Findings Of Fact At all times relevant thereto, respondent, William Reinhart, was licensed to operate a commercial driving school called Easy Method Auto Driving School at 920 North Dixie Highway, Suite 144G, Pompano Beach, Florida. He is holder of commercial driving instructor certificate card number 6634 and commercial driving school license number 2460 issued by petitioner, Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, Division of Driver Licenses (agency or Division). Reinhart has owned and operated his driving school since 1976. The school presently has four instructors, including Reinhart. Beginning in April, 1986 respondent undertook the driving instruction of Kathleen McKeever, a thirty-two year old female who resides in Boca Raton, Florida. Prior to their lessons, the two had never met. She selected respondent's firm by chance out of the telephone directory. McKeever took approximately five or six one-hour driving lessons from Reinhart between April and June, 1986. On the first two lessons, Reinhart placed his hand in McKeever's lap while she was driving. She thought this was unusual but believed it might have been necessary in the event Reinhart had to suddenly grab the wheel. 1/ She did not voice any objection to his actions at that time. On the third or fourth lesson, the two drove on I-95 in Fort Lauderdale. While heading north on that roadway Reinhart reached over and placed his hands on her breasts and "private areas." McKeever at once began "squirming" in her seat. Reinhart then asked her if she minded him flirting with her, and she responded "yes", but he did not stop. The actual length of time in which Reinhart fondled McKeever was not disclosed, but McKeever stated she feared having an accident on I-95 while this occurred. After the lesson was over, McKeever did not disclose the incident to her family or friends because she was embarrassed and afraid it would upset her mother, who was home recuperating from heart bypass surgery. Fearing possible distress to her mother if she suddenly quit her lessons, McKeever decided to return for another driving lesson in June, 1986. At the beginning of the lesson, Reinhart placed his hand in her lap but she pushed it away. Later on, Reinhart offered McKeever $100 if she would give him a "blow job." She told him she wasn't a prostitute. The lesson ended a few minutes later when McKeever stalled the car in a parking lot and it would not restart. She was forced to telephone her family to get a ride home. After the lesson, McKeever telephoned a local television station (WPLG) and asked if the station would send a reporter to investigate the incident. When the station declined, she reported the incident to the Division. The emergency suspension of respondent's two licenses followed on July 21, 1986. According to the chief of the Division's driver improvement bureau, Reinhart's conduct constituted a lack of good moral character as well as a threat to the safety of others since the incidents occurred while a student (McKeever) was driving the vehicle in traffic. He also stressed the fact that an instructor should have good moral character because of the trust which students place in their instructor. Respondent offered two witnesses on his behalf, one a current instructor and the other a former office manager of the driving school. The office manager related that McKeever had never voiced any complaints to her, and that it was not unusual for every instructor to receive complaints from students at one time or another. However, she acknowledged that no complaints had ever involved sexual harassment. The second witness, an instructor, characterized the job of an instructor as being difficult because of the nervous and erratic nature of students. Although he stated it was necessary to keep his left hand near the student for the purpose of grabbing the steering wheel, he acknowledged that this would not require an instructor to place his hand in the student's lap. Respondent denied McKeever's allegations stating she had concocted the story because McKeever was not progressing well in her training and needed an excuse for ending the lessons. Through cross-examination of his counsel, he also suggested that McKeever might have long-standing psychological problems which prompted her to fabricate the story. However, Reinhart's version of events and contentions concerning possible psychological problems on the part of McKeever are not deemed to be credible and are accordingly rejected.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent's instructor certificate card number 6634 be REVOKED for violating Rules 15A-2.09(2)(a) and 15A-2.11(1)(a), Florida Administrative Code. The charges concerning respondent's driving school license number 2460 should be DISMISSED and the license immediately reinstated. DONE and ORDERED this 26th day of September, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of September, 1986.
