiated annexation proceedings before the City of Beverly Beach. Mayor Osborne did not facilitate the requested annexation during the time he served as Mayor of Beverly Beach. Dr. Milanick alleged to the Commission that Mayor Osborne opposed the annexation for personal, financial gain. In order to defend himself against these false allegations, Mayor Osborne retained Robert J. Riggio, Esquire, of the Riggio and Mitchell firm of Daytona Beach. The Original Award of Attorney's Fees An award of attorney's fees and costs in favor of Mayor Osborne was recommended in Division of Administrative Hearings Case No. 04-4110E. The Recommended Order stated that the amount of attorney's fees and costs for Mayor Osborne to defend against Dr. Milanick's allegations was $4,976.00. The Commission did not address the amount of attorney's fees and costs in its Final Order, but instead held that Mayor Osborne was not entitled to any award. Subsequently, the Fifth District Court of Appeal found the Commission's Final Order to be erroneous and remanded the matter ". . . for entry of an order making the awards recommended by the ALJ." A Mandate with regard to the Fifth District Court of Appeal issued April 11, 2007. The award recommended by the ALJ was, as stated above, $4,976.00, and that amount should be awarded by the Commission in a Final Order. Appellate Attorney's Fees Mayor Osborne filed a Motion for Petitioner's Appellate Attorneys' Fees and Costs before the Commission on May 10, 2007, noting the Fifth District Court of Appeal, in its Order dated February 16, 2007, stated that, "Appellant's Motion For Attorney's Fees, filed May 16, 2006, is granted and the above- styled cause is hereby remanded to the Commission . . . to determine and assess reasonable attorney's fees for this appeal." The Fifth District Court of Appeal addressed only attorney's fees. However, because Mayor Osborne's Motion sought both attorney's fees and costs, and because the Commission sent that Motion without special directions to the Division of Administrative Hearings for resolution, it is found that the Administrative Law Judge has jurisdiction to recommend awards of both attorney's fees and costs expended in prosecuting the appeal. David C. Robinson, an attorney in Daytona Beach, Florida, testified as an expert on attorney's fees in Volusia County, Florida. He has practiced law in Daytona Beach for 26 years and has testified in other attorney's fees cases. He is familiar with the fees charged by attorneys in the Daytona Beach and Volusia County area. He knows Attorney Robert Riggio, of Daytona Beach, Volusia County, and Attorney Martin Pedata, of Deland, a town that is also located in Volusia County. Mr. Robinson is found to be an expert on the subject of reasonable attorney's fees and costs in Volusia County. Mr. Robinson reviewed the bills and records relating to the fees charged to Mayor Osborne as to the appellate filings made by Mr. Riggio. In doing so he considered the Lodestar approach as described in Florida Patients Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 1985). Mr. Robinson opined that the services performed by Mr. Riggio in the appellate proceeding were provided in a manner that an attorney would be reasonably expected to provide. He reviewed the hourly rate charged by Mr. Riggio and stated that the reasonable rate should be $250.00 per hour, but that Mr. Riggio only charged $150.00 per hour. Mr. Riggio's law firm, Riggio and Mitchell, billed Mayor Osborne for 95 hours. A small portion of the work was accomplished by his partner Jerome D. Mitchell. Other work in the amount of 9.4 hours was billed for paralegal work at $40.00 per hour. The 95 hours of attorney work was billed at $150.00 per hour for a total of $14,250.00, and the paralegal work totaled $376.00. Costs amounted to $859.70. This resulted in a total of $14,626.00 for fees and $859.70 in costs. Mayor Osborne paid these charges in full. Mr. Robinson opined that the rate charged and hours expended by Mr. Riggio in the appellate proceeding were appropriate, as were the costs incurred. His testimony is found to be credible. As a result of Mr. Riggio's efforts, Mayor Osborne prevailed in the appeal. It is found that Dr. Milanick caused Mayor Osborne to pay attorney's fees and costs in the amount of $15,485.70. Proving Entitlement to Fees and Costs Subsequent to Dr. Milanick's allegations of misconduct before the Commission, and after an investigation, the Commission, in a Public Report dated September 8, 2004, dismissed the complaint on a finding of no probable cause in the case of Mayor Osborne. Pursuant to Subsection 112.317(8), Florida Statutes, Mayor Osborne was entitled to be reimbursed for the attorney's fees and costs associated with defending himself against Dr. Milanick's allegations. Because Dr. Milanick did not voluntarily remit the fees and costs expended, a hearing was required. A hearing was held in this matter in Daytona Beach, Florida, on May 11, 2005. The hearing in Division of Administrative Hearings Case No. 04-4110FE, lasted an entire day. Prior to the hearing, Mayor Osborne engaged the services of Attorney Martin Pedata in addition to those provided by Mr. Riggio. The agreement for representation by Mr. Pedata was reduced to writing on April 6, 2005. The agreement provided that Mayor Osborne would pay Mr. Pedata $250.00 per hour for his services and $75.00 per hour for paralegal services. Mr. Robinson reviewed the bills and records relating to the fees charged to Mayor Osborne for the preparation for and the conduct of the hearing of May 11, 2005. Mr. Robinson stated that the hourly rate of $250.00 was a reasonable one for the type of services provided by Mr. Pedata. He stated that the number of hours expended by Mr. Riggio and Mr. Pedata in connection with this hearing was reasonable. In analyzing this claim he used the Lodestar approach set forth in Rowe. Mr. Riggio and his partner Mr. Mitchell, expended 160.6 hours proving entitlement to fees and costs. Mr. Pedata, as lead attorney in the entitlement case, expended 107 hours. In addition, 54.2 paralegal hours were expended