08-003488RX Balaji Lakshminarayanan vs. Board Of Pharmacy
 Status: Closed
DOAH Final Order on Thursday, July 30, 2009.


View Dockets  
Summary: Fourteen Petitioners, who filed separate rule challenges with identical issues, were not entitled to the statutory limit of fees for each petition. The fees were awarded as if one petition was filed.

1JOHN H. NEAMATALLA, )

5)

6Petitioner, )

8)

9vs. ) Case No. 08-2732RX

14)

15BOARD OF PHARMACY, )

19)

20Respondent. )

22)

23SAMAD MRIDHA, )

26)

27Petitioner, )

29)

30vs. ) Case No. 08-2733RX

35)

36BOARD OF PHARMACY, )

40)

41Respondent. )

43)

44SE YOUNG YOON, )

48)

49Petitioner, )

51)

52vs. ) Case No. 08-2734RX

57)

58BOARD OF PHARMACY, )

62)

63Respondent. )

65)

66SAURIN MODI, )

69)

70Petitioner, )

72)

73vs. ) Case No. 08-2821RX

78)

79BOARD OF PHARMACY, )

83)

84Respondent. )

86)

87DEEPAKKUMAR SHAH, M.PH., )

91)

92Petitioner, )

94)

95vs. ) Case No. 08-2823RX

100)

101BOARD OF PHARMACY, )

105)

106Respondent. )

108)

109MIJEONG CHANG, )

112)

113Petitioner, )

115)

116vs. ) Case No. 08-2824RX

121)

122BOARD OF PHARMACY, )

126)

127Respondent. )

129)

130NABIL KHALIL, )

133)

134Petitioner, )

136)

137vs. ) Case No. 08-3298RX

142)

143BOARD OF PHARMACY, )

147)

148Respondent. )

150)

151HADYA ALAMEDDINE, )

154)

155Petitioner, )

157)

158vs. ) Case No. 08-3347RX

163)

164BOARD OF PHARMACY, )

168)

169Respondent. )

171)

172BALAJI LAKSHMINARAYANAN, )

175)

176Petitioner, )

178)

179vs. ) Case No. 08-3488RX

184)

185BOARD OF PHARMACY, )

189)

190Respondent. )

192)

193ANAND NARAYANAN, )

196)

197Petitioner, )

199)

200vs. ) Case No. 08-3510RX

205)

206BOARD OF PHARMACY, )

210)

211Respondent. )

213)

214FINAL ORDER ON ATTORNEY’S FEES

219Pursuant to notice, a final hearing was held in this case on

231April 16, 2009, in Orlando, Florida, on Petitioners’ motions for

241attorney’s fees and costs before Susan B. Harrell, a designated

251Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative

259Hearings.

260APPEARANCES

261For Petitioners: George F. Indest, III, Esquire

268Matthew R. Gross, Esquire

272Michael L. Smith, Esquire

276The Health Law Firm

2801101 Douglas Avenue

283Altamonte Springs, Florida 32714

287For Respondent: Deborah B. Loucks, Esquire

293Office of the Attorney General

298The Capitol, Plaza Level 01

303Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050

306STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES

310The issues in this case are the amount of attorney’s fees

321and costs to be awarded to Petitioners pursuant to

330Section 120.595, Florida Statutes (2007); 1 whether Petitioners are

339entitled to fees and costs pursuant to Subsections 57.105(5),

348120.569(2)(e), and 120.595(4), Florida Statutes; and, if so, what

357amount should be awarded.

361PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

363On October 16, 2008, a Partial Final Order was entered in

374this case on a portion of the merits of the rule challenge.

386Portions of the petitions were placed in abeyance pending the

396outcome of the rulemaking process. The Partial Final Order held

406that Petitioners, Vipul Patel; Miriam L. Hernandez; Mirley

414Aleman-Alejo; Valliammai Natarajan; John H. Neamatalla; Samad

421Mridha; Se Young Yoon; Saurin Modi; Deepakkumar Shah, M.PH.;

430Mijeong Chang; Nabil Khalil; Hadya Alameddine; Balaji

437Lakshminarayanan; and Anand Narayanan, were entitled to

444attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to Subsection 120.595(3),

452Florida Statutes, and jurisdiction was retained to determine the

461amount of attorney’s fees and costs. Petitioners filed motions

470to determine whether fees could be awarded pursuant to other

480statutes and to determine the amount of attorney’s fees and costs

491to be awarded.