The Issue The issues presented are whether the Department has the authority to approve Petitioner's distance-learning driver improvement course, whether Petitioner's delivery system is effective, and whether Petitioner's method of delivery complies with statutory and rule requirements.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a provider of basic driver improvement courses in a number of states, including Florida, Texas, and New York. These courses use the traditional classroom setting. Petitioner also provides its course via distance learning in California and Texas. That course is conducted using video and computer technology. The Texas course has been evaluated three times by the Texas education agency, which has determined that the delivery system is effective in achieving behavioral and attitudinal changes in drivers taking the course. In 1996 Petitioner's representatives met informally with the Department's representative, Milton Grosz, to discuss offering in Florida Petitioner's interactive video course which is the same course as Petitioner's already-approved basic driver improvement course. As a result of that meeting, Grosz, who heads the Department's review committee, researched the literature regarding the effectiveness of distance learning. His research revealed a growing body of literature supporting learning by interactive video but none in the field of driver improvement. Grosz noted that other providers would complain that the course's methodology does not work or that it offers the potential for cheating but the literature did not support such claims. Grosz recommended that the Department pilot test Petitioner's course in a limited geographic area. In 1997, Petitioner's representative in Tallahassee met with the Department's Director and explained that Petitioner proposed to introduce its distance-learning version of its course in Florida. After being encouraged to submit an application for approval, Petitioner did so on August 5, 1997. On August 20, 1997, Barbara Lauer, the Chief of the Department's Bureau of Driver Education and DUI Programs, wrote to Petitioner advising that the Department had decided to proceed with the development of interactive video methodology, limited to a single judicial circuit until the Department could pilot test that delivery system for effectiveness in Florida. That letter had been approved by the Director and the Assistant Director of the Department's Division of Driver's Licenses. Petitioner's proposal for Florida uses video and computer technology. The process begins when a person cited for certain non-criminal traffic infractions elects to attend a basic driver improvement course approved by the Department in lieu of a court appearance. A person choosing Petitioner's interactive video course would check out a laptop computer and four-hour video tape from a Blockbuster Video outlet after signing a contract. The contract provides that the student pay a fee, agree to the terms of the course, acknowledge that he or she will be subject to a validation process, acknowledge that he or she will be tested as to the content and must answer correctly 32 of the 40 questions in order to pass the course, and forfeit all money paid if he or she does not pass the course. Once the student agrees to the contractual terms, the student takes the video home, watches the video, and uses the laptop computer, linked to a data-base via modem, to answer questions generated by the computer based on the course content. The student must log into Petitioner's system several times during the course process. He or she is then subjected to a combination of verification and content questions including a final exam. The student also must answer unique identifying questions particular to the student taking the course which are intended to ensure that the person answering the questions via the computer is the student who registered for the course. The course contains situational learning segments where the student is encouraged to reflect on the driving situation covered. Throughout the course process the student is encouraged to use Petitioner's 1-800 number, manned by Florida-certified instructors 24 hours a day, should the student have a question about the course content or wish to discuss other driving situations. A different 1-800 number is provided for technical assistance 24 hours a day. Upon return of the equipment to the Blockbuster Video location, the student is informed as to whether he or she passed or failed the course. If the student passed, he or she is issued a certificate of completion from Petitioner's central office. If the student failed, he or she is given a phone number to call which results in the student being given a verbal quiz by a course instructor, who can then determine that the student has passed the course. Five to seven percent of students typically fail the course. Petitioner would establish a single Florida base of operations if the course were approved for use in this State. The address of each Blockbuster Video store where the course computer and materials are available would be registered with the State as a school. Petitioner's interactive video course would be available in many languages and would be offered in several versions for handicapped and hearing-impaired individuals. Thus, the course would be uniquely accessible to drivers whose handicaps may not be accommodated by places where the traditional classroom version of the course may be offered. The course would be available also for drivers whose work schedules or personal