in proving the entitlement case. These hours include the time up to the filing of the appeal with the Fifth District Court of Appeal. These hours also include the time spent before the Commission. As a result of the efforts of Mr. Riggio and Mr. Pedata, Mayor Osborne prevailed in the entitlement hearing, which resulted in a Recommended Order in his favor. Mayor Osborne paid Mr. Riggio and Mr. Pedata a total of $50,840.00 for their services in proving entitlement to attorney's fees. He also paid $2,168.00 for paralegal services. Total costs amounted to $3,764.73, which Mayor Osborne paid. The total fees and costs to Mayor Osborne was $56,772.73. Mr. Robinson opined that the rate charged and hours expended by Mr. Riggio in the appellate proceeding were appropriate, as were the costs incurred. His testimony is found to be credible. It is found that Dr. Milanick was responsible for Mayor Osborne having to pay attorney's fees and costs in the amount of $56,772.73. Additional fees and costs Mr. Riggio presented Mayor Osborne with an invoice in the amount of $2,370.00 for the cost of the current proceeding. However, the Administrative Law Judge is without jurisdiction to address this claim in this proceeding.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission on Ethics award attorney's fees and costs as follows: The original award of attorney's fees in the amount of $4,976.00. Attorney's fees and costs for appellate attorney's fees and costs in the amount of $15,485.70. Attorney's fees and costs for proving entitlement to fees and costs in the amount of $56,772.73. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of November, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S HARRY L. HOOPER 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 14th day of November, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert J. Riggio, Esquire Riggio & Mitchell, P.A. 400 South Palmetto Avenue Daytona Beach, Florida 32114 Kaye Starling Florida Commission on Ethics Post Office Drawer 15709 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-5709 Dr. Alexander J. Milanick 7250 A1A South St. Augustine Shores, Florida 32080 Phillip C. Claypool, Executive Director and General Counsel Commission on Ethics 3600 Maclay Boulevard, South, Suite 201 Post Office Drawer 15709 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-5709 James Peterson, Esquire Linzie Bogan, Esquire Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050
The Issue Whether Irene Lieberman is entitled to attorney fees and costs from Lorenzar Brown, as provided in Section 112.317(8), Florida Statutes, and if so, the amount.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to this proceeding, Ilene Lieberman (Lieberman) served as mayor of the City of Lauderhill, Florida (City). The City and Broward County entered into an agreement (Grant) in January, 1992, for a Self-Help Home Ownership and Repair Program in the amount of $117,500, which provided for funding and administration of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) projects. Pursuant to the Grant, the City would be reimbursed for allowable project expenses. On July 13, 1992, the City Commission passed Ordinance No. 92-161, which approved budget adjustment BA 92-86 for the transfer of $123,000 from various budget accounts to establish the budget for the CDBG program. When entering the CDBG budget into the City's computer system, the data entry operator made some coding errors. Budget adjustment BA-92-86 showed that $22,500 was to be budgeted for account number 3110. However, when it was keyed into the computer system, the $22,500 was coded to account number 3121, which was the account for the City Attorney's hourly charges. No funds were entered as budgeted for account number 3110. Budget adjustment BA-92-86 showed that $25,000 was to be budgeted for account number 3122. However, when keying the entry, the data entry operator entered $25,500 instead of the $25,000. Lorenzar Brown (Brown), the Respondent, obtained a copy of the City Expenditure Status Report for July, 1992 (July Expenditure Report). The report reflected the errors that were made when the budget information was placed in the computer system. The report indicated that there were no expenditures made from account number 3121, the account for the City Attorney hourly charges. In July or August, 1992, Brown talked to Marcia Berkely, who was the City Planner, concerning whether CDBG funds were being used to pay City Attorney fees. Ms. Berkely advised Brown that the CDBG funds were not being used to pay the City Attorney. Brown did not show Ms. Berkely the July Expenditure Report. On August 31, 1992, Brown made a presentation to the City Commission, expressing his "concerns about the present taxpayer's dollars being expended to pay fees to the city attorney of the City of Lauderhill." Brown referenced the City's July Expenditure Report, stating, "In reviewing the monthly expenditure report for July, there was a number of other accounts budgeted to the city attorney." In particular Brown was concerned about CDBG funds being used for City Attorney's fees. Brown stated: This last month an additional $40,000.00 of Community Development Block Grant was recom- mended by the Mayor and approved by the City Commission to be used for city attorney fees. This also passed by the Ordinance 92-161. The community, especially the taxpayers, request that the City Commission look into or investigate the action of the Mayor, on the part of the Mayor in recommending that the City Commission use Block Grant Funds for the city attorney fees contrary to the contract approved by the Commission by Resolution 91-83 which was passed on July 13th, 1992. Brown's presentation was made during the communications from the public portion of the City Commission meeting. According to the policy of the City Commission, the Mayor and City Commission members are not allowed to respond to comments made during this portion of the meeting. Comments from the public officials are made during communications from the public officials portion of the meeting. Lieberman asked the Vice Chair