494The final hearing was scheduled for February 19, 2009. The

504parties filed a joint motion for a continuance. The final

514hearing was re-scheduled for April 16, 2009.

521The parties entered into a Joint Pre-hearing Stipulation and

530agreed to certain facts contained in Section E of the Joint

541Pre-hearing Stipulation. To the extent relevant, those facts

549have been incorporated into this Final Order on Attorney’s Fees.

559At the final hearing, Petitioners called the following

567witnesses: Matthew Gross, George F. Indest, and Sandra K.

576Ambrose. Petitioners’ Exhibits 1 through 6 and 9 through 75 were

587admitted in evidence.

590Respondent, Board of Pharmacy, called Edwin A. Bayo as its

600witness. Respondent’s Exhibit 1 was admitted in evidence.

608The Transcript was filed on April 29, 2009. The parties

618filed their Proposed Final Orders on May 12, 2009.

627FINDINGS OF FACT

6301. Each of the 14 Petitioners filed separate rule

639challenges, challenging the validity of Florida Administrative

646Code Rule 64B16-26.2031 and challenging eight statements of

654policy of the Board of Pharmacy, which statements had not been

665adopted as rules.

6682. Prior to the filing of his or her rule challenge, each

680Petitioner had graduated from a pharmacy school located outside

689the United States and had taken and passed the Foreign Pharmacy

700Graduate Equivalency Examination, the Test of Spoken English, and

709the Test of English as a Foreign Language. Petitioners had been

720issued Intern Registrations by the Board of Pharmacy. All but

730two of the Petitioners had submitted an application to be

740admitted to the professional licensure examination. Those

747applications had been denied. All Petitioners, including the two

756Petitioners who had not submitted an application, had applied to

766the Board of Pharmacy for a variance or waiver to allow them to

779sit for the professional licensure examination. The Board of

788Pharmacy denied each Petitioner’s application for a variance or

797waiver. Each Petitioner had been represented by The Health Law

807Firm in their applications for a variance or waiver and wanted

818The Health Law Firm to continue to represent them in the rule

830challenge. When asked why the Petitioners had contacted The

839Health Law Firm to represent them, an attorney for The Health Law

851Firm stated:

853I think they have a network where word just

862gets around. And they-–I believe they even

869had some sort of list serve or Web site where

879they had all noted that they were being

887treated unfairly, and so they knew each

894other. And maybe our name got out on that or

904something. But they-–they all seemed to know

911each other-–seemed to know each other.

917Additionally, The Health Law Firm had sent out letters soliciting

927the foreign pharmacy graduates to join the rule challenge. An

937attorney for The Health Law Firm was not sure whether the letter

949had been posted on the web site for the foreign pharmacy

960graduates.

9613. In several of the invoices submitted by The Health Law

972Firm, there was a charge of $20.00 for a “[t]elephone conference

983with client’s colleagues who are in the same situation and

993interested in filing petitions for waivers and joining the rule

1003challenge.” 2 Thus, the circumstances surrounding the

1010representation of Petitioners by The Health Law Firm do not

1020demonstrate that it was a coincidence that Petitioners just

1029happened to pick The Health Law Firm to represent them in the

1041rule challenges.

10434. The Health Law Firm decided to file 14 separate

1053petitions instead of one petition with 14 petitioners. The

1062reason for the filing of the separate petitions was to increase

1073the amount of attorney’s fees which could be awarded. Given the

1084inexperience of attorneys at The Health Law Firm with rule

1094challenges and the difficulty in understanding the speech of

1103Petitioners, who received their pharmacy training in countries

1111other than the United States, The Health Law Firm felt that it

1123was not economically feasible to pursue the rule challenge for

1133$15,000.00.

11355. Petitioners had a common goal, i.e. to be allowed to sit

1147for the professional licensure examination. The wording of each

1156of the petitions was essentially the same except for the names of

1168the individual Petitioners. Because the issues were the same for

1178all the rule challenges, the rule challenges were consolidated

1187for final hearing.

11906. No final hearing was held in the consolidated cases.

1200The parties agreed that, based on the parties’ Joint Pre-hearing

1210Stipulation, there were no disputed issues of material fact and

1220agreed to file proposed final orders addressing each party’s

1229position regarding the application of the law to the stipulated

1239facts. The Board of Pharmacy conceded that Florida

1247Administrative Code Rule 64B16-26.2031 was an invalid exercise of

1256delegated legislative authority, and Petitioners were determined

1263to prevail on the issue of the invalidity of the existing rule.