obligations do not allow them to take the basic driver improvement course when offered in a classroom setting. Several requests for additional information were made by the Department, and Petitioner responded to all. By letter dated July 6, 1998, the Department notified Petitioner that its application for course approval was complete and could be evaluated for content. The Department routinely reviews applications for driver improvement course approval by using a review committee. The committee determines whether the application meets the requirements of the administrative code (the Department's rules) and the statutes and determines whether the course curriculum should be approved for use in Florida. The review committee members are the only Department personnel who have actually reviewed the curriculum, have sat through the videotaped course, and have used the interactive computer. The review committee recommended that Petitioner's interactive video course be approved. Accordingly, the Department determined that the course content promotes driver safety, driver awareness, and accident avoidance techniques. In November 1998, the Director of the Department's Division of Driver's Licenses was contacted by a reporter regarding the use of Petitioner's interactive video course in a single county in Florida. After the article appeared, the Department's Executive Director received numerous letters from Petitioner's competitors. The Department has never before denied an application which received the approval of its review committee. However, by letter dated March 8, 1999, the Department advised Petitioner that its application for approval was denied for the reasons that the law does not contemplate approval of a basic driver improvement course conducted in a non-classroom setting although the law does not prohibit such approval, that the Department had never before approved such a course, and that the concept of independent study was not the best choice for effectuating behavioral and attitudinal changes. No one from the Department questioned its legal authority to approve Petitioner's interactive video course until Petitioner's competitors began contacting the Department. Even after those contacts, the Department did not raise any concern about its legal authority although it continued to correspond with Petitioner regarding other aspects of Petitioner's application. Only when the denial letter was issued did the Department advise Petitioner that it did not have authority to approve the course even though such approval was not prohibited. Petitioner provided to the Department as part of its application the effectiveness study performed for the State of Texas which had reviewed Petitioner's interactive video course three times, approving it on each occasion. That study concludes that the course is effective in changing driver behavior. The Department has historically accepted effectiveness studies done for other states. Further, the Department does not require the submission of an effectiveness study for approval of a course to be offered in a single judicial circuit. The Department determined that the course participation validation process was acceptable and does not challenge that process now. Jon Crumpacker, an expert in distance learning, has worked on distance learning projects for the Florida Departments of Corrections, Agriculture and Consumer Services, Education, Transportation, Management Services, Military Affairs, Juvenile Justice, and the Lottery, which have all embraced and used interactive technology similar to that proposed by Petitioner. He found Petitioner's technology to be effective in delivering course content and to be a particularly reliable form of interactive technology. He also concluded that Petitioner's technology is not "radical" as previously characterized by the Department. A delivery system or mechanism is how a particular course content is imparted to a student. There are a variety of systems used today, including traditional classroom, computer- assisted instruction, and virtual classrooms on the Internet. The contractual element of Petitioner's course motivates students to participate in the learning process, as does the testing component, particularly when compared with the traditional classroom delivery system of the basic driver improvement course which includes no testing component. Petitioner's delivery system is a true interactive system and is an effective delivery system, likely to cause changes in attitude and behavior.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered granting Petitioner's application for approval of its interactive video course. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of October, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT 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 28th day of October, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles J. Brantley, Director Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, Room B439 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-5000 Enoch Jon Whitney, General Counsel Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, Room B439 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-5000 Michael J. Alderman, Esquire Department of Highway Safety And Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, Room B439 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-5000 Mark K. Logan, Esquire Smith, Ballard & Logan, P.A. 403 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether Petitioner should be licensed as an independent motor vehicle dealer in Florida.