of the City Commission to allow her to respond to Brown's presentation immediately after Brown concluded but she was not allowed to do so. Brown was unable to stay for the comments from the public officials because he had to pick up his daughter. He apologized to the Commission and told them that he had to leave. During the comments from public officials, Lieberman explained the purpose of the Community Development Block Grant Program. She stated that $40,000 was not used for City Attorney fees but that the CDBG budget did include a line item for "legal matters that are incident to home ownership." She invited the public to spend time with her and Marcia Berkely to discuss the attorney fees issue. By memorandum dated September 8, 1992, Brown advised the City Commission that he had not received a response from the Mayor's office concerning his request made on August 31, 1992, that the City Commission "investigate the propriety of the Mayor's office in recommending that the City Commission use BLOCK GRANT FUNDS for the City's Attorney fees. (92-161)." Brown did not reference the July Expenditure Report. By letter dated September 16, 1992, Richard J. Kaplan (Kaplan), Commission Vice Chair, advised Brown that the Mayor had responded to Brown's comments at the City Commission meeting on August 31, 1992, and attached a copy of the minutes of the meeting. Kaplan additionally told Brown that he had checked the ordinances cited by Brown and found that one was in error. By memorandum dated September 16, 1992, Kaplan forwarded a copy of Brown's September 8 correspondence to Lieberman and requested that she respond to Brown in writing. By letter to Kaplan dated September 21, 1992, Brown stated that he had reviewed the ordinances and the information submitted to Kaplan, that they were correct and that if the City Commission failed to investigate his allegations, that "the concern (sic) residents of Lauderhill will be compelled to file a complaint with the Ethics Commission and or the Bar Association." Brown did not reference the July Expenditure Report. Lieberman responded to Brown by letter dated September 29, 1992. She attached a copy of the budget for the CDBG program, budget adjustment request BA 92-86, Ordinance 92-161, and a portion of the transcript of the August 31, 1992, City Commission meeting. She advised that there had been no misappropriation of City funds and that according to the budget adjustment $5,500 was coming from the City Attorney's budget to the CDBG budget as matching funds from the City for the program. The budget adjustment contained a $25,000 line item for legal services for closing costs, and included the $5,500 from the City Attorney's budget. She invited Brown to contact her directly if he had any further questions. She did not review the July Expenditure Report in the preparation of her response. Brown never contacted Lieberman after the August 31 City Commission meeting to resolve any questions that he may have had. Based on prior dealings with her, he felt that she made him feel small and little and that she embarrassed and belittled him at City Commission meetings; therefore he did not feel comfortable directly asking her questions concerning the attorney fees issue. Brown never asked anyone in the City's finance department, including Donald Giancoli, the Director of Finance, Assistant City Administrator for the City, to explain the differences between budget adjustment 92-86 and the July Expenditure Report. On October 3, 1992, Brown executed Commission on Ethics Complaint No. 92-157 against Lieberman, alleging that she had violated Section 112.313(6), Florida Statutes, in that she "breached the public trust by solicitation in recommending that the City Commission Board use Community Block Grant funds for the City Attorney fees." On November 12, 1992, Brown executed an amendment to Complaint No. 92-157, enclosing additional information, which included a copy of the July Expenditure Report. Prior to filing the Complaint, Brown spoke with Theresa Gillis, the Director of the Community Development Division of Broward County. She administered the Community Development Block Grant Programs for the County including the Grant to the City of Lauderhill. He told her that the City had violated the terms of the Grant by getting reimbursed for attorney's fees. He did not reference the July Expenditure Report. Ms. Gillis checked the reimbursements made to the City and found that the City had not violated their obligations under the CDBG Program. If she had been aware of the July Expenditure Report showing funds being budgeted to the City Attorney account, she would have been concerned and asked the City for an explanation. On December 7, 1992, the Executive Director of the Florida Commission on Ethics issued a Recommendation of Legal Insufficiency, stating that the allegations in Complaint No. 92-157 were legally insufficient to indicate a possible violation of Section 112.313(6), Florida Statutes. On February 2, 1993, the Chairman of the Commission on Ethics filed a Public Report and Order Dismissing Complaint, stating that on January 28, 1993, the Commission on Ethics voted to adopt the Executive Director's legal sufficiency analysis and to dismiss Complaint No. 92-157. On January 19, 1993, Brown filed a complaint with The Florida Bar against Lieberman. The complaint stemmed from remarks Lieberman made at a December 7, 1992 City Commission meeting. The Florida Bar declined to pursue the matter, determining that his complaint did not reveal any violations of the Rules Regulating Attorneys. On February 18, 1993, Brown filed a lawsuit against Lieberman, alleging that she had defamed him in the December 7, 1992 meeting. During the January 25, 1993, City Commission meeting, Brown publicly stated that he would personally support a recall petition against Lieberman. He took this position due to Lieberman's comments against him at the December 7, 1992, meeting. Around the time that Lieberman first became mayor in 1988, she and Brown had some discusssions concerning a citation which he had received from the code enforcement board for