The Issue The issue before DOAH is a determination of the amount of attorney’s fees and costs to be awarded for the administrative proceedings in Brooklyn Luncheonette, LLC v. Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, Case No. 09-1973 (DOAH October 23, 2009).
Findings Of Fact On October 23, 2009, the undersigned ALJ of DOAH issued a Summary Final Order in the case of Brooklyn Luncheonette, LLC v. Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, Case No. 09-1973 (DOAH October 23, 2009), in which it was held that Florida Administrative Code Rule 61A-3.0141(2)(a)2., “promulgated by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, and its directive that the square footage making up the licensed premises of an SRX license be “contiguous,” constitutes an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority “that cannot be relied upon by Respondent to deny the issuance of an SRX license to Petitioner.” No appeal was taken of said Order and the license was issued. In the Joint Stipulation Regarding Attorney’s Fees, Respondent waived its right to demonstrate that its actions were justified or that special circumstances exist which would make the award unjust. Based on a review of the underlying file, the affidavits of the attorneys filed with the petition, the Stipulation filed herein, and the procedure for calculating the lodestar figure set forth in Rowe, Harold F. X. Purnell and Maggie M. Schultz’s attorney’s fees totaled $16,301.25. These fees are determined to be reasonable, and no adjustment is warranted. Based on the affidavits and Stipulation filed herein, Petitioner has established that the costs of pursuing the administrative proceeding disputing the validity of the rule challenged totaled $408.47.
Findings Of Fact Introduction On February 26, 1988 respondent, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS), through its District IX office, advertised a Request for Proposal (RFP) in the Florida Administrative Weekly inviting qualified and interested organizations and vendors to submit proposals for the designation of an Area Agency on Aging in District IX. The designation would run from May 2, 1988 through the end of the calendar year but the successful vendor could be expected to be redesignated in subsequent years. According to the advertisement: Proposals will be received by District IX until 12:00 p.m., EST, March 24, 1988, for the designation of an Area Agency on Aging authorized under Title III of the Older Americans Act as amended, within the jurisdictional areas of Martin, St. Lucie, Indian River, Okeechobee and Palm Beach Counties. * * * Contract awards will be based on approximately 75 percent federal funds, 11 percent general revenue and 14 percent local matching funds. * * * Written inquiries concerning the Request for Proposals will be received until 4:00 p.m., EST, March 11, 1988. A Bidders Conference, to review the proposed format and contract award process, will be held on March 4, 1988. * * * Under this proposal, HRS intended to award the contract to the best qualified firm since price proposals were not being submitted. To this extent, the proceeding differs from the typical state project where the contract is ordinarily awarded to the lowest and most responsive bidder. In response to the above RFP, petitioner, Banyan Area Agency on Aging, Inc. (Banyan), timely submitted its proposal. As it turned out, Banyan was the only organization that filed a bid. After being reviewed by a seven person evaluation committee, the proposal was given a score of 480 out of a possible 1525 and a recommendation that it be rejected. This recommendation was later adopted by the District Administrator. This decision was conveyed to petitioner by letter dated April 4, 1988. That prompted a request for hearing by petitioner to challenge the preliminary agency action. As grounds for contesting the action, petitioner contended the agency was arbitrary and capricious in rejecting its proposal. If its preliminary action is sustained, HRS intends to seek authority from the Department of General Services to negotiate a noncompetitive bid. Under this process, HRS desires to designate, after a screening process, one person from each of the five counties to serve on the board of a corporation to be established to run the program. Thus, HRS does not intend to readvertise the RFP and seek competitive proposals a second time. The Contract The contract in question is funded principally through federal grant dollars under the federal Older Americans Act of 1965, as amended. The monies, commonly known as Title III funds, are used to provide programs for senior citizens. Respondent is the State agency charged with the responsibility of administering the program funds. To receive federal funds, HRS was required to prepare a state plan and submit it to the U.S. Commissioner on Aging for his approval. A part of that plan calls for HRS, or District IX in this case, to designate an area agency on aging (AAA) to plan and administer a comprehensive and coordinated system of services for the aging in the five county area of Palm Beach, Okeechobee, Indian River, Martin and S. Lucie Counties. Among other things, the local AAA must develop an area plan for supportive services, senior centers and nutrition services in the five county area. The AAA will receive $300,000 to cover administrative costs in administering the program and will be in charge of dispensing several million dollars annually in grant dollars for aging programs. District IX had previously designated Gulfstream Area Agency on Aging (Gulfstream) as its AAA. However, due to a combination of faulty management, lack of supervision and other factors, Gulfstream was designated as AAA in May, 1987. Since then, HRS has received several waivers from the Commissioner on Aging but now faces a mandate to designate a District IX AAA by October 1, 1988 or lose its federal funding. To avoid a recurrence of the Gulfstream problem, the HRS District IX contract manager, and several other district personnel, prepared a comprehensive RFP to be issued in conjunction with the selection of a new AAA designee. After a draft was assembled at the local level, the RFP was forwarded to HRS' Tallahassee office where further refinements were made. The final product has been received in evidence as petitioner's exhibit 9 and respondent's exhibit 11. According to the District IX contract manager, the RFP is the "state of the art" in terms of what an AAA ought to be. The RFP is a voluminous document, weighing some 6 1/2 pounds according to Banyan, and requires a great deal of information and detail regarding the AAA organization, procedures, and program plans and goals to satisfy the federal act. The RFP was given to interested organizations, including Banyan, around March 1, 1988. This gave vendors approximately three and one-half weeks to prepare and submit a proposal. Only Banyan was interested in being the designee and thus was the only bidder on the job. Its proposal contained 135 pages. Evaluation Process HRS created a seven person evaluation committee to review the proposals. The committee included five HRS employees and two non-HRS members. All members were given Banyan's proposal prior to the selection date. On March 28, 1988 the committee met and each member independently evaluated Banyan's proposal. Although a top score of 1525 was theoretically possible, Banyan received an average overall score from each There of 480, or a rating of approximately thirty-one and one half percent. After the scores were tallied, Banyan was given one hour to orally explain its proposal before the full committee. At the conclusion of the presentation, the committee voted unanimously to reject the proposal. The reasons