Findings Of Fact By stipulation of fact, the parties agreed: Petitioner applied for a motor vehicle dealer's license for a dealership to be operated at 2401 Central Avenue in St. Petersburg, Florida. The application was denied by the Department because it appears the applicant has no experience in the motor vehicle business and, in fact, applied for the license to allow an individual by the name of Lloyd Blocker to operate and have continued involvement in the motor vehicle business. Petitioner was aware at the time of his application that Mr. Blocker had been denied a motor vehicle license in Florida in February 1994 and had been convicted of a felony in Alaska involving the unlawful rolling back of odometers in motor vehicles. In addition, Mr. Rinier was aware that the Department of Motor Vehicles would not allow Mr. Blocker to hold a license to deal in motor vehicles in Florida. Mr. Rinier and Mr. Blocker have an ongoing business dealing with the sale of motor vehicles. Mr. Rinier knows and knew at all times pertinent hereto that Mr. Blocker could not operate such a business on his own. The Department of Motor Vehicles contends that Mr. Blocker cannot operate or be involved in any facet of the motor vehicle business in any capacity. If Mr. Rinier were to provide written assurances that Mr. Blocker would not be involved in any way with a business operated under a license if issued, it would issue a license, assuming Mr. Rinier were otherwise qualified for licensure. Mr. Rinier is unwilling to provide that assurance in writing. However, Petitioner contends his sole desire is to make money from the operation of a dealership. If the license were issued, ownership of the business would be and remain in the Petitioner's name. He had already paid lease costs and all other costs relating to the business, and he will not operate it without Mr. Blocker's participation in some form. The present relationship with Mr. Blocker involves sale of the buildings where the dealership would operate.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles enter a Final Order denying a motor vehicle dealer license to Petitioner, Harvey G. Rinier. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of September, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: John L. Waller, Esquire John L. Waller, P.A. 467 Second Avenue, North _ ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6947 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of September, 1997. St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Michael J. Alderman, Esquire Gabrielle L. A. Taylor, Esquire Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, Room A-432 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0504 Charles J. Brantley, Director Division of Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building Room B-439 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0500 Enoch Jon Whitney General Counsel Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0500
The Issue Whether Petitioner properly denied Respondent's application for the renewal of his Commercial Driving School License No. 1719, and Teaching Certificate No. 4531.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received, Petitioner's proposed memorandum and the entire record compiled herein, the following relevant facts are found. 2/ Respondent, Joshua Logan, during times material, was the owner/operator of Logan's Streamline Driving School in West Palm Beach, Florida, beginning in 1970. (Tr. 52) Respondent's most recent Commercial Driving School License (No. 1719) and Teaching Certificate (No. 4531) both expired on June 1, 1981. (Tr. 6) On May 18, 1981, Respondent applied to the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles (herein Department) for renewal of the above referred license and Teaching Certificate. Prior thereto, on or about May 14, 1981, the Department, through its staff, had instructed Respondent that he should contact the Department's agent, J. F. Hayes, at the West Palm Beach Drivers' License office, to arrange for the inspection of his school facilities before his license and certificate could be renewed. On approximately June 1, 1981, Respondent, via a telephone communique with John F. Hayes, District Supervisor, Palm Beach District, Region IV, requested that his renewal applications be held in abeyance pending completion of remodeling of his school building. The Department, pursuant to that communique, held Respondent's renewal applications in abeyance and considered them to be incomplete. Respondent was not told by agents of Petitioner that he could continue to engage in the business of conducting a driving school when his license/certificate expired. The Department issued an order dated August 27, 1981, prohibiting the Respondent from operating as a commercial driving instructor since his school license and teaching certificate both expired on June 1, 1981. On September 29, 1981, Levi Dixon completed an application for a license to conduct a commercial driving school under the name Logan's Streamline Driving School. Attached to that application were receipts, lesson plan forms and other contractual agreements which had been previously utilized by the Respondent. Respondent never renewed his request for an inspection with Supervisor Hayes. Don H. Keirn, Chief, Driver Improvement Bureau for Petitioner, regulates programs related to problem drivers. Chief