00-003025F Department Of Business And Professional Regulation, Electrical Contractors Licensing Board vs. John J. Borota
 Status: Closed
DOAH Final Order on Friday, May 25, 2001.

View Dockets  
Summary: Despite ultimate dismissal of case, agency demonstrated that its actions were substantially justified at the time it initiated the proceeding; Respondent not entitled to fees and costs under Section 57.111, Florida Statutes.








23Petitioner , )


26vs. ) Case No. 00-3025F




37Respondent. )



42Pursuant to notice, a formal hearing was held in this case

53on April 4, 2001, before Lawrence P. Stevenson, a duly-

63designated Administrative Law Judge of the Division of

71Administrative Hearings, in St. Petersburg, Florida.


78For Petitioner : Robert A. Crabill, Esquire

85Department of Business and

89Professional Regulation

91Northwood Centre

931940 North Monroe Street

97Tallahassee, Florida 32388-2202

100For Respondent : G. Barry Wilkinson, Esquire

107Lefter, Cushman & Wilkinson

111696 First Avenue North, Suite 201

117St. Petersburg, Florida 33701-3610


125Whether the Respondent is entitled to an award of

134attorney's fees and costs pursuant to Section 57.111, Florida



146On July 24, 2000, John J. Borota filed with the Division of

158Administrative Hearings a Motion for Attorney's Fees and Costs.

167The motion requests an award of attorney's fees and costs

177incurred by Mr. Borota in litigating the case styled Department

187of Business and Professional Regulation v. John J. Borota , DBPR

197Case No. 97-17491. (The original style of the case was retained

208in this proceeding.) The case was initially set for hearing on

219October 10, 2000. Four continuances were granted, and the

228hearing case was ultimately set for and held on April 4, 2001.

240At the hearing, Mr. Borota testified in his own behalf.

250Mr. Borota's Exhibits 1 through 10 were offered and received

260into evidence. The Department presented the testimony of George

269Ayrish, the program administrator for the Electrical Contractors

277Licensing Board ("ECLB"). The Department's Exhibits 1 through 4

288were offered and received into evidence.

294A one-volume Transcript of the proceedings was filed with

303the Division of Administrative Hearings on April 23, 2001. The

313Department timely submitted proposed findings of fact and

321conclusions of law on April 30, 2001. Mr. Borota moved for an

333extension, which was granted without objection, and filed his

342proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law on May 9, 2001.


357Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the

367final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the

378following findings of fact are made:

3841. The Department is the state agency charged with

393regulating the practice of professions pursuant to

400Section 20.165, Florida Statutes, and Chapters 455 and 489,

409Florida Statutes. The ECLB is charged with regulating the

418practice of electrical contracting pursuant to Section 489.507,

426Florida Statutes. Pursuant to Rule 61G6-4.006, Florida

433Administrative Code, the ECLB has established a Probable Cause

442Panel to determine whether probable cause exists to believe that

452a violation of governing statutes has occurred.

4592. Mr. Borota is, and was at all times material to this

471matter, licensed as a Registered Electrical Specialty

478hours of continuing education courses during each biennium

486following issuance of the license.

4914. Rule 61G6-9.003(2), Florida Administrative Code,

497defines "course" as "any course, seminar or other program of

507instruction which has been approved by the board for the purpose

518of complying with the continuing education requirements for

526electrical and alarm contractors." Rule 61G6-9.004(1), Florida

533Administrative Code, requires that licensees provide proof of

541completion of at least 14 classroom hours of continuing

550education courses "approved by the board."

5565. Rule 61G6-9.005(1)(a), Florida Administrative Code,

562requires course sponsors to register with the ECLB prior to

572submitting their courses to the board for approval. Rule 61G6-

5829.005, Florida Administrative Code, provides that accredited

589universities and colleges which offer courses in the contracting

598areas specified in Part II of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes, are

609deemed admitted as course sponsors.