for rejecting Banyan's proposal are set forth in respondent's exhibit 2. The three primary deficiencies, as broadly stated, were the "proposal did not develop ideas fully enough to demonstrate a clear understanding of the needs and conditions of the District IX 60+ population," the proposal "did not demonstrate a clear understanding of the role and responsibility of area agency on aging nor was there evidence of administrative capability,' and (c) the proposal "did not offer assurance that current board members fully understood their position as the governing board." At hearing, several members of the committee amplified on the above three shortcomings and pointed out specific deficiencies in Banyan's proposal which led them to reject the proposal. For example, the proposal failed to focus on areas outside of Palm Beach County, did not contain a proposed budget, lacked minority representation, failed to fully identify goals and objectives, did not include a detailed description of the fair hearing process and the make- up and procedure of the advisory council and omitted the corporation's bylaws. Given these deficiencies, and others, HRS was justified in rejecting the bid. Petitioner's Case Petitioner contends that three and one-half weeks was too short a time to prepare a responsible proposal to the RFP. In this regard, HRS acknowledged it was a lengthy RFP, but it considered the time adequate for a qualified and experienced organization, particularly since much of the RFP was reference material. Banyan also pointed out that its board of directors was made up of highly qualified people with impressive work experience. While this is true, as evidenced by testimony at hearing, none were experienced in managing a federally funded program of this magnitude. Banyan further stated that, after the proposal was filed, it could have corrected or expanded on many of its abbreviated responses. However, once the proposal was filed, such changes were impermissible. Finally, Banyan conceded that while many of its responses were brief and nonspecific, this was because Banyan intended to rely upon HRS for technical assistance to implement the programs. However, the RFP called for specific, detailed responses so that HRS could properly evaluate the proposal. Allegations of Bias or Impropriety There is no evidence that the committee acted unfairly or improperly during the evaluation process or that any eber was personally biased towards Banyan. There is also no evidence that HRS rejected the bid so that it could "control" the management of the program.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the protest filed by petitioner be DENIED and that a Final Order be entered confirming the rejection of petitioner's proposal. DONE AND ORDERED this 20th day of June, 1988, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 20th day of June, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Colman B. Stein 100 Worth Avenue Apartment 416 Palm Beach, Florida 33480 Laurel D. Hopper, Esquire 111 Georgia Avenue Third Floor West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 R. S. Power, Esquire Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Room 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Administrative Actions in these consolidated cases, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing, and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: At all times material hereto, Fowler Liquors was licensed by the Division, having been issued license number 46- 04643, Series 3-PS. The license permits Fowler Liquors to make packaged sales of beer, wine, and liquor at its convenience store located at 3450 Fowler Street in Fort Myers. In an Administrative Action dated July 11, 2002, the Division charged Samer Barghouthi, the majority owner and principal officer of Fowler Liquors, with selling alcoholic beverages to a person under the age of 21 on May 19, 2002. Fowler Liquors conceded there were no disputed issues of fact and requested that the matter be resolved in an informal hearing. In a Final Order dated October 25, 2002, the Division ordered Fowler Liquors to pay a fine of $1,000 and serve a seven-day license suspension. The Administrative Action regarding the May 19, 2002, sale arose from an incident in which 20-year-old Tony Cubello was beaten, robbed, and shot to death in the parking lot of Fowler Liquors after making a purchase in the liquor store. The murder of Mr. Cubello was the subject of articles in the Fort Myers newspaper. The Fort Myers Police Department investigated Mr. Cubello's murder and came to believe that Samer Barghouthi could identify the killers but was refusing to cooperate. The Fort Myers police requested the assistance of the Division in securing Mr. Barghouthi's cooperation. The Division commenced an investigation, interviewing young people who had known Mr. Cubello. During the course of these interviews, the Division became aware that Fowler Liquors was widely reputed as a place where underage people could buy alcoholic beverages. During its investigation, the Division also learned that the Department of Revenue had a tax warrant against Fowler Liquors, and that the City of Fort Myers had issued citations against Fowler Liquors for hours-of-sale violations. During its investigation, the Division sent an underage operative into Fowler Liquors to attempt to purchase alcoholic beverages. The operative was wearing a hidden microphone, allowing the Division's officers to hear what transpired in the liquor store. As the sale was about to be completed, a van full of construction workers pulled up outside the store. The person working behind the counter at Fowler Liquors said that there were "cops" in the van, and declined to complete the sale to the operative. On June 14, 2002, Captain Tania Pendarakis, district supervisor for the Division's Fort Myers office, met with Samer Barghouthi. She informed Mr. Barghouthi that the Division might consider filing administrative charges rather than criminal charges against Fowler Liquors, if Mr. Barghouthi would cooperate with the Fort Myers Police Department's murder investigation. During this conversation, Mr. Barghouthi assured Captain Pendarakis that he was going to start checking identifications and stop selling alcoholic beverages to underage children. The next day, June 15, 2002, David P. Green, then sixteen years old, entered Fowler Liquors early in the evening to buy beer. In the liquor store, Mr. Green recognized other people whom he knew from his high school. Mr. Green testified that it was widely known at his school that underage people could purchase alcohol at Fowler Liquors. Mr. Green purchased a twelve-pack of Budweiser Light beer. He tendered ten dollars cash to the cashier and asked if the store sold "dip," i.e., finely ground tobacco. The cashier told him no, but offered to sell Mr. Green cigarettes. The cashier did not ask Mr. Green his age, nor request any identification from Mr. Green to prove that he was at least 21 years of age. At the hearing in this matter, conducted nearly nine months after the fact, Mr. Green looked no older than sixteen. When he purchased the beer at Fowler Liquors, Mr. Green made no attempt to alter his appearance or otherwise disguise the fact that he was only sixteen years old. When Mr. Green exited Fowler Liquors, he saw a police officer parked in a police cruiser directly in front of him. Mr. Green put his twelve-pack of beer down next to a garbage can, then got into his car and drove away. Several of Mr. Green's friends were also in his car. The police officer who witnessed this scene, Officer Bradley J. Ades of the Fort Myers Police Department, testified at the hearing. Officer Ades testified that, because of the ongoing