failure to pay for garbage service at his premises. Brown was very angry and accused Lieberman of violating his constitutional rights. At a City Commission meeting in approximately September, 1992 while Lieberman was responding to a question, Brown told the gentleman seated next to him that she was lying. Brown's voice was loud enough that it was heard twenty feet away by Richard Korte, the Director for Code Enforcement for the City. After Brown filed the complaint against Lieberman, City Attorney Richard Michelson represented Lieberman as Mayor in his role as City Attorney. The City paid for these services out of the City Attorney's monthly $3,500 retainer. The total number of hours provided by the City Attorney relating to Brown's complaint and the instant fee proceeding was 23.1 hours. After Brown's complaint was dismissed, Samuel Goren was retained to represent the Mayor. Mr. Goren filed the instant fee petition. The total number of hours for Mr. Goren's law firm was 16.2 hours. After the fee petition was filed, Stuart Michelson (no relation to Richard Michelson) was retained to represent the Mayor. The total number of hours for Stuart Michelson through November 18, 1993 was 33.675. The total number of hours spent in hearing by Stuart Michelson was 17.5 hours, which included closing argument by telephone conference. Stuart Michelson spent one hour in taking the deposition of Thomas Bradley. Stuart Michelson's law clerk provided 5.45 hours of services. Each of the attorneys providing services in representing Lieberman in the complaint by Brown and in the fee petition charged the City at $125 per hour. The services of the law clerk were billed at $50 per hour. The City paid for the services provided through November 18, 1993. Jeffery Pheterson, who was qualified as an expert on attorney's fees issues, opined that based on the rates customarily charged locally the rate of $125 per hour is a modest, reasonable rate for the services provided by the attorneys. He also opined that the rate of $50 per hour for paralegal services was also a reasonable rate for the services provided. At the final hearing, counsel for Brown stipulated that the rates for Stuart Michelson and Samuel Goren were reasonable. The rates of $125 per hour for attorney services and $50 for paralegal services are reasonable rates for similar services in the community. Mr. Pheterson opined that the 23.1 hours of service provided by Richard Michelson, City Attorney, the 16.2 hours of service provided by Samuel Goren's firm, the 33.675 hours provided by Stuart Michelson and the 5.45 hours provided by Stuart Michelson's law clerk were reasonable. The hours of service provided by the above attorneys and law clerk through November 18, 1993, were reasonable. Additionally, the 17.5 hours spent by Stuart Michelson at the final hearing is reasonable and the one hour spent in taking the deposition of Thomas Bradley was reasonable.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered denying Ilene Lieberman's Verified Petition for Attorney's Fees and Costs. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of December, 1994, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUSAN B. KIRKLAND 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 TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-1180EC To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1993), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Respondent Lieberman's Proposed Findings of Fact. Paragraph 1: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 2: Accepted. Paragraphs 3-25: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 26: Rejected as subordinate to the facts actually found. Paragraphs 27-29: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 30: Rejected as subordinate to the facts actually found. Paragraph 31-33: Accepted in substance. Paragraphs 34-35: Rejected as constituting argument. Paragraphs 36-37 Accepted in substance. 10 Paragraph 38: Rejected as constituting argument. Paragraphs 39-40: Rejected as constituting recitation of testimony. Paragraph 41: Rejected as constituting argument. Paragraph 42: Rejected as subordinate to the facts actually found. Paragraph 43: Rejected as constituting recitation of testimony. Paragraph 44: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 45: Rejected as subordinate to the facts actually found. Paragraphs 46-47: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 48: The first sentence is rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the evidence. The second sentence is accepted to the extent that he filed the complaint because his concerns were not answered but rejected to the extent that it states that he filed the complaint a day or two after he received Lieberman's letter. Paragraph 49: Rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the evidence. Brown knew that the July Expenditure Report showed funds being budgeted from the CDBG program to the City Attorney. The second sentence is rejected as subordinate to the facts actually found. Paragraphs 50-51: Rejected as subordinate to the facts actually found. Paragraphs 52-55: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 56: Accepted in substance to the extent that Brown never told Lieberman personally that the expenditure report showed money going to the City Attorney, but rejected to the extent that he never referenced the expenditure report in her presence because he did at the August 31, 1992, City Commission meeting. Paragraph 57: Rejected as subordinate to the facts actually found. Paragraph 58: Rejected as cumulative. Paragraphs 59-69: Accepted in substance. Paragraphs 70-71: Rejected as constituting argument. Paragraphs 72-73: Rejected as mere recitation of testimony. Paragraphs 74-75: Accepted in substance. Paragraphs 76-77: Rejected as mere recitation of testimony. Paragraph 78: Accepted in substance to the extent that he refers to the ordinance but not as to the expenditure report. Lieberman did not address the expenditure report which Brown referenced in the August 31 meeting. Paragraph 79: Rejected as subordinate to the facts actually