6146. Rule 61G6-9.006(1), Florida Administrative Code, allows

621a registered course sponsor to submit to the ECLB an application

632for approval of a continuing education course, and provides that

642relevant courses offered by accredited universities and colleges

650are deemed approved. The ECLB regularly publishes a list of

660approved continuing education courses.

6647. Rule 61G6-9.002, Florida Administrative Code, sets

671forth criteria for continuing education. The following sets

679forth the relevant portions of the rule as it read during the

691period relevant to this case:

696The following programs of continuing

701education may be used to satisfy the

708continuing education requirement provided

712that the licensee complies with the terms

719set forth herein:

722(1 ) Courses for credit which are

729business, technical or safety courses

734relevant to the electrical contracting

739industry and which require a passing grade

746taken at an accredited college, university,

752or community college. The licensee must

758furnish an official transcript and a

764notarized statement affirming classroom

768hours attended and the receipt of a passing


777(2 ) Noncredited courses conducted by an

784accredited institution of higher learning,

789official governmental agency, the military,

794or recognized national or state trade or

801civil organization provided the following

806conditions are met:

809(a ) the course must be business,

816technical or safety course relevant to the

823electrical contracting industry.

826(b ) the course must follow a written

834text, which must be submitted to the Board

842for approval on request.

846(c ) the instructor of the course must be

855a professional educator, certified

859electrical contractor or a similar authority

865in the field.

868The licensee must submit a notarized

874statement affirming the following:

8781. Number of classroom hours attended

8842. Sponsor of the course

8893. Location of the course

8944. Date of the course

8995. Name of the instructor and his


9076. Benefit received from the course

9138. George Ayrish, program administrator for the ECLB,

921testified that Rule 61G6-9.002, Florida Administrative Code,

928allows a licensee to obtain credit for courses that are not on

940the approved list, provided the substantive criteria for

948continuing education courses are met and the notarized statement

957is filed.

9599. The ECLB conducts random audits of its licensees every

969two years. On January 27, 1997, the ECLB sent Mr. Borota a

981written notice that his license was undergoing such an audit for

992the period September 1, 1994, through August 31, 1996. The

1002notice requested that Mr. Borota provide, among other items not

1012relevant to this proceeding, certification that he had completed

1021the required continuing education hours.

102610. Mr. Borota responded with certificates of attendance

1034at three separate technical electrical contracting courses

1041presented by equipment vendors: a "3M Hot Melt Fiber Optics

1051Connectors" course offered by 3M Telecom Systems Division on

1060June 25, 1995; a "Category 5" cabling installation course

1069offered by The Siemon Company on December 5, 1995; and an

"1080Installation Certification Program" offered by Ortronics Open

1087System Architecture Networking Products on June 19, 1995. None

1096of these courses were included in the ECLB’s list of approved

1107continuing education courses.

111011. By letter dated March 18, 1997, the ECLB informed

1120Mr. Borota that the courses submitted as evidence of continuing

1130education must be "Board approved" and "completed within the

1139audit period."

114112. Mr. Borota responded with a certificate indicating

1149that he had completed "product application training" and was

1158thus a certified installer for Superior Modular Products, Inc.

1167The certificate was dated July 31, 1995. This course was not

1178included in the ECLB’s list of approved continuing education


118813. On August 18, 1997, Mr. Ayrish filed a Uniform

1198Complaint Form alleging that Mr. Borota did not provide proof of

1209continuing education as required by Rule 61G6-9.004(1), Florida

1217Administrative Code. The complaint was forwarded to Kathy

1225MacNeill, a senior consumer complaint analyst for the Department

1234of Business and Professional Regulation.

123914. By letter dated October 9, 1997, Ms. MacNeill advised

1249Mr. Borota that a complaint had been filed against him. She

1260enclosed a copy of Mr. Ayrish’s complaint. The letter requested

1270that Mr. Borota submit a written response within 20 days.