problems the police were having with Fowler Liquors, he stopped by there to check it out as part of his normal duties. As he pulled into the parking lot, he saw a "very young white male" walking out the front door of Fowler Liquors. The boy was carrying a twelve-pack of Budweiser Light beer. Officer Ades stated that he was surprised not to see the boy's father follow him out of the store, because the boy looked so young. The boy got into his car and drove away. Officer Ades followed him for a little more than one block, then pulled him over. Officer Ades interviewed Mr. Green and photographed him. Mr. Green admitted that he bought the beer in Fowler Liquors, and that he and the other boys in his car intended to drink it. Because the sale of alcohol to a minor is a misdemeanor, and he did not witness the sale, Officer Ades could not make an arrest. The next day, he forwarded to the Division the information concerning his stop of Mr. Green. Agent Brian D. Sauls of the Division contacted Mr. Green and asked him to come to the Division's offices for an interview. Mr. Green agreed. Agent Sauls conducted a photographic suspect lineup, and Mr. Green identified Samer Barghouthi as having been behind the counter at Fowler Liquors at the time he purchased the twelve-pack of Budweiser Light on June 15, 2002. The incident involving the sale to Mr. Green formed the basis of the Administrative Action that led to DOAH Case No. 03-0431. Fowler Liquors did not contest the evidence that a sale was made by Fowler Liquors to Mr. Green, an underage person, on June 15, 2002, or that Samer Barghouthi was present at the counter when the sale was made. On the evening of June 17, 2002, Justin C. Bender, then eighteen years of age, entered Fowler Liquors to buy beer. Mr. Bender testified that he had purchased alcohol at Fowler Liquors more than 40 times and had never been asked for any identification. Mr. Bender stated that he has seen friends and other people whom he knew from school inside Fowler Liquor Store. Mr. Bender also testified that he had discussions with other people about Fowler Liquors being a place where underage people could purchase alcoholic beverages. On June 17, 2002, Mr. Bender purchased a twelve-pack of Budweiser beer and a quart of Heineken beer, then left the store. Mr. Bender purchased the beer from Steve Barghouthi, the father of Samer Barghouthi. Steve Barghouthi did not ask Mr. Bender his age, nor request any identification to prove that he was at least 21 years of age. Mr. Bender had made no effort to alter his appearance or make himself look older than eighteen. On June 17, 2002, Anthony J. Smith, the chief of law enforcement for the Division, visited the Fort Myers office. He asked Captain Pendarakis to inform him of cases her office was involved in, and the subject of Fowler Liquors was discussed. After dinner that evening, Chief Smith drove by Fowler Liquors to take a look at the store. As he drove through the parking lot, Chief Smith saw Mr. Bender exiting the store with his beer. Chief Smith stopped him to determine how old he was. Mr. Bender produced a valid driver's license that showed he was eighteen years old. Chief Smith searched Mr. Bender for fake identification, but found none. Chief Smith asked Mr. Bender if he would be willing to return to Fowler Liquors and make another purchase that Chief Smith could observe. Mr. Bender agreed to do so. Chief Smith telephoned Captain Pendarakis and asked her to bring marked cash for Mr. Bender to purchase beer. Captain Pendarakis arrived with the cash. She went into Fowler Liquors to ascertain whether it would be safe for Mr. Bender to return to the store. After Captain Pendarakis determined the store was safe, Mr. Bender entered the store. Chief Smith and Captain Pendarakis watched the transaction from across the street. They had a clear view through the window of the liquor store. They observed Mr. Bender get a carton of beer, put it on the counter, pay for it, and walk out the door. After Chief Smith and Captain Pendarakis viewed the sale to Mr. Bender, they went into the store to arrest the person who had made the sale, Samer Barghouthi. Mr. Barghouthi was arrested and taken to the Lee County Jail. The incident involving the sale to Mr. Bender formed the basis of the Administrative Action that led to DOAH Case No. 03-0217. Fowler Liquors did not contest the evidence that a sale was made by Fowler Liquors to Mr. Bender, an underage person, on June 17, 2002, or that Samer Barghouthi, the licensee, had made the sale. In mitigation, counsel for Fowler Liquors argued that license revocation would be unfair because Samer Barghouthi is no longer involved in the operation of the business, having signed over his interest to his uncle, Shahir Daghara. Counsel contended that Mr. Daghara acted to remove Samer Barghouthi from the premises of Fowler Liquors as soon as he learned that Mr. Barghouthi was making sales to underage persons. This contention is not credible. The two sales that are the subject of these proceedings occurred nearly one month after the murder of Mr. Cubello, which was widely known to have occurred after Mr. Cubello purchased alcoholic beverages in Fowler Liquors. The two sales also occurred after Mr. Barghouthi had been interviewed by Captain Pendarakis about sales of alcoholic beverages to minors. Moreover, Officer Cecil Pendergrass of the Fort Myers Police Department testified that Samer Barghouthi was still working at Fowler Liquors on July 1, 2002, two weeks after his arrest for selling alcoholic beverages to Justin Bender. There is no record evidence that Mr. Barghouthi transferred his interest in the business to Mr. Daghara. At most, the Division's files indicate that at some point, Fowler Liquors represented to the Division that Mr. Daghara had taken a 49 percent interest in the business. The file also contains an undated "Current Licensee Update Data Sheet" on which Samer Barghouthi's name is crossed through, but Fowler Liquors offered no sworn testimony to explain the significance of this document. Further, even if Mr. Daghara did take over the business, there is no evidence that he took any steps to remove Mr. Barghouthi from the premises of Fowler Liquors, or did anything else to address the problem of selling alcoholic beverages to minors. Officer Pendergrass, who is the community coordinator for the area of Fort Myers that includes Fowler Liquors, also testified that he has been called to Fowler Liquors on a regular basis to deal with code enforcement problems, fights between family members, drug sales, robberies in the parking lot, and civil problems between the owners over refrigeration equipment. Officer Pendergrass testified that the police department's statistics establish that Fowler Liquors is the nucleus of criminal complaints in the area, and that in the last year, the Fort Myers Police Department has had over 300 calls for service to Fowler Liquors.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco enter a Final Order revoking the license of Barghouthi Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a Fowler Liquor Store. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of June, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of June, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael Martinez, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Captain Tania Pendarkis 4100 Center Point Drive Suite 104 Fort Myers, Florida 33916 John Kyle Shoemaker, Esquire Post Office Box 1601 Fort Myers, Florida 33902 Hardy L. Roberts, III, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Peter Williams, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact 1. All findings of fact in the ALJ’s RO are adopted and incorporated herein by reference.