12757. On the challenge to the Board of Pharmacy’s policy

1285statements, four statements were determined to meet the

1293definition of a rule. The Board of Pharmacy conceded in the

1304parties’ pre-hearing stipulation that the instructions in the

1312Foreign Pharmacy Graduate Application for Licensure by

1319Examination, directing applicants not to apply prior to obtaining

1328all the required internship hours, constituted a non-rule policy.

1337On August 1, 2008, in response to its concession that some of the

1350statements or policies at issue were invalid non-rule policies,

1359the Board of Pharmacy had published, in the Florida

1368Administrative Law Weekly, a Notice of Rule Development for

1377Florida Administrative Code

1380Rule 64B16-26.2031. On August 21, 2008, the Board of Pharmacy

1390approved changes to Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B16-

139826.2031, eliminating the Foreign Pharmacy Graduate Examination

1405Committee (FPGEC) requirement, incorporating by reference the

1412Foreign Graduate Examination Application, and stating the time

1420frames for the application of Florida Administrative Code

1428Rule 64B16-26.2031. Pursuant to Subsection 120.56(4)(e), Florida

1435Statutes, the portion of the petitions dealing with the

1444statements on which the Board of Pharmacy did not prevail was

1455abated pending the rulemaking process.

14608. Petitioners did not prevail on four of the policy

1470statements they challenged. These were the policy statements

1478which the Board of Pharmacy contested.

14849. Based on the invoices submitted, the parties attempted

1493to settle the case. Essentially, the Board of Pharmacy had

1503started rule development which eliminated the requirement in the

1512existing rule which caused it to be invalid and which dealt with

1524the unpromulgated rule issues that the Board of Pharmacy had

1534conceded in the Joint Pre-hearing Stipulation.

154010. Petitioners wanted to be able to sit for the National

1551Association of Pharmacy Licensure Examination (NAPLEX) and the

1559Multistate Pharmacy Jurisprudence Examination (MPJE). All

1565Petitioners who had a Foreign Pharmacy Graduate Application for

1574Licensure by Examination pending on August 21, 2008, were

1583approved by the Board of Pharmacy to sit for the NAPLEX and the

1596Florida version of the MPJE. Thus, by August 21, 2008, those

1607Petitioners had reached their goal.

161211. The impediment to settling the cases was the amount of

1623attorney’s fees that should be awarded to Petitioners. There was

1633no undue delay by the Board of Pharmacy or anything which could

1645be attributed to the Board of Pharmacy as needlessly increasing

1655the cost of litigation. The Board of Pharmacy correctly

1664contended that the amount of fees requested by Petitioners was

1674unreasonable.

167512. The Partial Final Order entered in the underlying rule

1685challenges held that Petitioners are entitled to an award of

1695attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to Subsection 120.595(3),

1703Florida Statutes. The Board of Pharmacy was not substantially

1712justified in promulgating the challenged rule in the underlying

1721case and did not demonstrate that special circumstances existed

1730to warrant the promulgation of the challenged rule.

173813. The Board of Pharmacy did not demonstrate that the

1748statements which constituted unpromulgated rules are required by

1756the Federal Government to implement or retain a delegated or

1766approved program or to meet a condition to receipt of federal

1777funds.

177814. Each Petitioner entered into a contingency fee contract 3

1788with The Health Law Firm to represent him or her in a rule

1801challenge. The parties have agreed that the hourly rate of

1811$350.00 per hour for the services of George F. Indest, III,

1822Esquire, is reasonable and fair under the circumstances. The

1831parties have agreed that some of the hourly rates being claimed

1842for the other attorneys and employees of The Health Law Firm are

1854reasonable and fair under the circumstances. Those fees are

1863$200.00 and $150.00 per hour for the associate attorneys, $80.00

1873per hour for the paralegals, and $70.00 per hour for the legal

1885assistants. There were a few entries in the invoices made by

1896senior attorneys for whom the rate charged is $300.00 per hour.

1907Based on the rates charged for the senior partner and the

1918associate attorneys, an hourly rate of $300.00 for a senior

1928attorney is reasonable.

193115. The names of the attorneys and staff and the respective

1942hourly rate amount for each are listed below. In discussing the

1953reasonableness of the fees claimed in the various invoices, the

1963attorneys and staff will be referred to by their initials as

1974listed in the invoices.