128015. By letter dated October 13, 1997, Mr. Borota responded

1290to Ms. MacNeill’s request. He wrote, in relevant part, that:

1300Regarding the continuing education for ET

13060000218 I did send the certificates of

1313classes that I had taken during the audit

1321time in question. All of the classes that I

1330had taken covered communications cabling

1335which is what our company does. Most of the

1344classes that are held by the contractors

1351schools that are recommended for low voltage

1358systems licensing cover information on

1363security systems cabling and we do not do

1371that kind of work.

1375Please advise if I need to send any

1383additional information or what I will need

1390to do to close this case.

139616. No further direct communication occurred between

1403Mr. Borota and Ms. MacNeill. Mr. Borota testified that he

1413attempted to phone the Department a few times after the exchange

1424of letters, but that he never spoke to anyone.

143317. Ms. MacNeill prepared a written Investigative Report,

1441dated November 6, 1997, stating an alleged violation of failure

1451to provide proof of continuing education and forwarding the

1460matter to the Department’s legal counsel "for whatever action is

1470deemed appropriate."

147218. The Complaint and the audit file were placed on the

1483docket for consideration by the Probable Cause Panel of the ECLB

1494at a telephonic conference on March 20, 1998. On the same date,

1506a Memorandum Of Finding was signed by the chairperson of the

1517Probable Cause Panel, indicating probable cause was found.

152519. The Department issued an Administrative Complaint on

1533March 23, 1998, alleging that Mr. Borota failed to submit proof

1544in response to the audit of having complied with the continuing

1555education requirements of Subsection 489.517(3), Florida

1561Statutes, and the rules promulgated thereunder. Mr. Borota was

1570served with the Administrative Complaint on March 30, 1998.

157920. On April 21, 1998, Mr. Borota timely filed his written

1590Election Of Rights disputing the material facts set forth in the

1601Complaint and demanding an evidentiary hearing pursuant to

1609Subsection 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.

161321. On the same date, Mr. Borota also submitted an

1623affidavit, substantially complying with Rule 61G6-9.002(2),

1629Florida Administrative Code, attesting that he had attended 30

1638additional hours of continuing education courses during the

1646audit period. These courses were professional seminars provided

1654at the annual winter meeting of Building Industry Consulting

1663Service International, Inc. (“BICSI”), a non-profit

1669telecommunications technical association. The materials for the

1676BICSI conferences show that the University of South Florida was

1686a co-sponsor of the event. The BICSI seminars were not on the

1698ECLB’s list of approved continuing education courses.

170522. On August 6, 1998, counsel for the Department filed a

1716Motion For Final Order, arguing that there were no disputed

1726issues of material fact in the case because none of the courses

1738submitted by Mr. Borota were on the ECLB’s approved list of

1749continuing education courses.

175223. The ECLB denied the Department’s motion and agreed to

1762refer the Administrative Complaint to the Division of

1770Administrative Hearings ("DOAH") for the conduct of a formal

1781administrative hearing. The case was never forwarded to DOAH.

1790The record does not disclose why the case remained at the ECLB

1802for nearly two years following the ECLB’s denial of the Motion

1813for Final Order.

181624. The Administrative Complaint was again considered by

1824the Probable Cause Panel of the ECLB on May 23, 2000. On the

1837same date, a Memorandum Of Finding was signed by the chairperson

1848of the Probable Cause Panel that determined no probable cause

1858was found and that the Administrative Complaint should be


186825. Both meetings of the Probable Cause Panel were tape

1878recorded. The tapes were of such poor quality that a certified

1889transcript of the meetings could not be prepared by either an

1900independent court reporter or the Department. Redacted tape

1908copies and an uncertified transcript of the meetings were

1917admitted into evidence by agreement of the parties.