found. Paragraphs 80-81: Accepted in substance. Paragraphs 82-88: Rejected as constituting argument. Paragraph 89: Rejected as subordinate to the facts actually found. Paragraphs 90-92: Rejected as constituting argument. Paragraph 93: Accepted in substance to the extent that there was a posting error. Paragraphs 94-95: Rejected as constituting argument. Paragraph 96: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 97: Rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraph 98: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 99: Rejected as subordinate to the facts actually found. Paragraphs 100-102: Rejected as constituting argument. Complainant Brown's Proposed Findings of Fact. Paragraphs 1-3: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 4: The first sentence is accepted in substance. The second sentence is accepted to the extent that the responses did not make any reference to the July Expenditure Report which Brown brought up during his presentation at the August 31, 1992, City Commission meeting. The third sentence is accepted in substance to the extent that Brown let Kaplan know that he was not satisfied with the responses. Paragraphs 5-6: Rejected as subordinate to the facts actually found. Paragraph 7: The first sentence is accepted to the extent that Brown had a copy of the Expenditure Status Report prior to the August 31, 1992, City Commission meeting and rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the evidence that Brown received the document from the City's finance department. The evidence is not clear how Brown received the document. The last sentence is accepted in substance. Paragraphs 8-10: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 11: The first and third sentences are accepted in substance. The second sentence is accepted in substance except that the July Expenditure Report was not attached to the original complaint but to an amendment to the complaint. Paragraph 12: Accepted in substance to the extent that Lieberman personally did not expend funds or was obligated to pay the attorney's fees. Paragraph 13: Rejected to the extent that his services were included in his retainer fee. Paragraph 14: Accepted in substance. COPIES FURNISHED: Stuart R. Michelson, Esquire 1111 Kane Concourse, Suite 517 Bay Harbor Islands, Florida 33154 Anthony J. Titone, Esquire 7471 West Oakland Park Blvd., Suite 110 Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33319 Bonnie Williams Executive Director Florida Commission On Ethics Post Office Drawer 15709 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-5709 Phil Claypool, Esquire General Counsel Ethics Commission 2822 Remington Green Circle, Suite 101 Post Office Drawer 15709 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-5709 Carrie Stillman Complaint Coordinator Commission on Ethics Post Office Box 15709 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-5709
Findings Of Fact Petitioners, High Point of Orlando/Calton Homes (High Point) and Breedlove, Dennis and Associates, Inc. (BDA) were among named Respondents in a petition for formal hearing filed by Central Florida Wetlands Society, Inc. (CFWS) in DOAH Case number 91-8339. High Point was a Respondent in DOAH Case number 92-0364, also initiated by a CFWS petition. BDA was retained as consultant for High Point for a project in Orange County involving wetlands and requiring the evaluation of impact and the mitigation of that impact on the wetlands. A permit for the project was granted by the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD). In late 1991 High Point requested a permit modification when it was determined that mitigation could not be accomplished within the deadlines in the permit conditions. There had been delays in planting caused in part by delays in construction of the project's stormwater management system and it was apparent that the required plantings could not grow fast enough to comply with the mitigation conditions. The technical staff report recommending approval describes the modification as extensions of the deadlines for successful establishment of forested and herbaceous mitigation. CFWS is a Florida nonprofit corporation according to its articles of incorporation filed with the Secretary of State on August 3, 1990. Article III provides these purposes for the corporation: To educate on the roll [sic] of wetlands with emphasis on the values of preservation of wetlands and the prevention of destruction of same. To implement the national policy of no loss of wetlands. To coordinate with other environmental groups to focus attention on wetland preservation. All other things that are lawful under the charter of this corporation and under the laws of the State of Florida. (Exhibit filed at DOAH 8/21/92) On October 7, 1991, CFWS filed a petition for administrative hearing with the SJRWMD in opposition to the district's proposed grant of permit modification to High Point. The petition was verified and signed by Michael W. Mingea as President of CFWS. The petition did not identify CFWS as a corporation, but rather "a not-for-profit private organization under the laws of the State of Florida". The petition named as Respondents, High Point, SJRWMD, DBA and another alleged consultant for High Point, Dyer, Riddle, Mills and Precourt, Inc., (DRMP). The petition was forwarded by SJRWMD to the DOAH for hearing on December 30, 1991, and was assigned DOAH Case number 91-8339. On January 8, 1992, CFWS filed a petition for formal administrative hearing with the SJRWMD disputing a proposed consent order between High Point and SJRWMD assessing $2,463.60 penalty and costs for violation of the mitigation conditions and requiring a mitigation survey. Like the petition described in paragraph 4, above, this petition was signed and sworn by Michael Mingea and did not identify CFWS as a corporation. The Respondent named in the petition was SJRWMD. This petition was forwarded to the DOAH by the district and was received at DOAH on January 21, 1992. It was assigned DOAH Case number 92-0364. A motion in opposition to the petition was filed on January 28, 1992 by counsel for SJRWMD