1978Initials N a m e H o u r l y Rate

1990GFI George F. Indest, III, Senior Partner $350.00

1998MLS Michael L. Smith, Senior Attorney $300.00

2005JK Joanne Kenna, Senior Attorney $300.00

2011TJJ Teresa J. James, Attorney $200.00

2017MRG Matthew R. Gross, Attorney $150.00

2023JP Justin Patrou, Law Clerk $100.00

2029GJ Gail Joshua, Senior Paralegal $80.00

2035PD Pamela Dumas, Litigation Clerk $80.00

2041SF Sandra Faiella, Paralegal $80.00

2046RS Rebecca Simmons, Paralegal $80.00

2051AE Alexa Eastwood, Legal Assistant $70.00

2057SE Shelly Estes, Legal Assistant $70.00

206316. The amount of fees claimed by each Petitioner for

2073representation by The Health Law Firm for the rule challenge is

2084listed below. These amounts are based on the individual invoices

2094and the first consolidated invoice: 4

2100Name A m o u n t

2107Vipul Patel $15,212.36

2111Miriam Hernandez $15,683.36

2115Mirley Aleman-Alejo $11,469.36

2119Valliammai Natarajan $5,074.36

2123John H. Neamatalla $11,215.36

2128Samad Mridha $13,650.36

2132Se Young Yoon $12,292.36

2137Saurin Modi $10,093.36

2141Deepakkumar Shah, M.Ph. $11,764.36

2146Mijeong Chang $12,528.36

2150Nabil Khalil $10,272.36

2154Hadya Alameddine $5,313.36

2158Balaji Lakshminarayanan $4,585.36

2162Anand Narayanan $4,218.36

2166T o t a l $ 1 4 3 , 3 7 2 . 0 4

218117. Sandra Ambrose testified as an expert witness on behalf

2191of Petitioners. Her opinion is that the amounts claimed are

2201based on a reasonable number of hours expended in the litigation

2212of the rule challenge. However, Ms. Ambrose has never

2221represented a client in a rule challenge. It was Ms. Ambrose’s

2232opinion that the difficulty in the cases was a result of the

2244number of Petitioners not the issues to be litigated. Having

2254reviewed all the invoices submitted in these cases, the

2263undersigned cannot credit Ms. Ambrose’s testimony that the fees

2272are reasonable.

227418. The Board of Pharmacy argues that the amount of fees

2285and costs should be limited to the amount expended in the

2296petition brought by the first Petitioner, Vipul Patel. The

2305expert who testified for the Board of Pharmacy did not give a

2317definite amount that he considered to be a reasonable fee in

2328these cases.

233019. Prior to the final consolidation of all 14 rule

2340challenges, The Health Law Firm invoiced for its services and

2350costs by individual Petitioner. After all 14 rule challenges

2359were consolidated, The Health Law Firm invoiced for its time and

2370costs via a consolidated invoice. The undersigned has

2378painstakingly reviewed all the invoices that were submitted to

2387support Petitioners’ claims for fees and costs in the rule

2397challenges and finds the fees requested are not reasonable.

240620. On May 15, 2008, the invoices for Case Nos. 08-2733RX

2417contained the following entry for MRG. “Review/analyze final

2425order. Strategize regarding final order.” The final order

2433appears to be related to a petition 5 for a waiver or variance

2446before the Board of Pharmacy, and the entry is deleted. This

2457conclusion is supported by the entry in the invoice dated May 29,

24692008, relating to a telephone conference with the client relating

2479to a re-petition for waiver.

248421. In Case No. 08-2730RX, there is an entry on May 27,

24962008, for .10 hours for MRG, but no service is listed. That

2508entry is deleted.

251122. On June 6, 2008, MRG entered .50 hours each in Case

2523Nos. 08-2728RX, 08-2729RX, 08-2732RX, 08-2733RX, 08-2734RX,

252908-2821RX, 08-2823RX, 08-2824RX, and 08-3298RX. The entry

2536stated: “Continue preparing rule challenge and waiver.” The

2544Health Law Firm represented the Petitioners in four of these

2554cases before the Board of Pharmacy on June 10, 2008, on their

2566petitions for a wavier or variance. The invoice does not

2576delineate the amount of time that was spent on the rule challenge

2588and the amount of time that was spent on the waiver cases.