192526. The transcript is sufficient to show that the

1934March 20, 1998, Probable Cause Panel treated Mr. Borota’s case

1944in a pro forma fashion, without discussion of the particulars of

1955the investigation, prior to making a finding of probable cause

1965to proceed against Mr. Borota.

197027. At the hearing in the instant case, the Department

1980admitted that Mr. Borota was the prevailing party in the

1990disciplinary proceeding because the Administrative Complaint was

1997dismissed upon a finding of "no probable cause" at the May 23,

20092000, Probable Cause Panel meeting.

201428. Mr. Borota testified that he was the sole owner and

2025qualifying licensee of the corporation through which he

2033practiced as a licensed electrical contractor, that his net

2042worth was less than $2 million, and that he and the corporation

2054employed fewer than 25 workers. The Department offered no

2063evidence to dispute Mr. Borota’s testimony on these points.


207529. The Division of Administrative Hearings has

2082jurisdiction over the subject matter of this proceeding and of

2092the parties thereto pursuant to Section 120.569 and

2100Subsection 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.

210430. Section 57.111, Florida Statutes (2000), the Florida

2112Equal Access to Justice Act, provides in pertinent part as


2123(4)(a ) Unless otherwise provided by law,

2130an award of attorney's fees and costs shall

2138be made to a prevailing small business party

2146in any adjudicatory proceeding or

2151administrative proceeding pursuant to

2155chapter 120 initiated by a state agency,

2162unless the actions of the agency were

2169substantially justified or special

2173circumstances exist which would make the

2179award unjust.

218131. In proceedings to establish entitlement to an award of

2191attorney's fees and costs pursuant to Section 57.111, Florida

2200Statutes, the initial burden of proof is on the party requesting

2211the award to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that

2222it prevailed in the underlying disciplinary action and that it

2232was a small business party at the time the disciplinary action

2243was initiated. Once the party requesting the award has met this

2254burden, the burden of proof shifts to the agency to establish

2265that it was substantially justified in initiating the

2273disciplinary action. See Helmy v. Department of Business and

2282Professional Regulation , 707 So. 2d 366, 368 (Fla. 1st DCA

22921998); Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real

2300Estate v. Toledo Realty, Inc. and Ramiro Alfert , 549 So. 2d 715,

2312717 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989).

231732. The Department conceded at the hearing that Mr. Borota

2327prevailed in the underlying proceeding because the ECLB

2335dismissed the Administrative Complaint. Subsection

234057.111(3)(c )3, Florida Statutes.

234433. Mr. Borota’s undisputed testimony established that he

2352was a "small business party" as contemplated by

2360Subsection 57.111(3)(d), Florida Statutes, which provides in

2367relevant part as follows:

2371(d ) The term "small business party"


23791.a. A sole proprietor of an

2385unincorporated business, including a

2389professional practice, whose principal

2393office is in this state, who is domiciled in

2402this state, and whose business or

2408professional practice has, at the time that

2415action is initiated by a state agency, not

2423more than 25 full-time employees or a net

2431worth of not more than $2 million, including

2439both personal and business investments; or

2445b. A partnership or corporation,

2450including a professional practice, which has

2456its principal office in this state and has

2464at the time the action is initiated by a

2473state agency not more than 25 full-time

2480employees or a net worth of not more than $2

2490million. . . .

249434. Mr. Borota is the sole owner of a corporation, not of

2506an incorporated business. Further, this proceeding was brought

2514against Mr. Borota in his individual capacity; his corporation

2523is not a party. Thus, Mr. Borota does not meet the literal

2535definition of a “small business party” as set forth above.

2545However, the court in Albert v. Department of Health, Board of

2556Dentistry , 763 So. 2d 1130 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999), recognized that

2567a literal application of the statute would lead to an absurd

2578result that the Legislature could not have intended:

2586It is clear from the language of subsections

2594(a) and (b), which both contain the term

"2602including a professional practice," that

2607the legislature intended for the statute to

2614apply to professionals, regardless of

2619whether they practice as sole

2624proprietorships or professional service

2628corporations. What the legislature

2632overlooked is that the license to operate,

2639which is generally the subject of the

2646administrative proceedings, is issued to the

2652individual, not the professional service

2657corporation. The Department’s

2660interpretation would mean that professionals

2665who have incorporated are not covered by

2672subsection (b), and would render subsection

2678(b) meaningless.