requesting dismissal based on Petitioner's lack of standing, as the consent order does not authorize any activity subject to the district's permitting authority. Further, the motion argued, any issues regarding the proposed permit modification would be addressed in pending case number 91-8339. In an order dated January 28, 1992, the two cases, 91-8339 and 92-0364 were consolidated and set for hearing in Orlando, Florida on June 16 and 17, 1992. On March 5, 1992 a telephone conference hearing was conducted on various pending motions and an order was entered on March 6, 1992 granting motions to dismiss the two consultant parties, BDA and DRMP. The order denied BDA's and DRMP's motions for fees and costs pursuant to Section 120.57(1)(b)5., F.S., based on a finding that the error in including the consultants as Respondents did not rise to the level of bad faith required for an award under 120.57(1)(b)5, F.S. The order granted SJRWMD's motion in opposition to the petition in number 92-0364 and closed the file in that case with remand of the petition to the agency. And finally, the order granted High Point's motion for a more definite statement in Case number 91-8339. The order required CFWS to file its amended petition within thirty days stating how the proposed permit modifications would adversely affect the waters of the state or otherwise violate statutes and rules governing management and storage of surface waters (MSSW) permits. On April 14, 1992 Karen West, Esquire, filed her notice of appearance on behalf of CFWS and a motion for extension of time of fourteen days to file a more definite statement. On April 21, 1992 Ms. West filed the Petitioner's notice of voluntary dismissal of the petition in number 91-8339, and an order closing file was entered. On April 28, 1992, High Point and BDA filed with the SJRWMD their motion for remand which resulted in the district's order of remand discussed in the preliminary statement, above. The sole issue for remand was these Respondents' entitlement to attorneys fees and costs. High Point and BDA also filed separate motions for sanctions dated May 21, 1992 requesting fees and costs of $6,766.88 for High Point and $1,096.49 for BDA. A telephone conference was conducted on June 11, 1992 on Karen West, Esquire's, motion to withdraw as counsel for CFWS. Michael Mingea, President of CFWS participated and stated that the society had no opposition to the motion. The Hearing Officer and parties then discussed procedural matters related to resolution of the fees case, DOAH Case number 92-3010F. Mr. Mingea asked for, and was given, two weeks to obtain substitute counsel prior to Petitioners commencing discovery. The parties agreed to conduct the final hearing by telephone on August 10, 1992. An order and notice of hearing was entered confirming these matters on June 17, 1992. Notwithstanding the parties' agreement, the August 10th hearing was continued because Petitioners were unable to effectuate discovery or serve subpoenas on Michael Mingea or Todd Swearingen, another CFWS board member. Despite frequent filings of well-drafted requests for extensions, responses to Petitioners' pleadings and similar documents, Michael Mingea never appeared at any of the several hearings scheduled in this case after his initial appearance on June 11th. Despite several explicit orders Mr. Mingea never appeared for deposition by Petitioners, either in person or by telephone. Yet, according to the testimony of other board members, Todd Swearingen and Marty Sharpe, only Michael Mingea initiated the petitions involving High Point and he, alone, was cognizant of the specific basis for those petitions. Marty Sharpe who appeared consistently on behalf of CFWS in this proceeding became a board member in February 1992, several months after the petitions were filed. Petitioners were wholly frustrated in their effort to obtain the discovery to which they were entitled with regard to the bases for the CFWS petition in Case number 92-8339 and its abrupt dismissal. In various written documents and attempts to provide evidence through affidavit CFWS argues that its motives were not bad faith; however, throughout this proceeding CFWS has effectively prevented Petitioners from testing those bare assertions through discovery or cross examination. Mr. Mingea apparently travels extensively with his regular employment and the organization's mail goes to a post office box where it is picked up by volunteers. Contact with the organization was most effectively made through Marty Sharpe who attempted, in turn, to reach Mr. Mingea and convey messages. In the absence of competent evidence to the contrary, the record in this and in the underlying cases, number 91-8339 and 92-0364 support a reasonable inference that the petition in number 91-8339 was filed for a frivolous purpose. The order granting CFWS leave to amend its petition acknowledged that the original petition was legally insufficient. The petition was not amended within the allotted period; but rather was voluntarily dismissed shortly after legal counsel appeared on behalf of the organization. This dismissal reduces, but does not eliminate exposure to liability for filing the initial petition. The fees and costs requested by the Petitioners here are reasonable. Those fees are supported by billing logs attached to the motions for sanctions and reflect an hourly rate of $100.00 for BDA and $160.00 for High Point. Douglas Rillstone testified to the reasonableness of a total of $9,592.00 for High Point, and $2,495.00 for BDA. Those totals are not supported by billing logs and it is not possible to determine the basis for those amounts beyond the original amounts requested.