2600Therefore, the time is divided equally and .25 hours in each case

2612is charged toward the rule challenge.

261823. On June 9, 2008, in Case Nos. 08-2733RX, 08-2730RX,

262808-2731RX, 08-2734RX, 08-2729RX, and 08-2732RX, the senior

2635partner of The Health Law Firm entered .30 hours for each case,

2647which stated: “Prepare letter to Division of Administrative

2655Hearings forwarding Petition for Rule Challenge to be filed.”

2664The letter which accompanied the petitions in these cases stated:

2674Dear Clerk:

2676Attached for filing, please find a separate

2683Petition to Determine the Invalidity of an

2690Existing Agency Rule and the Invalidity of

2697Agency Policy and Statements defined as

2703Rules, for each of the individuals listed

2710below:

2711Miriam L. Hernandez

2714Mirley Aleman-Alejo

2716Se Young Yoon

2719John H. Neamatalla

2722Valliammai Natarajan

2724Md. A. Samad Mridha

2728Thank you for your assistance in this

2735matter.

2736For this letter, Petitioners are claiming 1.8 hours or $630.00.

2746This is not reasonable. On the same date, GFI prepared a similar

2758transmittal letter in Case No. 08-2728RX and listed .3 hours,

2768which is a reasonable amount for the preparation of such a

2779letter. Thus, the preparation of the transmittal letter on

2788June 9th for Case Nos. 08-2733RX, 08-2730RX, 08-2731RX,

279608-2734RX, 08-2729RX, and 08-2732RX is reduced to .3 hours, which

2806is prorated to .05 hours for those cases.

281424. The senior partner in The Health Law Firm claims

282423.6 hours during June 3 through 5, 2008, for the following

2835service which was entered on the invoices for Case

2844Nos. 08-2730RX, 08-2729RX, 08-2731RX, 08-2823RX, 08-3298RX,

285008-2821RX, 08-2728RX, 08-2734RX, 08-2733RX, and 08-2824RX.

2856Conduct legal research, review statutes,

2861cases (approximately 28 cases reviewed and

2867analyzed) and two (2) different Florida

2873Administrative Law legal treatises regarding

2878rule challenges and challenging agency

2883statements not adopted as rules, in order to

2891properly prepare Petition for Formal Rule

2897Challenge in case. Research legal issues

2903including administrative agency rules

2907exceeding authority granted in statutes,

2912retroactive applications of agency rules,

2917adding requirements to licensure requirements

2922through administrative rules when those

2927requirements are not contained in the

2933statute. Review Rules of Procedure and

2939Chapter 120 to determine contents of Rule

2946Challenge Petition. Begin reviewing and

2951revising draft for Rule Challenge in case.

2958(Note: Only pro-rata portion of this time

2965charged to each case.)

2969The total amount of fees claimed for this research is $8,260.00.

2981GFI testified that he had never done a rule challenge prior to

2993filing the petitions in the instant cases. His fees for research

3004due to his lack of knowledge of the basics of a rule challenge

3017should not be assessed against the Board of Pharmacy. A

3027reasonable amount of time for his research is four hours. Thus,

3038the amount for this legal research prorated among the ten cases

3049for which it was listed is .4 hours.

305725. On July 19, 2008, the senior partner of The Health Law

3069Firm entered .60 hours in ten of the rule challenges for

3080reviewing the Transcripts of the Board of Pharmacy meetings for

3090February 8 and April 5, 2008, and preparing a notice of filing

3102the Transcripts with the Division of Administrative Hearings.

3110Six hours to review the Transcripts and prepare a notice of

3121filing is not reasonable. Three hours is determined to be a

3132reasonable amount of time for this task, and that amount is

3143prorated among the ten cases in which the charge was made.

315426. On June 10, 2008, members of The Health Law Firm

3165attended a Board of Pharmacy meeting at which they represented

3175foreign pharmacy graduates who had petitioned the Board of

3184Pharmacy for a waiver or variance. In Case Nos. 08-2821RX,

319408-3298RX, and 08-2733RX, the senior partner listed .90 hours for

3204each case for preparation for the June 10th Board of Pharmacy

3215meeting. The preparation related to the petitions for variances

3224or waivers and should not be assessed for the instant cases.