Conclusions THIS CAUSE is before me upon the attached Recommended Order (RO) that was issued by the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) assigned to hear the case by the Division of Administrative Hearings. A Transcript of the hearing was not filed with the Agency Clerk. No exceptions to the Recommended Order were filed. The Recommended Order recommends that the department enter a Final Order denying the petitioner's application for a license to operate a group home for disabled adults.
Appeal For This Case A party who is adversely affected by this final order is entitled to judicial review. To initiate judicial review, the party seeking it must file one copy of a “Notice of Appeal” with the Agency Clerk. The party seeking judicial review must also file another copy of the “Notice of Appeal,” accompanied by the filing fee required by law, with the First District Court of Appeal in Tallahassee, Florida, or with the District Court of Appeal in the district where the party resides. The Notices must be filed within thirty (30) days of the rendition of this final order.’ The date of the “rendition” of this Final Order is the date that is stamped on its first page. The Notices of Appeal must be received on or before the thirtieth day after that date. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE | HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing FINAL ORDER has been sent by U.S. Mail or hand delivery to each of the persons named above on this 77% day of , 2004. al PAUL FLOUNLACKER, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Blvd. Bldg. 2 Room 204 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700
The Issue Whether Respondent, Xencom Facility Management, LLC (Xencom), terminated the employment of Petitioners solely because the contract under which they were working ended.
Findings Of Fact Xencom provides general maintenance, landscaping, housekeeping, and office cleaning services to retail facilities. In September of 2015, Xencom entered three contracts for services with CREFII Market Street Holdings, LLC (CREFII). The contracts were to provide maintenance, landscaping, and office cleaning services for a mall known as Market Street @ Heathbrook (Market Street) in Ocala, Florida. Michael Ponds, Xencom’s president, executed the contracts on behalf of Xencom. Two individuals executed the contracts on behalf of CREFII. One was Gar Herring, identified as manager for Herring Ocala, LLC. The other was Bernard E. McAuley, identified as manager of Tricom Market Street at Heathbrook, LLC. MG Herring was not a party or signatory to the contracts. MG Herring does not own or operate Market Street. A separate entity, The MG Herring Property Group, LLC (Property Group), operated Market Street. The contracts, in terms stated in an exhibit to them, established a fixed price for the year’s work, stated the scope of services, and detailed payment terms. They also identified labor and labor-related costs in detail that included identifying the Xencom employees involved, their compensation, and their weekly number of hours. The contract exhibits also identified operating costs, including equipment amortization, equipment repairs, fuel expenses, vacation costs, health insurance, and storage costs. The contracts ended December 31, 2016. The contracts specify that Xencom is an independent contractor. Each states: “Contractor is an independent contractor and not an employee or agent of the owner. Accordingly, neither Contractor nor any of Contractor’s Representatives shall hold themselves out as, or claim to be acting in the capacity of, an agent or employee of Owner.” The contracts also specify that the property manager may terminate the contract at any time without reason for its convenience. The contracts permit Xencom to engage subcontractors with advance approval of the property manager. They broadly describe the services that Xencom is to provide. Xencom has over 80 such contracts with different facilities. As the contracts contemplate, only Xencom exerted direct control of the Petitioners working at Market Street. Property Group could identify tasks and repairs to be done. Xencom decided who would do them and how. In 2013, Xencom hired Michael Harrison to work as its Operations Manager at Market Street. He was charged with providing services for which Property Group contracted. His immediate supervisor was Xencom’s Regional Manager. In 2016, that was David Snell. Mr. Snell was not located at Market Street. Property Group also did not have a representative on site. Before Xencom hired him, Mr. Harrison worked at Market Street for Property Group. Xencom hired the remaining Petitioners to work at Market Street under Mr. Harrison’s supervision. Each of the Petitioners completed an Application for Employment with Xencom. The application included a statement, initialed by each Petitioner, stating, “Further, I understand and agree that my employment is for no definite period and I may be terminated at any time without previous notice.” All of the Petitioners also received Xencom’s employee handbook. As Xencom’s Operations Manager and supervisor of the other Petitioners, Mr. Harrison was responsible for day-to-day management of Petitioners. He scheduled their work tasks, controlled shifts, established work hours, and assigned tasks. Mr. Harrison also decided when Petitioners took vacations and time off. His supervisor expected him to consult with Property Group to ensure it knew what support would be available and that he knew of any upcoming events or other considerations that should be taken into account in his decisions. As Operations Manager, Mr. Harrison was also responsible for facilitating payroll, procuring supplies, and managing Xencom’s equipment at the site. Xencom provided Petitioners work uniforms that bore Xencom’s name. Xencom required Petitioners to wear the uniforms at work. Xencom provided the supplies and equipment that Petitioners used at work. Only Xencom had authority to hire or fire the employees providing services to fulfill its contracts with the property manager. Only Xencom had authority to modify Petitioners’ conditions of employment. Neither MG Herring, Property Group, nor Xencom held out Petitioners as employees of MG Herring or Property Group. There is no evidence that MG Herring or Property Group employed 15 or more people. Property Group hired Tina Wilson as Market Street’s on- site General Manager on February 1, 2016. Until then there was no Property Group representative at the site. The absence of a Property Group representative on-site left Mr. Harrison with little oversight or accountability under the Xencom contracts for Market Street. His primary Property Group contact was General Manager Norine Bowen, who was not located at the property. Ms. Wilson’s duties included community relations, public relations, marketing, leasing, litigation, tenant coordination, lease management, construction