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Respondent committed the offenses charged in the Administrative Complaint concerning unlawfully committing a battery upon a person he had placed under arrest and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida charged with regulating the licensure and enforcing the practice standards of law enforcement officers. The Respondent is a certified law enforcement officer being certified by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission on May 12, 1986, and holding Law Enforcement Certificate No. 82811. He was employed by the DeFuniak Springs Police Department as a law enforcement officer during the period of October 29, 1985, until his termination on November 13, 1997. On April 12, 1997, Daniel Robertson was a passenger in a vehicle driven by his girlfriend. The vehicle was stopped by Officer James Burnham of the DeFuniak Springs Police Department for a traffic violation at approximately 3:00 a.m. When the officer approached the vehicle, he detected a strong odor of alcohol which he believed to come from the driver. He asked the female driver to step out of the vehicle and submit to a field sobriety test. Upon completion of the test, he placed her under arrest for driving under the influence of alcohol. While the officer conducted the field sobriety test on the driver, the passenger, Daniel Robertson, began arguing with Officer Burnham about the test and creating a verbal disturbance. Officer Burnham radioed for other officers to respond to the incident. Officers Travis Howell and the Respondent, Kenneth G. May, of the DeFuniak Springs Police Department, together with a civilian, Bradley Stafford, responded to Officer Burnham's call for assistance. Stafford was a civilian authorized by the police department to ride along with Officer Howell as an observer. Once his girlfriend was arrested, Mr. Robertson became concerned about driving the vehicle home, since he owned the pick-up truck in question. Officer Burnham advised him that if he could pass a sobriety test in the field, then he would be allowed to drive home. Officer Burnham administered two field sobriety tests to Robertson and advised him that he had failed both tests and could not drive his vehicle. Mr. Robertson began again loudly arguing with Officer Burnham, after being told to quiet down. Officer Burnham advised him that he was under arrest for disorderly intoxication and told him to place his hands behind his back. Mr. Robertson refused to place his hands behind his back and Officers Burnham, Howell and May, the Respondent, had to physically subdue Mr. Robertson as they attempted to handcuff him with his hands behind his back. Because Officer Burnham had already placed the female driver in the back seat of his patrol car, he asked the Respondent to transport Mr. Robertson to the county jail. The Respondent thereupon escorted Mr. Robertson to the Respondent's police car. Officer Howell followed the Respondent and Mr. Robertson but never physically touched Robertson. The Respondent physically placed Robertson into the back seat of the police car. Robertson was verbally complaining, using foul language, but did not physically resist being placed in the police car. Mr. Robertson continued to verbally complain and berate the Respondent until the Respondent finally slapped him one time in the face, while Robertson was seated in the car with his hands cuffed behind his back. Robertson was then transported to the Walton County Jail by the Respondent and charged with disorderly intoxication and resisting arrest without violence. Mr. Robertson continued to verbally complain to the Respondent, although he was not physically resistant or physically struggling with the Respondent. Once they were inside the jail with his hands still cuffed behind his back and in the presence of other officers, the Respondent sprayed Robertson in the eyes with pepper spray. Mr. Robertson was continuing to be verbally abusive at this point, but his hands were cuffed behind his back and he engaged in no physical contact with the Respondent. The Respondent maintains that he sprayed Mr. Robertson with pepper spray because Robertson was coming toward him in a threatening manner. This account of events is belied by the testimony of Officer Howell, however, which is more credible under the circumstances, as it is not self-serving and which is accepted. The Chief of Police of DeFuniak Springs, Mr. Ray Burgess, and the Assistant State Attorney, Clayton Adkinson, felt that an unbiased investigation was needed and therefore requested the services of the Florida Department of Law Enforcement to conduct the investigation into Mr. Robertson's complaint. Special Agent Carl Causey with the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) was assigned to conduct an investigation into Robertson's complaint against the Respondent and did so. He interviewed numerous witnesses including Robertson, Officers Burnham and Howell, and the civilian who rode with Officer Howell on the night in question, as well as the Respondent. Respondent stated at his interview with Agent Causey that he told Officer Burnham that Mr. Robertson had intentionally kneed him in the groin while he was placing him into the police car and therefore Robertson should be charged with resisting arrest with violence. This statement was contrary to the statements of officers Burnham and Howell and Mr. Bradley Stafford. It is also contrary to the statements those three individuals made in their testimony at hearing. During Agency Causey's second interview with Officer Burnham, Officer Burnham denied that the Respondent ever told him that Robertson had kneed him during the process of getting Robertson into the patrol car. Upon completion of his investigation, Agent Causey filed an investigative report. Agent Causey also arrested the Respondent and charged him with two counts of battery on Mr. Robertson. The Respondent pled no contest to those charges in the Walton County Court and was adjudicated guilty on both counts of misdemeanor battery involving Mr. Robertson.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent be found guilty of a failure to maintain good moral character as required by Section 943.13(7), Florida Statutes, and as elucidated by the other authority referenced herein and that the Respondent's certification be subjected to a six-month suspension, followed by a one-year probationary period. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of March, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: James D. Martin, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 4th day of March, 1999. H. R. "Bob" Bishop, Jr., Esquire Florida Police Benevolent Association, Inc. 300 East Brevard Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 A. Leon Lowry, II, Director Division of Criminal Justice Standards and Training Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael Ramage, General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Division of Criminal Justice Standards and Training Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue Whether, under section 120.569(2)(e), Florida Statutes, Petitioner, Garber Housing Resorts, LLC ("Garber"), is entitled to its reasonable attorney's fees incurred because of responding to three specific pleadings filed by Respondent, Glenda Q. Mahaney ("Mahaney"), and if so, the amount of such reasonable attorney's fees.