Keirn has been the bureau chief for driver improvement for approximately twelve (12) years and also is in charge of regulating driving schools. As part of his duties, he inspects vehicles, making certain that they are properly equipped with dual controls, pass safety inspections and bear signs legible to the driving public. Rule 15A- 2.07, Florida Administrative Code. Chief Keirn reviewed the application to change the ownership of the Respondent's driving school during October of 1981. Chief Keirn had received no advance notification from Respondent of any plans (of Respondent) to change the ownership of the school. John F. Hayes, District Supervisor of the Palm Beach District (Region IV) makes periodic checks of commercial driving schools in the Palm Beach district. During the summer of 1981, Respondent advised Supervisor Hayes that, on April 14, 1980, he gave a behind-the-wheel driving lesson to Alzora Washington, in her own vehicle, rather than in a dual-control vehicle approved by the Department, which lesson resulted in Ms. Washington's car crashing through a fence and into a neighbor's home. (Testimony of Respondent, Ms. Washington; Tr. 18, 19, 38 and Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1) Respondent caused to be placed, in a local weekly newspaper, an advertisement offering driving instructions during October and November, 1981. (Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 5) Also, on November 10, 1981, Respondent gave instructions to Geraldine Wilder White in preparation for her to take the written portion of the driver's license exam to obtain a restricted driver's license. Ms. White paid Respondent a $40.00 fee for the driving instruction. (See Petitioner's Exhibit 4; Tr. 20- 24, 40-48 and Composite Exhibit 5) Sometime during the period in which Respondent requested Petitioner to postpone the inspection of his school, Petitioner learned of Respondent's actions as relates to his giving a driving lesson to Ms. Washington on April 14, 1980. Respondent, Joshua A. Logan, is a 56-year-old male who has custody of his three (3) children. Respondent is employed full time as a professional teacher by the Office of Community Mental Health. Respondent has had no prior charges brought against him by the Petitioner. Nor has he been previously charged with violations of any of the Department's rules. 3/ Respondent was therefore of the opinion that by advising Supervisor Hayes of the accident in which he was involved with Ms. Washington, Petitioner would place him on probation for giving a driving lesson in an unapproved vehicle. Respondent executed an answer to a civil suit initiated by counsel for Ms. Washington as a result of the automobile accident referred to hereinabove. Respondent also filed a counter-claim to Ms. Washington's claim and admits to having made several mistakes in both the answer and the counter-claim respecting damages and claims for such damages. 4/
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That the Department deny Respondent's application for renewal of his school license Number 1719 and Teaching Certificate Number 4531. RECOMMENDED this 25th day of May, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of May, 1982.
Conclusions This matter came before the Department for entry of a Final Order upon submission of an , Order Closing File by Barbara J. Staros, Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings, a copy of which is attached and incorporated by reference in this order. The Department hereby adopts the Order Closing File as its Final Order in this matter. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that this case is moss / DONE AND ORDERED this “7, day of May, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, } Florida. CARL A. FORD, Directo: Division of Motor Vehicles Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399 May 20 2010 10:06 08/20/2010 08:55 Fax Boog /o05 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Motor Vehicles this day of May, 2010. Nalini Gneek: Dealer Administrator NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS Judicial review of this order may be had pursuant to section 120.68, Florida Statutes, in the District Court of Appeal for the First District, State of Florida, or in any other district court of appeal of this state in an appellate district where a party resides. In order to initiate such review, one copy of the notice of appeal must be filed with the Department and the other copy of the notice of appeal, together with the filing fee, must be filed with the court within thirty days of the filing date of this order as set out above, pursuant to Rules of Appellate Procedure. Copies furnished: Phillip Orenstein, President RV Having Fun Yet, Inc. 614-1 Pecan Park Road Jacksonville, Florida 32218 James K. Fisher, Esquire Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building 2900 Apalachee Parkway, Room A308 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Barbara J. Staros Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Nalini Vinayak Dealer License Administrator Florida Administrative Law Reports Post Office Box 385 Gainesville, Florida 32602
The Issue The issues are: (1) whether Petitioner is qualified for a pari-mutuel wagering occupational license; and (2) whether Petitioner is entitled to waiver of his felony conviction in accordance with Chapter 550, Florida Statutes (2006).