323527. For June 10, 2008, JP listed .70 hours each in Case

3247Nos. 08-2823RX, 08-2732RX, 08-2821RX, and 08-2733RX for

3254attendance at the Board of Pharmacy meeting. For June 10, 2008,

3265GFI entered 1.4 hours for attendance at the Board of Pharmacy

3276meeting. The entries for attending the Board of Pharmacy meeting

3286related to the petitions for waivers and should not be assessed

3297in the instant cases.

330128. For June 19, 2008, the senior partner made the

3311following entry in the invoices for Case Nos. 08-2728RX,

332008-2729RX, 08-2732RX, 08-2733RX, 08-2734RX, 08-2821RX, 08-2823RX,

3326and 08-2824RX:

3328Travel to Boca Raton to meet with other

3336health care lawyers and discuss issues in

3343common on these cases and others. Discuss

3350legal strategies that worked in the past and

3358legal strategies to be avoided. Return from

3365Boca Raton.

3367Each entry was for one hour, for a total of eight hours claimed

3380for a trip to Boca Raton, which equates to $2,880.00. Based on

3393the entry, it seems that the trip included discussions of other

3404cases that The Health Law Firm was handling or that other

3415attorneys were handling. Additionally, there was no rationale

3423for having to travel to Boca Raton to discuss the issues, and

3435fees for such travel should not be awarded. A reasonable amount

3446of time for discussion of the case with other attorneys by

3457telephone would be .80 hours. The prorated amount of time for

3468each case listed is .10 hours.

347429. On May 27, 2008, SF made a .30-hour entry in Case

3486No. 08-2824RX for reviewing the agenda of the June 10th Board of

3498Pharmacy meeting as it related to the client in Case

3508No. 08-2824RX. The entry related to the client’s petition for a

3519waiver, which was heard at the June 10th meeting and should be

3531deleted.

353230. On May 30, 2008, in Case No. 08-2824RX, SF made

3543a .40-hour entry for drafting a letter to client with retainer

3554agreement. The entry is clerical and should be deleted.

356331. On June 18, 2008, an entry was made in the invoice in

3576Case No. 08-2731RX, which stated: “Telephone call from husband

3585of our client indicating that they want us to close this matter

3597and that they do not wish to pursue it any further; follow-up

3609memorandum to Mr. Indest regarding this.” Charges continued to

3618be made to the client through July 16, 2008. Based on the entry

3631to the invoice on June 18, 2008, no further charges should have

3643been made to the client except for the filing of a voluntary

3655dismissal of the rule challenge for the client. However, no

3665voluntary dismissal was filed. Based on the absence of any

3675further charges to the client after July 18, 2008, it is

3686concluded that the client did wish not to proceed with her rule

3698challenge. Any charges by The Health Law Firm after June 18,

37092008, in Case No. 08-2731RX will not be assessed against the

3720Board of Pharmacy as it relates to the rule challenge.

373032. On June 19, 2008, TJJ made the following .10-hour entry

3741in ten of the cases: “Review June 10, 2008, Board of Pharmacy

3753Agenda. Telephone conference with Court Reporter, Ms. Green,

3761ordering transcript of the June 10, 2008, meeting.” An hour for

3772reviewing an agenda and ordering a transcript is not reasonable.

3782A reasonable amount of time is .40 hours, and such time is

3794prorated to the ten cases in which it is charged.

380433. On June 20, 2008, in Case Nos. 08-2823RX and 08-2824RX,

3815TJJ made a .80-hour entry which stated: “Prepare draft motion

3825for consolidation.” No motion was ever filed and would not have

3836been necessary since the parties had agreed at the pre-hearing

3846conference that the rule challenges would be consolidated. The

3855time for this service should be deleted.

386234. On July 10, 2008, TJJ made the following .10-hour entry

3873in several of the cases: “Review prehearing instruction orders

3882and amended orders to determine respondent’s deadline to serve

3891discovery responses.” The entry is duplicative of services

3899provided by MRG on July 8, 2008, and should be deleted.

391035. On July 15, 2008, in Case Nos. 08-2729RX, 08-2728RX,

392008-2730RX, 08-2732RX, 08-2733RX, 08-2734RX, 08-2821RX, 08-2823RX,

392608-2824RX, and 08-3298RX, TJJ had .40 hours for a total of

39374.00 hours for the following entry:

3943Prepare Petitioners’ Motion to Compel

3948Discovery and assemble and copy documents to

3955be attached to Motion. Prepare facsimile

3961coversheets and transmit the Motion to the

3968attorney for the Board of Pharmacy,

3974Ms. Loucks, and to the clerk for the Division

3983of Administrative Hearings.