management, and contract management. She managed approximately 40 contracts at Market Street, including Xencom’s three service agreements. Ms. Wilson was responsible for making sure the contracts were properly executed. Managing the Xencom contracts consumed less than 50 percent of Ms. Wilson’s time. During the last weeks of 2016, Mr. Harrison intended to reduce the hours of Kylie Smithers. Ms. Wilson requested that, since Ms. Smithers was to be paid under the contract for full- time work, Ms. Smithers assist her with office work such as filing and making calls. Mr. Harrison agreed and scheduled Ms. Smithers to do the work. This arrangement was limited and temporary. It does not indicate Property Group control over Xencom employees. Ms. Wilson was Xencom’s point of contact with Property Group. She and Mr. Harrison had to interact frequently. Ms. Wilson had limited contact with the other Xencom employees at Market Street. Friction and disagreements arose quickly between Mr. Harrison and Ms. Wilson. They may have been caused by having a property manager representative on-site after Mr. Harrison’s years as either the manager representative himself or as Xencom supervisor without a property manager on-site. They may have been caused by personality differences between the two. They may have been caused by the alleged sexual and crude comments that underlie the claims of discrimination in employment. They may have been caused by a combination of the three factors. On November 21, 2016, Norine Bowen received an email from the address xencomempoyees@gmail.com with the subject of “Open your eyes about Market Street.” It advised that some employees worked at night for an event. It said that Ms. Wilson gave the Xencom employees alcohol to drink while they were still on the clock. The email said that there was a fight among Xencom employees. The email also said that at another event at a restaurant where Xencom employees were drinking, Ms. Wilson gave Ms. Smithers margaritas to drink and that Ms. Smithers was underage. The email claimed that during a tree-lighting event Ms. Wilson started drinking around 3:30 p.m. It also stated that Ms. Wilson offered a Xencom employee a drink. The email went on to say that children from an elementary school and their parents were present and that Ms. Wilson was “three sheets to the wind.” The email concludes stating that Ms. Wilson had been the subject of three employee lawsuits. On December 14, 2016, Ms. Wilson, Ms. Bowen, and Mr. Snell met at Property Group’s office in Market Street for their regular monthly meeting to discuss operations at Market Street. Their discussion covered a number of management issues including a Xencom employee’s failure to show up before 8:00 to clean as arranged, security cameras, tenants who had not paid rent, lease questions, HVAC questions, and rats on the roof. They also discussed the email’s allegations. The participants also discussed a number of dissatisfactions with Mr. Harrison’s performance. Near the end of a discussion about the anonymous email, this exchange occurred:2/ Bowen: Okay, so I know that David [Snell], I think his next step is to conduct his own investigation with his [Xencom] people, and HR is still following up with John Garrett, and you’re meeting with Danny [intended new Xencom manager for Market Street] tonight? David Snell: Yes. Bowen: To finish up paperwork, and, based on his investigation, it will be up to Xencom to figure out what to do with people that are drinking on property, off the clock or on the clock, you know, whatever, what their policy is. * * * Bowen: So, I don’t know what to make of it. I’m just here to do an investigation like I’m supposed to do and David is here to pick up the pieces and meet with his folks one-on- one, and we’ll see where this takes us. This exchange and the remainder of the recording do not support a finding that Property Group controlled Xencom’s actions or attempted to control them. The participants were responsibly discussing a serious complaint they had received, their plan to investigate it, and pre-existing issues with Mr. Harrison. The exchange also makes clear that all agreed the issues involving Xencom employees were for Xencom to address, and the issues involving Property Group employees were for Property Group to address. At the time of the December 14, 2016, meeting, the participants were not aware of any complaints from Mr. Harrison or Mr. Smithers of sexual harassment or discrimination by Ms. Wilson. On December 15, 2016, Gar Herring and Norine Bowen received an email from Mr. Harrison with an attached letter to Xencom’s Human Resources Manager and others. Affidavits from Petitioners asserting various statements and questions by Ms. Wilson about Mr. Harrison’s and Mr. Smithers’ sex life and men’s genitalia and statements about her sex life and the genitalia of men involved were attached. Xencom President Michael Ponds received a similar email with attachments on the same day. On December 21, 2016, Mr. Ponds received a letter from Herring Ocala, LLC, and Tricom Market Street at Heathbrook, LLC, terminating the service agreements. Their agreements with Xencom were going to expire December 31, 2016. They had been negotiating successor agreements. However, they had not executed any. Xencom terminated Petitioners’ employment on December 21, 2016. Xencom no longer needed Petitioners’ services once MG Herring terminated the contract with Xencom. This was the sole reason it terminated Petitioners.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order denying the petitions of all Petitioners. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of May, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN D. C. NEWTON, II Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of May, 2018.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Action? If so, what penalty should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: The Licensed Premises La Catracha Fish Market and Restaurant (hereinafter referred to as the "Restaurant") is an eatery located at 1255 West 46th Street, Hialeah, Florida, that sells beer and wine pursuant to alcoholic beverage license number 23-15943, series 2-COP. The Restaurant offers both counter and table service. The counter where patrons are served (hereinafter referred to as the "Counter") is situated toward the front of the Restaurant, to the right of the entrance. Ownership and Operation of the Restaurant Respondent is now, and has been at all times material to the instant case, the owner of the Restaurant and the holder of the license that authorizes the sale of alcoholic beverages on the premises. Respondent and his wife, Juanita, are now, and have been at all times material to the instant case, actively involved in the operation of the Restaurant. They maintain a regular presence on the premises. Among other things, Juanita mans the cash register behind the Counter. From February