Findings Of Fact Petitioner submitted an application for a pari-mutuel wagering occupational license as a racehorse owner on or about March 30, 2005. On his application, Petitioner accurately reported that he had been convicted on one count of Conspiracy to Transport Stolen Property and Evade Taxes, a felony. Due to Petitioner’s felony conviction, his application for a pari-mutuel wagering occupational license was subject to denial. Consequently, Petitioner also requested that a waiver be granted so that he could obtain the license. Petitioner's application and his request for waiver failed to include any information which would establish his rehabilitation or demonstrate that he is of good moral character. In the regular course of the Division's review of Petitioner's application and request for waiver, on or about April 11, 2005, Petitioner was interviewed by Dennis Badillo, an investigator for the Division. During the interview, Mr. Badillo completed a waiver interview form based upon the answers provided by Petitioner. Petitioner was afforded a full and fair opportunity to present information to establish his rehabilitation and to demonstrate his present good moral character, but Petitioner did not provide such information. In light of the information regarding Petitioner’s felony conviction, which is undisputed and admitted by Petitioner on his application form and at the final hearing, Petitioner does not meet the eligibility requirements for the license he seeks. At hearing, Petitioner attempted to minimize his role in the crime of which he was convicted, and expressed the view that he "doesn't have much time" to fulfill his desire to "participate in the racing industry" in Florida, inasmuch as he has passed his 70th birthday. Petitioner failed to present any testimony from friends, relatives, associates, employers, probation officers, or other individuals to establish good conduct and reputation subsequent to the date of his felony conviction. Absent such evidence, the Division has no basis upon which to conclude that Petitioner is rehabilitated or that Petitioner is of present good moral character.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Division enter a final order denying Petitioner’s application for a pari-mutuel wagering occupational license and his request for waiver. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of January 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S FLORENCE SNYDER RIVAS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of January, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: S. Thomas Peavey Hoffer Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Joseph L. Nacca 268 West Walk West Haven, Connecticut 06516 David J. Roberts, Director Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Josefina Tamayo, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202
Conclusions This matter came before the Department for entry of a Final Order upon submission of an Order Closing File and Relinquishing Jurisdiction by June C. McKinney, Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings, pursuant to Respondent’s Notice of Withdrawal, a copy of which is attached and incorporated by reference in this order. The Department hereby adopts the Order Closing File and Relinquishing Jurisdiction as its Final Order in this matter. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that this case is CLOSED and no license will be issued to Polaris Sales, Inc., and Broward Motorsports of Palm Beach, LLC d/b/a Broward Motorsports to sell low-speed vehicles manufactured by Polaris Industries, Inc., (GEM) at 2300 Okeechobee Boulevard, West Palm Beach, (Palm Beach County), Florida 33409. Filed December 10, 2012 1:21 PM Division of Administrative Hearings DONE AND ORDERED this ( | day of December, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Buréati of Issuance Oversight Division of Motorist Services Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, Room A338 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Filed in the official records of the Division of Motorist Services i rf Hol prcembe, 2012 Naini Vinayak, Dealer Yicense Administre'" NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS Judicial review of this order may be had pursuant to section 120.68, Florida Statutes, in the District Court of Appeal for the First District, State of Florida, or in any other district court of appeal of this state in an appellate district where a party resides. In order to initiate such review, one copy of the notice of appeal must be filed with the Department and the other copy of the notice of appeal, together with the filing fee, must be filed with the court within thirty days of the filing date of this order as set out above, pursuant to Rules of Appellate Procedure. JB/jdc Copies furnished: A. Edward Quinton, Esquire Adams, Quinton and Paretti, P.A. Brickell Bayview Center 80 Southwest 8" Street, Suite 2150 Miami, Florida 33130 equinton@adamsquinton.com Michael W. Malone Polaris Sales, Inc. 2100 Highway 55 Medina, Minnesota 55340-9770 Sam Nehme Broward Motorsports of Palm Beach, LLC 4760 Sunkist Way Cooper City, Florida 33330 Marc Osheroff Broward Motorsports of Palm Beach, LLC 13600 Stirling Road Southwest Ranches, Florida 33330 Jonathan Brennen Butler, Esquire Akerman Senterfitt 222 Lakeview Avenue, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Jonathan.butler@akerman.com June C. McKinney Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Nalini Vinayak Dealer License Administrator