3986The copying, preparing facsimile coversheets, and transmitting

3993the motion are clerical tasks. The entries are reduced to .20

4004hours due to the clerical nature of the tasks, which leaves a

4016total of two hours for preparing a simple motion to compel. The

4028time for the preparation of the motion to compel is not

4039reasonable and is reduced to .10-hour for each entry.

404836. On July 22, 2008, the last Order consolidating all the

4059cases was filed. The Order consisted of four paragraphs. On

4069July 29, 2008, TJJ entered .10 hours in Case Nos. 08-2733RX, 08-

40812730RX, 08-2734RX, 08-2728RX, 08-2729RX, 08-2732RX, 08-2824RX,

408708-3510RX, 08-3488RX, 08-3347RX, 08-2823RX, 08-3298RX, and 08-

40942821RX, and each entry stated: “Review order of consolidation

4103filed on July 22, 2008, for common information needed for all

4114cases.” Thus, Petitioners are claiming a total of 1.3 hours or

4125$260.00 to review a four-paragraph Order of Consolidation. This

4134claim is not reasonable. A reasonable amount of time to review

4145the Order was .10 hours, and the time shall be prorated among the

415813 cases for which it was claimed at .08 hours each.

416937. On July 24, 2008, TJJ made an entry of .10 hours in ten

4183of the cases which stated:

4188Telephone conference with the clerk of the

4195District Court of Appeal, First District to

4202find out the start time of oral arguments on

4211Custom Mobility (rule challenge case).

4216Request information from clerk regarding how

4222to listen to oral arguments online.

4228Observing this oral argument will allow us to

4236better prepare our case for possible appeal.

4243First, a one-hour telephone conversation with the Clerk of

4252District Court of Appeal to ascertain the time for an oral

4263argument and to learn how to listen to oral arguments online is

4275not reasonable. Second, it is not reasonable to charge the Board

4286of Pharmacy with a call to the District Court of Appeal in the

4299instant cases, even if the amount of time for the call had been

4312reasonable. The one-hour charge for $200.00 for a telephone call

4322is deleted.

432438. On July 30, 2008, TJJ made an entry of .10 hours in 13

4338of the rule challenges. The entry stated: “Listen to oral

4348arguments presented before District Court of Appeals, First

4356District, in Custom Mobility case (rule challenge case).” The

4365oral argument was not related to the instant rule challenges and

4376should not be charged to the Board of Pharmacy. The 1.3 hours or

4389$260.00 claim for listening to an oral argument is deleted.

439939. On August 4, 2008, TJJ made the following .10-hour

4409entry in 13 of the cases: “Review Joint Motion for Abeyance and

4421Order Canceling Hearing and Placing Cases in Abeyance. Calendar

4430deadlines regarding same.” The time of 1.3 hours for reviewing

4440the simple motion and Order is not reasonable. Calendaring is a

4451clerical task. The time for this service is reduced to .01 hours

4463for each entry.

446640. On August 5, 2008, TJJ made the following .10-hour

4476entry in 13 of the cases: “Review Respondent’s Objections and

4486Responses to Petitioners’ Second Set of Interrogatories and

4494Respondent’s Objections to Petitioners’ Second Set of Requests

4502for Admissions.” The objections were that the interrogatories

4510and requests for admissions exceeded 30. The time of 1.3 hours

4521for reviewing the pleadings is not reasonable. The time for this

4532service is reduced to .04 for each entry.

454041. Petitioners had scheduled the depositions of Rebecca

4548Poston and Daisy King for July 18, 2008. On July 17, 2008,

4560Petitioners filed notices canceling the depositions. On July 17,

45692008, PD entered .10 hours in ten of the rule challenges for the

4582following entry:

4584Telephone conference with Accurate Stenotype

4589Reporters regarding cancellation of

4593depositions of Daisy King and Rebecca Poston

4600on July 18, 2008 and delay transcription of

4608depositions of Erika Lilja and Elizabeth

4614Ranne due to potential settlement.

4619It is not reasonable to charge an hour to cancel depositions with

4631the court reporter. A reasonable amount of time would be

4641.10 hours, which is prorated to the ten cases to which it is

4654charged.