2680763 So. 2d at 1131-32.

268535. The sole disputed issue for decision in this case is

2696whether the Department’s actions were "substantially justified."

2703Subsection 57.111(3)(e), Florida Statutes, provides that a

2710proceeding is "substantially justified" if it had a "reasonable

2719basis in law and fact at the time it was initiated by a state

2733agency ." (Emphasis added.)

273736. The evidence established that the Department had a

2746reasonable basis in law and fact to issue the Administrative

2756Complaint against Mr. Borota. None of the continuing education

2765courses submitted by Mr. Borota had been approved by the ECLB

2776prior to his attendance. As set forth above, Rule 61G6-

27869.004(1), Florida Administrative Code, provides that a licensee

2794must provide proof of completion of at least 14 classroom hours

2805of continuing education courses "approved by the board." Rule

281461G6-9.003(2), Florida Administrative Code, defines the term

"2821course" in terms of programs of instruction "approved by the


283237. Mr. Borota argues that the pro forma manner in which

2843the March 20, 1998, Probable Cause Panel treated the case brings

2854it within the ambit of Helmy v. Department of Business and

2865Professional Regulation , 707 So. 2d 366 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). In

2876Helmy , the issue before the court was whether a probable cause

2887panel sufficiently considered allegations against a veterinarian

2894prior to finding probable cause that he had practiced veterinary

2904medicine with a suspended license in his role as a veterinary

2915aide. The court noted that the transcript of the probable cause


2927contains no discussion as to whether the

2934applicable law was violated, no recognition

2940or discussion of the fact that there was a

2949licensed veterinarian on the premises, no

2955discussion of the fact that Dr. Helmy was

2963working under the immediate supervision of a

2970licensed veterinarian, and no discussion of

2976the exceptions under the Veterinary Medical

2982Practice Act, Chapter 474, Florida Statutes,

2988that allow veterinary aides to do numerous

2995activities, some of which require immediate

3001supervision, and some of which do not

3008require any supervision.

3011707 So. 2d at 369. The court concluded that the proceedings of

3023the probable cause panel suggested that its members were not

3033even aware of the definition of "supervision" in the applicable

3043statute, and thus its actions were not "substantially

3051justified." Id. at 369-70.

305538. Unlike Helmy , the instant case did not involve the

3065application of a statutory definition, itself requiring some

3073degree of interpretation, to a complex set of facts. On

3083March 20, 1998, the Probable Cause Panel had before it a simple

3095case of a licensee who had submitted a set of continuing

3106education courses that were not on the ECLB's list of approved

3117courses, and of a rule that required licensees to demonstrate

3127that they had attended courses "approved by the board." A

3137reading of the audit file would establish these matters, without

3147necessity for extended discussion on the record. Mr. Borota's

3156contention that this case is analogous to Helmy is rejected.

316639. The case changed on April 21, 1998, when Mr. Borota

3177submitted an affidavit stating that he had attended 30 hours of

3188seminars sponsored by BICSI, a recognized national trade

3196organization, and the University of South Florida, during the

3205audit period. This affidavit represented at least an attempt to

3215comply with Rule 61G6-9.002(2), Florida Administrative Code,

3222which allows licensees to obtain credit for courses not on the

3233ECLB's approved list.

323640. The record indicates that the ECLB recognized this

3245change in the status of the case. It denied counsel's motion

3256for final order against Mr. Borota. It ultimately revisited the

3266issue of probable cause and dismissed the case.