Findings Of Fact On March 27, 2019, DEP issued an SRCO after reviewing a limited groundwater assessment dated May 9, 2018, which included a recommendation for risk management option level one. DEP's SRCO stated that the prior conditional SRCO was being replaced because the limited groundwater assessment "demonstrates that conditions on the property have changed and improved such that the [conditional SRCO] is no longer appropriate.” Mahaney's May 13, 2019, petition and Garber's May 23, 2019, motion to dismiss were referred to DOAH on June 25, 2019, and assigned Case No. 19-3429. Garber's petition was 77 pages, 654 paragraphs, and contained 56 pages of attachments. 2 The Office Depot email suggested that an email was sent on January 4, 2020, but without the documents attached. The email address to which the document was allegedly sent was "AskDOAH," which is not a proper method for filing pleadings. The November 6, 2019, Notice from DOAH opening this fees case explained that "Parties not represented may file electronically through eALJ, facsimile, or mail. CHOOSE ONE METHOD of filing for each document." On July 18, 2019, Mahaney's petition was dismissed with leave to amend as legally insufficient under Florida Administrative Code Rule 28-106.201(2). The petition also contained irrelevant allegations that were not cognizable in an environmental administrative proceeding. Mahaney was allowed ten days to file an amended petition that "shall comply with the requirements of rule 28-106.201(2) and shall not contain the irrelevant and immaterial allegations discussed in this Order." On August 1, 2019, DEP received from Mahaney a document titled "Petitioner's 7-25-2019 Amended 5-9-2019 Petition for Hearing Regarding SRCO Dated Dated [sic] 3-27-2019 for Lamont Garber and/or Garber Housing Resorts, Inc., and Motion for Summary Proceedings Regarding Issues Admitted by FDEP and/or Motion to Immediately Revoke SRCO or Motion to Abate Proceedings Until Such Time as Petitioner's Property is Tested" ("amended petition"). DEP forwarded Mahaney's amended petition to DOAH on August 5, 2019. The amended petition was 69 pages, 690 paragraphs, and contained 59 pages of attachments. Garber had already filed, on August 2, 2019, its motion to dismiss the amended petition. On August 13, 2019, Mahaney filed her response to Garber's motion to dismiss the amended petition. A Recommended Order of Dismissal was issued on August 19, 2019, finding that the amended petition remained legally insufficient. The amended petition still contained irrelevant allegations concerning issues outside the subject matter of the SRCO. Those issues included a property boundary dispute, trespass and nuisance claims, alleged violations of pollution laws, alleged non-compliance with local land use regulations, flooding issues, and stormwater runoff issues. DEP issued its Final Order on November 1, 2019. Attached to the Final Order provided to DOAH were Mahaney's exceptions and Garber's responses to exceptions that had been timely filed with DEP. The Final Order denied each of Mahaney's exceptions, adopted the Recommended Order of Dismissal, and approved the SRCO. Mahaney is opposed to Garber's plan to develop the property that is the subject of DEP's SRCO. It was clear from Mahaney's testimony and her history of challenging remediation actions taken by Garber and prior property owners, that her primary purpose for bringing the underlying proceeding was her concern for potential contamination of her well and property. In addition, she was concerned that the SRCO did not "certify the entire [Garber] property as clean." Because of Mahaney's stated belief that DEP has not done its job over the years with regard to Garber's property and her property, she had challenged the prior conditional SRCO, and then the replacement SRCO. In addition, Mahaney testified that additional remediation occurred on Garber's property in February 2019, approximately a month before DEP issued the SRCO. She obtained a letter that was from the remediation company to Mr. Lamont Garber describing the remediation activities. Through reasonable inquiry, she learned that the letter was not in DEP's possession at the time of issuing the SRCO. The circumstances surrounding Mahaney's filing of her petition, amended petition, and exceptions show that her pleadings were not filed for an improper purpose. Garber's expert on reasonable attorney's fees reviewed the invoices of legal fees and the filings in the underlying proceeding. He testified that the time spent and legal fees incurred by Garber responding to Mahaney's pleadings and litigating entitlement to fees, were reasonable.3 Mahaney did not present an expert to dispute his testimony. 3 Garber's Composite Exhibit No. 1 consisted of nine invoices for legal services and three prebilling reports dated through January 21, 2020, which was the date of the final hearing. One invoice and one prebilling report addressed a separate matter titled "Maitland Rezone." One invoice did not separate Mahaney's petition from a separate petition filed by Corinne Garrett. The time spent on the underlying proceeding and this fees case reflected in the other seven invoices and two prebilling reports, total $16,621.00.