of 1994, until the end of July of that year, when the Moyas were on an extended vacation, Respondent had "other people" run the business. When they returned from their vacation, the Moyas discovered that the Restaurant had a "new clientele." The Undercover Operation Elio Oliva and Antonio Llaneras are detectives with the Hialeah Police Department. In August and September of 1994, they participated in an undercover investigation at the Restaurant. The investigation was initiated after the Hialeah Police Department had received complaints that illegal drug and gambling activities were taking place on the premises. The August 31, 1994, Visit The undercover operation began on August 31, 1994. On that date, Oliva and Llaneras, dressed in civilian attire, went to the Restaurant to see if they would be able to make a controlled buy of narcotics. Upon entering the Restaurant, they walked over to the Counter and sat down. From their vantage point at the Counter, Oliva and Llaneras observed a number of patrons walk up to another patron, Antonio Rosales, 1/ hand him money and receive in return a clear plastic bag containing a white powdery substance. After approximately 20 minutes, Oliva approached Rosales and asked him if he had any cocaine to sell. Rosales responded in the negative, but directed Oliva to another patron in the Restaurant, from whom Oliva purchased a clear plastic bag containing, what the patron represented was, a half of a gram of powdered cocaine. The transaction occurred at the Counter in plain view. There was no effort to conceal what was taking place. Oliva subsequently conducted a field test of the substance he had purchased at the Restaurant that day. The field test was positive for the presence of cocaine. 2/ The September 1, 1994, Visit Oliva and Llaneras returned to the Restaurant at around 8:00 p.m. on September 1, 1994. When they arrived, Rosales was at the Counter. There was a telephone on the Counter near where Rosales was seated. Rosales received incoming calls on the telephone that evening. (Employees at the Restaurant answered the telephone and handed it to Rosales, who then engaged in conversation with the caller.) Upon entering the Restaurant, Oliva noticed Rosales at the Counter and walked up to him. He told Rosales that he was interested in purchasing cocaine and then handed Rosales $20.00. Rosales thereupon pulled out from one of his pockets a clear plastic bag containing, what Rosales represented was, a half of a gram of powdered cocaine. He then gave the bag to Oliva. The transaction occurred in plain view. There was no effort to conceal what was taking place. Respondent's wife was on the premises at the time of the transaction. Oliva subsequently conducted a field test of the substance he had purchased from Rosales at the Restaurant that day. The field test was positive for the presence of cocaine. 3/ The September 2, 1994, Visit Llaneras went back to the Restaurant the following day. When he arrived, Rosales was again at the Counter. From his position near the entrance of the Restaurant, Llaneras, in a normal tone of voice, told Rosales that he wanted to buy a half of a gram of cocaine. Rosales thereupon signaled for Llaneras to sit down next to him. Llaneras complied with Rosales' request. Rosales then pulled out from one of his pockets a clear plastic bag containing a white powdery substance. Upon handing the bag to Llaneras, Rosales bragged, rather loudly, that it was "good stuff." The transaction occurred in plain view. There was no effort to conceal what was taking place. Respondent and his wife were behind the Counter at the time of the transaction. Llaneras subsequently conducted a field test of the substance he had purchased from Rosales at the restaurant that day. The field test was positive for the presence of cocaine. The substance was later analyzed at the Metro-Dade Police Department's Crime Laboratory. The analysis revealed the presence of .3 grams of cocaine. The September 6, 1994, Visit On September 6, 1994, Llaneras returned to the Restaurant, accompanied by Oliva. On separate occasions, they each approached Rosales, who was seated at the Counter. Llaneras' September 6, 1994, Purchase When Llaneras approached Rosales, Rosales asked him if he "needed some more." Llaneras' response was to hand Rosales $20.00. Rosales then took out a folded napkin from one of his pockets and placed the napkin on top of the Counter. He proceeded to unfold the napkin. Inside the napkin were approximately 12 clear plastic bags. Each contained a white powdery substance. Rosales handed one of the bags to Llaneras. He told Llaneras that it was "good stuff." The transaction occurred in plain view. There was no effort to conceal what was taking place. Respondent's wife was behind the Counter, approximately three to four feet from Llaneras and Rosales, at the time of the transaction. Llaneras subsequently conducted a field test of the substance he had purchased from Rosales at the Restaurant that day. The field test was positive for the presence of cocaine. The substance was later analyzed at the Metro-Dade Police Department's Crime Laboratory. The analysis revealed the presence of .3 grams of cocaine. Oliva's September 6, 1994, Purchase When Oliva approached Rosales, he handed Rosales $20.00. Rosales thereupon took out a folded napkin from one of his pockets and unfolded it on top of the Counter. Inside the napkin were approximately ten clear plastic bags, each of which contained a white powdery substance. Rosales handed one of the bags to Oliva. The transaction occurred in plain view. There was no effort to conceal what was taking place. Respondent's wife was behind the Counter, approximately six feet from Llaneras and Rosales, and was facing in their direction at the time of the transaction. The substance Oliva had purchased from Rosales at the Restaurant that day was subsequently analyzed at the Metro-Dade Police Department's Crime Laboratory. The analysis revealed the presence of cocaine. The September 14, 1994, Visit Oliva and Llaneras next visited the Restaurant on September 14, 1994. When they arrived at the Restaurant, Rosales was seated at the Counter talking on the telephone. Oliva sat down at the Counter next to Rosales and handed him $20.00. As he had done during his previous encounter with Oliva on September 6, 1994, Rosales took out a folded napkin from one of his pockets and unfolded it on top of the Counter. Inside the napkin was a clear plastic bag containing a white powdery substance. Rosales handed the bag to Oliva. The transaction occurred in plain view. There was no effort to conceal what was taking place. Respondent's wife and the barmaids on duty were behind the Counter at the time of the transaction. The substance Oliva had purchased from Rosales at the Restaurant that day was subsequently analyzed at the Metro-Dade Police Department's Crime Laboratory. The analysis revealed the presence