327441. The record does not explain why the ECLB took nearly

3285two years to dismiss the case after Mr. Borota submitted his

3296affidavit. However, for purposes of Section 57.111, Florida

3304Statutes, this question is not relevant. As noted above, the

3314substantial justification inquiry is confined to the time a

3323proceeding was initiated by a state agency. Agency for Health

3333Care Administration v. Gonzalez , 657 So. 2d 56 (Fla. 1st DCA

33441995)(proper inquiry is whether evidence before probable cause

3352panel was sufficient for institution of disciplinary action;

3360error to determine "substantial justification" in light of

3368subsequent dismissal after more evidence was presented).


3376Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of

3386Law, the Respondent's Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs is


3397DONE AND ORDERED this 25th day of May, 2001, in

3407Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.



3415Administrative Law Judge

3418Division of Administrative Hearings

3422The DeSoto Building

34251230 Apalachee Parkway

3428Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060

3431(850) 488- 9675 SUNCOM 278-9675

3436Fax Filing (850) 921-6847


3441Filed with the Clerk of the

3447Division of Administrative Hearings

3451this 25th day of May, 2001.


3459Robert A. Crabill, Esquire

3463Department of Business and Professional Regulation

3469Northwood Centre

34711940 North Monroe Street

3475Tallahassee, Florida 32388-2202

3478G. Barry Wilkinson, Esquire

3482Lefter, Cushman & Wilkinson

3486696 First Avenue North, Suite 201

3492St. Petersburg, Florida 33701-3610

3496Anthony B. Spivey, Executive Director

3501Electrical Contractors Licensing Board

3505Department of Business and Professional Regulation

3511Northwood Centre

35131940 North Monroe Street

3517Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792

3520Hardy L. Roberts, III, General Counsel

3526Department of Business and Professional Regulation

3532Northwood Centre

35341940 North Monroe Street

3538Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792


3547A party who is adversely affected by this final order is

3558entitled to judicial review pursuant to Section 120.68, Florida

3567Statutes. Review proceedings are governed by the Florida Rules

3576Of Appellate Procedure. Such proceedings are commenced by

3584filing one copy of a notice of appeal with the Agency Clerk of

3597the Division of Administrative Hearings and a second copy,

3606accompanied by filing fees prescribed by law, with the District

3616Court of Appeal, First District, or with the District Court of

3627Appeal in the appellate district where the party resides. The

3637notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days of rendition of

3649the order to be reviewed.