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, the undersigned makes the following findings of fact: Respondent holds a license issued by Petitioner which permits it to engage in the business of a motor vehicle dealer at 9901 N.W. 80th Avenue, Bay 3C, Hialeah Gardens, Florida. On Friday, September 9, 1988, during normal business hours, Karen Reyes, who is employed by Petitioner as a License and Registration Inspector, visited this location to attempt to conduct an annual inspection of Respondent's records. The doors to the warehouse where the business was supposed to be located were closed and locked and no one was around the dealership. Reyes left a note requesting that a representative of the dealership contact her. She then-departed. Reyes returned to the location on Tuesday, September 20, 1988. Although it was mid-morning, the warehouse doors were closed and locked and there was no one present. Before departing, Reyes left a second note asking that she be contacted by someone from the dealership. The following day Reyes attempted to telephone the dealership. No one answered the phone, however, when she called. Reyes reported her findings to her supervisor. As a result, on October 20, 1988, Respondent's President, Javier F. Rodriquez, was sent a letter in which he was advised that Petitioner proposed to revoke Respondent's motor vehicle dealer license on the ground that Respondent had closed and abandoned its licensed location. The letter further advised that Respondent had the right to request a formal hearing before any final action was taken against it. Rodriquez responded to the letter by requesting a hearing at which he would have the opportunity to present proof that the dealership had not been closed or abandoned. In view of this response, Reyes was instructed by her supervisor to pay another visit to the dealership. She made this visit on Tuesday, November 8, 1988. This time she encountered two men at the location. There were also a couple of cars there as well. One of the men, who claimed to be a representative of the dealership, telephoned Rodriquez's wife and had her speak with Reyes. During their telephone conversation, Mrs. Rodriquez informed Reyes that her husband was still active in the automobile sales business, but that he was conducting his business at their home. At the conclusion of their discussion, Reyes asked Mrs. Rodriquez to have her husband call Reyes' office. Mr. Rodriquez telephoned Reyes' office on November 16, 1988. Reyes was not in, so Rodriquez left a message. Later, that day, Reyes returned the call, but was unable to reach Rodriquez. The following day, Reyes went back to the dealership, where she found the same two men she had met there on November 8, 1988. Rodriquez, however, was not at the dealership. Reyes therefore left. She came back later in the day. This time Mr. Rodriquez was present and he spoke with Reyes. When asked by Reyes why there was no business activity nor records at the licensed business location, Rodriquez responded that the dealership was now open every day from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. He provided Reyes with no additional information. Reyes revisited the dealership on Friday, January 13, 1989, Wednesday, January 18, 1989, Thursday, January 19, 1989, and Monday, January 23, 1989, during normal business hours. On each of these occasions, she found no one at the location and the doors to the warehouse closed and locked. She made another visit on Monday, January 30, 1989. Although it was during normal business hours, there was no indication of any activity at the dealership. Furthermore, the sign which had identified the business had been removed. This prompted Reyes to speak with the leasing agent at the warehouse complex. The leasing agent told Reyes that Respondent was no longer occupying space at the complex.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order revoking Respondent's motor vehicle dealer license. DONE and ORDERED this 27th day of March, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. STUART M. LERNER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of March, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael J. Alderman, Esquire Neil Kirkman Building, A-432 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0504 Javier F. Rodriquez, President Inrodar Auto Sales, Inc. 9901 N.W. 80th Avenue, Bay 3C Hialeah Gardens, Florida 33016 Charles J. Brantley, Director Department of Highway Safety And Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0500 Enoch Jon Whitney, Esquire General Counsel Department of Highway Safety And Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0500
Conclusions This matter came before the Department for entry of a Final Order upon submission of an Order Closing File by Susan Belyeu Kirkland, Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings, pursuant to the Petitioner’s Notice of Voluntary Dismissal With Prejudice, a copy of which is attached and incorporated by reference in this order. The Department hereby adopts the Order Closing File as its Final Order in this matter. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that this case is CLOSED Filed November 16, 2011 2:59 PM Division of Administrative Hearings DONE AND ORDERED this le day of November, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Sandra C. Lambert, Director Division of Motorist Services Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, Room A435, MS 80 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Motorist Services this fa day of November, 2011. ous Nalini Vinayak, Deafer Administrator NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS Judicial review of this order may be had pursuant to section 120.68, Florida Statutes, in the District Court of Appeal for the First District, State of Florida, or in any other district court of appeal of this state in an appellate district where a party resides. In order to initiate such review, one copy of the notice of appeal must be filed with the Department and the other copy of the notice of appeal, together with the filing fee, must be filed with the court within thirty days of the filing date of this order as set out above, pursuant to Rules of Appellate Procedure. SCLjdce Copies furnished: Jason T. Allen, Esquire Bass, Sox and Mercer, P.A. 2822 Remington Green Circle Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Bianca G. Liston, Esquire McDonald Toole Wiggins Post Office Box 4924 Orlando, Florida 32802 Nalini Vinayak Dealer License Administrator