of .3 grams of cocaine. The September 15, 1994, Visit Oliva and Llaneras returned to the Restaurant on the following day, September 15, 1994. Gaming Activities During their visit, they heard a loud commotion in the kitchen and went to investigate. Upon entering the kitchen, 4/ they observed several persons, including Respondent and Rosales, gathered around a table participating in a game similar to roulette. The table was round and approximately three feet in diameter. It was filled with indentations painted either black or white. A funnel was held above the center of the table through which a marble was dropped. Participants in the game bet on whether the marble would come to rest on a black or white colored indentation. If the marble landed on a white indentation, the person dropping the marble would win the money that was in the pot. If it landed on a black indentation, the other player(s) would win. The game did not require any skill to play. Its outcome was based entirely on chance. After entering the kitchen, both Oliva and Llaneras played the game. Oliva's September 15, 1994, Purchase While Oliva was in the kitchen, Rosales asked him if he "needed anything." Oliva indicated that he did and handed Rosales $20.00. In return, Rosales gave Oliva a clear plastic bag containing a white powdery substance. Oliva and Rosales each spoke in a normal tone of voice during the exchange. Respondent was among those who were in the kitchen at the time of the transaction. The substance Oliva had purchased from Rosales at the Restaurant that day was subsequently analyzed at the Metro-Dade Police Department's Crime Laboratory. The analysis revealed the presence of .3 grams of cocaine. Llaneras' September 15, 1994, Purchase Llaneras also made a buy from Rosales in the kitchen. Rosales initiated the transaction. He asked Llaneras if he needed any cocaine. Llaneras responded in the affirmative and gave Rosales $20.00, in return for which Llaneras received from Rosales a clear plastic bag containing a white powdery substance. Llaneras and Rosales each spoke in a louder than normal tone of voice during the exchange. Respondent was in the kitchen a few feet away from Llaneras and Rosales when the transaction took place. Llaneras subsequently conducted a field test of the substance he had purchased from Rosales at the Restaurant that day. The field test was positive for the presence of cocaine. The substance was later analyzed at the Metro-Dade Police Department's Crime Laboratory. The analysis revealed the presence of .2 grams of cocaine. The September 16, 1994, Visit The next day, September 16, 1994, Oliva and Llaneras came back to the Restaurant. During their visit on this date, they each made buys from Rosales. Oliva's September 16, 1994, Purchase Rosales was at the Counter talking with Respondent's wife when Oliva approached him. After greetings were exchanged, Rosales asked Oliva if he "needed anything," in response to which Oliva handed Rosales $20.00. Rosales then gave Oliva a clear plastic bag containing a white powdery substance. Oliva and Rosales each spoke in a normal tone of voice during the exchange. The substance Oliva had purchased from Rosales at the Restaurant that day was subsequently analyzed at the Metro-Dade Police Department's Crime Laboratory. The analysis revealed the presence of .2 grams of cocaine. Llaneras' September 16, 1994, Purchase Rosales was in the kitchen when Llaneras approached him and inquired about purchasing a half of a gram of powdered cocaine. After Llaneras tendered the money needed to make the purchase, Rosales gave him a clear plastic bag containing a white powdery substance. Llaneras and Rosales each spoke in a louder than normal tone of voice during the exchange. Respondent was in the kitchen, approximately three to four feet away from Llaneras and Rosales, when the transaction took place. Respondent's wife was also nearby. Llaneras subsequently conducted a field test of the substance he had purchased from Rosales at the Restaurant that day. The field test was positive for the presence of cocaine. The substance was later analyzed at the Metro-Dade Police Department's Crime Laboratory. The analysis revealed the presence of .2 grams of cocaine. The September 22, 1994, Visit Oliva and Llaneras paid separate visits to the Restaurant on September 22, 1994. During their visits, they each made buys from Rosales. Oliva's September 22, 1994, Purchase Rosales was at the Counter talking with Respondent's wife when Oliva walked up to him. Rosales interrupted his conversation with Respondent's wife to ask Oliva if he "needed anything." In response to Rosales' inquiry, Oliva handed Rosales $20.00. Rosales then handed Oliva a clear plastic bag containing a white powdery substance. Oliva and Rosales each spoke in a normal tone of voice during the exchange. Respondent's wife was behind the Counter, approximately four to five feet from Oliva and Rosales, when the transaction took place. The substance Oliva had purchased from Rosales at the restaurant that day was subsequently analyzed at the Metro-Dade Police Department's Crime Laboratory. The analysis revealed the presence of .3 grams of cocaine. Llaneras' September 22, 1994, Purchase Llaneras encountered Rosales as Rosales was leaving the Restaurant. Rosales asked Llaneras if he "needed anything." Llaneras responded in the affirmative. Rosales, in turn, told Llaneras to wait at the Counter. Rosales then left the Restaurant. He returned shortly thereafter with a clear plastic bag containing a white powdery substance, which he handed to Llaneras. The transaction took place in plain view of Respondent's wife, who was approximately three feet away behind the Counter. Respondent was on the premises at the time of the transaction. Llaneras subsequently conducted a field test of the substance he had purchased from Rosales at the Restaurant that day. The field test was positive for the presence of cocaine. The substance was later analyzed at the Metro-Dade Police Department's Crime Laboratory. The analysis revealed the presence of .3 grams of cocaine. Llaneras' September 28, 1994, Visit Llaneras next visited the Restaurant on September 28, 1994. Rosales was seated at the Counter when Llaneras entered the Restaurant. He saw Llaneras enter and walked up to him. Llaneras greeted Rosales by telling Rosales, in a normal tone of voice, that he wanted to purchase cocaine. He then handed Rosales $20.00. In return, Rosales gave Llaneras a clear plastic bag containing a white powdery substance. Respondent's wife was behind the Counter when the transaction took place. Respondent was on the premises. Llaneras subsequently conducted a field test of the substance he had purchased from Rosales at the Restaurant that day. The field test was positive for the presence of cocaine. The substance was later analyzed at the Metro-Dade Police Department's Crime Laboratory. The analysis revealed the presence of .2 grams of cocaine. Oliva's September 29, 1994, Visit Oliva returned to the Restaurant on September 29, 1994. He met Rosales at the Restaurant. As was his usual custom when he conversed with Oliva, Rosales asked if Oliva "needed anything." As was his customary response to such an inquiry, Oliva handed Rosales $20.00. Rosales then stepped outside the Restaurant and retrieved from his car, which was parked in front of the Restaurant, a clear plastic bag containing a white powdery substance. When he returned to the Restaurant, he handed the bag to Oliva. The transaction occurred in plain view at the Counter. There was no effort to conceal what was taking place. Oliva and Rosales each spoke in a normal tone of voice during the exchange. Respondent's wife was behind the Counter at the time of the transaction. Respondent was on the premises. Respondent's Responsibility for Drug Transactions on Licensed Premises Although Respondent may not have been directly involved in any of the above-described sales of cocaine that took place at the Restaurant during the Hialeah Police Department's undercover operation and he may not have even been on the licensed premises at the time of some of these sales, given the persistent and repeated nature of the transactions and the open manner in which they were made, the inference is made that Respondent either fostered, condoned, or negligently overlooked them.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of the violations alleged in Counts 1 and 3 through 12 of the Administrative Action and penalizing Respondent therefor by revoking his alcoholic beverage license number 23-15943, series 2-COP. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 11th day of August, 1995. STUART M. LERNER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of August, 1995.
The Issue Whether Respondent's license should be revoked for the reasons stated in the Administrative Action.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: At all times material hereto, Shahir Daghara Corporation, d/b/a Dunbar Liquors, was licensed by the Division, having been issued License No. 46-04408, Series 3-PS. The license permits Dunbar Liquors to sell alcoholic beverages at its premises located at 3637 Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard, No. 101, Fort Myers, Florida. Shahir Daghara is the sole corporate officer and shareholder of Shahir Daghara Corporation. The Division introduced the license file for Fowler Liquors, which formerly held License No. 46-04643, Series 3-PS. This file was also introduced in Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco v. Barghouthi Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a Fowler Liquor Store, Case Nos. 03-0217 and 03-0431 (DOAH June 5, 2003), the consolidated cases in which Fowler Liquors' license was revoked for repeated sales to minors. As to Mr. Daghara's relationship to Fowler Liquors, the following findings were made by the undersigned: In mitigation, counsel for Fowler Liquors argued that license revocation would be unfair because Samer Barghouthi is no longer involved in the operation of the business, having signed over his interest to his uncle, Shahir Daghara. Counsel contended that Mr. Daghara acted to remove Samer Barghouthi from the premises of Fowler Liquors as soon as he learned that Mr. Barghouthi was making sales to underage persons. This contention is not credible. The two sales that are the subject of these proceedings occurred nearly one month after the murder of Mr. Cubello, which was widely known to have occurred after Mr. Cubello purchased alcoholic beverages in Fowler Liquors. The two sales also occurred after Mr. Barghouthi had been interviewed by Captain Pendarakis about sales of alcoholic beverages to minors. Moreover, Officer Cecil Pendergrass of the Fort Myers Police Department testified that Samer Barghouthi was still working at Fowler Liquors on July 1, 2002, two weeks after his arrest for selling alcoholic beverages to Justin Bender. There is no record evidence that Mr. Barghouthi transferred his interest in the business to Mr. Daghara. At most, the Division's files indicate that at some point, Fowler Liquors represented to the Division that Mr. Daghara had taken a 49 percent interest in the business. The file also contains an undated "Current Licensee Update Data Sheet" on which Samer Barghouthi's name is crossed through, but Fowler Liquors offered no sworn testimony to explain the significance of this document. Further, even if Mr. Daghara did take over the business, there is no evidence that he took any steps to remove Mr. Barghouthi from the premises of Fowler Liquors, or did anything else to address the problem of selling alcoholic beverages to minors. (Emphasis added.) The underscored language referenced a license application filed by Samer Barghouthi that named Mr. Daghara as a 49 percent stockholder. The undersigned found this insufficient to establish Fowler Liquors' claim that Mr. Daghara had taken over the business at the time Mr. Barghouthi was making illegal sales to minors. In any event, Mr. Daghara's ownership status was irrelevant to the revocation decision because there was no evidence that his ownership interest had any impact on the alcoholic beverage sales to minors at Fowler Liquors. In reviewing the Fowler Liquors file in the instant proceeding, the undersigned noted a Division form titled "Personal Data for Partner-Officer-Stockholder" that had been completed by Mr. Daghara himself on March 14, 2000, and bore his notarized signature. On this form, Mr. Daghara himself stated that he was a 49 percent shareholder of Fowler Liquors. Mr. Daghara was present at the hearing in the instant proceeding and had every opportunity to testify in explanation of his relationship to Fowler Liquors. He chose not to testify. The undersigned draws no inference from Mr. Daghara's silence, aside from the fact that it leaves the Division's version of events as the only record evidence in this proceeding. It is found that Mr. Daghara owned 49 percent of the stock of Fowler Liquors at the time that a Final Order of Revocation was entered by the Division. Mr. Daghara's ownership interest was his only proven involvement.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Action against Shahir Daghara Corporation, d/b/a Dunbar Liquors. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of September, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of September, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Harold F. X. Purnell, Esquire Rutledge, Ecenia, Purnell & Hoffman, P.A. Post Office Box 551 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0551 Michael J. Wheeler, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre, Suite 6 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Peter Williams, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Leon Biegalski, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202