Select the PDF icon to view the document.
Date: 05/25/2001
Proceedings: DOAH Final Order
Date: 05/25/2001
Proceedings: Final Order issued (hearing held April 4, 2001). CASE CLOSED.
Date: 05/09/2001
Proceedings: Borota`s Proposed Final Order filed.
Date: 05/04/2001
Proceedings: Motion for Additional Five (5) Days to Submit Proposed Order (filed by Respondent via facsimile).
Date: 04/30/2001
Proceedings: Petitioner`s Proposed Recommended Order (filed via facsimile).
Date: 04/23/2001
Proceedings: Transcript filed.
Date: 04/04/2001
Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Hearing Held; see case file for applicable time frames.
Date: 04/03/2001
Proceedings: Fifth Motion for Continuance and Request for Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery and Request for Discovery Sanctions (filed by Respondent via facsimile).
Date: 04/02/2001
Proceedings: Joint Pre-hearing Stipulation filed.
Date: 03/26/2001
Proceedings: Petitioner`s Second Response to Respondent`s Request for Production (filed via facsimile).
Date: 03/20/2001
Proceedings: Notice of Filing (filed by R. Crabill via facsimile).
Date: 03/16/2001
Proceedings: Response to Motion for Order Compelling Discovery (filed by R. Crabill via facsimile).
Date: 03/12/2001
Proceedings: Letter to Judge Stevenson from B. Wilkinson (filed via facsimile).
Date: 03/12/2001
Proceedings: Motion for Order Compelling Discovery (filed via facsimile).
Date: 01/03/2001
Proceedings: Fax Memo to Judge Stevenson from B. Wilkinson (filed via facsimile).
Date: 01/03/2001
Proceedings: Order Granting Continuance and Re-scheduling Hearing issued (hearing set for April 4, 2001; 9:00 a.m.; St. Petersburg, FL).
Date: 12/26/2000
Proceedings: Letter to Judge Stevenson from Barry Wilkinson filed.
Date: 12/26/2000
Proceedings: (Respondent) Fourth Motion for Continuance filed.
Date: 12/22/2000
Proceedings: Notice of Substitution of Counsel (filed by R. Crabill via facsimile).
Date: 12/04/2000
Proceedings: Order Granting Continuance and Re-scheduling Hearing issued (hearing set for January 9, 2001; 9:00 a.m.; St. Petersburg, FL).
Date: 11/28/2000
Proceedings: Letter to Judge Stevenson from B. Wilkinson (filed via facsimile).
Date: 11/28/2000
Proceedings: Third Motion for Continuance (filed by Respondent via facsimile).
Date: 11/15/2000
Proceedings: Order Granting Continuance and Re-scheduling Hearing issued (hearing set for December 6, 2000; 9:00 a.m.; St. Petersburg, FL).
Date: 11/14/2000
Proceedings: Joint Motion for a Continuance (filed via facsimile).
Date: 11/09/2000
Proceedings: Motion for Continuance (filed by Petitioner via facsimile).
Date: 11/01/2000
Proceedings: Letter to D. Minacci from G. Wilkinson In re: requested transcript filed.
Date: 10/10/2000
Proceedings: Order Granting Continuance and Re-scheduling Hearing issued (hearing set for November 17, 2000; 9:00 a.m.; St. Petersburg, FL).
Date: 10/06/2000
Proceedings: Letter to Judge Stevenson from Barry Wilkinson filed.
Date: 10/06/2000
Proceedings: Motion for Continuance (Respondent) (filed via facsimile).
Date: 09/08/2000
Proceedings: Request for Production filed by Respondent.
Date: 09/08/2000
Proceedings: Notice of Service of Interrogatories to Petitioner filed.
Date: 08/18/2000
Proceedings: Order of Pre-hearing Instructions issued.
Date: 08/18/2000
Proceedings: Notice of Hearing issued (hearing set for October 10, 2000; 1:00 p.m.; St. Petersburg, FL).
Date: 08/18/2000
Proceedings: (David Minacci) Notice of Substitution of Counsel (filed via facsimile).
Date: 08/07/2000
Proceedings: Joint Response to Initial Order (filed via facsimile).
Date: 08/03/2000
Proceedings: Petitioner`s Response to Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs. (filed via facsimile)
Date: 07/31/2000
Proceedings: Initial Order issued.
Date: 07/24/2000
Proceedings: Letter to G. B. Wilkinson from E. Marino filed.
Date: 07/24/2000
Proceedings: Election of Rights filed.
Date: 07/24/2000
Proceedings: Notice of Appearance (by G. Wilkinson) filed.
Date: 07/24/2000
Proceedings: Respondent`s Affidavit as to Reasonable Attorney`s Fees filed.
Date: 07/24/2000
Proceedings: Respondent`s Affidavit of Attorney`s Fees and Costs filed.
Date: 07/24/2000
Proceedings: Motion for Attorney`s Fees and Costs filed.
Date: 07/24/2000
Proceedings: Administrative Complaint filed.
Date: 07/24/2000
Proceedings: Affidavit of John J. Borota filed.
Date: 07/24/2000
Proceedings: Agency Referral filed.

Case Information

Date Filed:
Date Assignment:
Last Docket Entry:
St. Petersburg, Florida
Department of Business and Professional Regulation

Related DOAH Cases(s) (2):

Related Florida Statute(s) (7):

Related Florida Rule(s) (6):