465542. PD prepared the notice of the canceling of the

4665deposition of Ms. Poston and the notice of the canceling of the

4677deposition of Ms. King. Entries were made in ten of the cases

4689for time for preparing the notices. The total time for preparing

4700the two notices by PD was 1.45 hours. The time is not

4712reasonable. A reasonable time to prepare two notices of

4721canceling depositions would be .40 hours, which is prorated among

4731the ten cases in which it was charged.

473943. One of the issues on which Petitioners did not prevail

4750in the rule challenges was the issue of retroactive application

4760of the rule. There are entries totaling 3.4 hours for JP for

4772preparation of a memorandum dealing with the retroactive

4780application of a rule issue. GFI entered .30 hours for the same

4792issue. The time relating to the retroactive application issue is

4802deleted. On April 19, 2008, MRG entered .20 hours each in

4813several cases, which related to the rule challenge and

4822retroactive application issue. That time is reduced by half. On

4832May 6, 2008, MRG made .60-hour entries in Case Nos. 08-2728RX,

484308-2729RX, 08-2730RX, 08-2732RX, 08-2733RX, 08-2734RX, 08-2821RX,

484908-2823RX, 08-2824RX, and 08-3298RX, which showed the preparation

4857of three sections of the petition. One of the sections dealt

4868with the retroactive application issue, and the entries are

4877reduced by .20 hours for that issue.

488444. The invoices demonstrated that a considerable amount of

4893time was charged for legal assistants and paralegals. Much of

4903this time was for clerical tasks.

490945. SE is identified in Petitioners’ exhibits as a legal

4919assistant. The majority of the entries by SE dealt with the

4930photocopying, labeling, organizing, indexing, and filing

4936documents. These services performed by SE are clerical and, as

4946such, cannot be included in an award of attorney’s fees.

495646. RS is identified in Petitioners’ exhibits as a

4965paralegal/legal assistant. The majority of the entries in the

4974invoices for RS deal with receiving, reviewing, labeling,

4982indexing, scanning, summarizing, and calendaring pleadings and

4989orders that were received in the cases. These services are

4999clerical and, as such, cannot be included in an award of

5010attorney’s fees.

501247. Petitioners in Case Nos. 08-2728RX, 08-2732RX, and

502008-2733RX each claimed .30 hours for RS for the following service

5031on April 30, 2008:

5035Received and reviewed letter from Department

5041of Health regarding our Public Records

5047Request dated April 28, 2008 relating to

5054client’s case. Index document for filing and

5061scanning for use of attorneys at hearing.

5068However, .90 hours for reviewing and indexing a letter is not

5079reasonable and is clerical in nature.

508548. On June 17, 2008, in Case No. 08-2730RX, RS entered

5096.60 hours for preparing, copying, and sending a letter to the

5107client forwarding a copy of the Order of Assignment. That entry

5118is reduced to .30 hours, since at least half of the time appeared

5131to be for clerical tasks.

513649. AE, who is identified as a legal assistant in

5146Petitioners’ exhibits, has numerous entries in the invoices for

5155receiving, indexing, filing, calendaring, and providing pleadings

5162and orders to clients. Those services are clerical and, as such,

5173cannot be included in an award of attorney’s fees.

518250. In Case No. 08-2728RX, PD, identified in Petitioners’

5191exhibits as a paralegal, made entries on June 16 and June 25,

52032008, for .30 hours each. These entries were to update the

5214litigation schedule with the hearing date. The entry is clerical

5224and, as such, cannot be included in an award of attorney’s fees.

523651. SF, who is identified in Petitioners’ exhibits as a

5246paralegal/legal assistant, made an entry for .30 hours in Case

5256No. 08-2728RX on June 26, 2008, and in Case No. 08-2732RX on

5268June 11, 2008, for forwarding orders to the client. An entry was

5280made on July 10, 2008, in Case No. 08-2728RX and on June 18,

52932008, in Case No. 08-2730RX for .30 hours for processing the

5304retainer package. Additionally, SF had entries for organizing

5312and filing transcripts and orders. Such services are clerical

5321and, as such, cannot be included in an award of attorney’s fees.

533352. In Case No. 08-3488RX, SF made a .30-hour entry on

5344June 30, 2008, for updating the parties list and document file

5355and a .50-hour entry on June 26, 2008, for completing opening

5366procedures. In the same case, SF made two entries on July 7,

53782008, for a total of 1.5 hours for preparing a retainer package

5390and sending it to the client. These tasks are clerical.

540053. On June 24, 2008, SF made the following .30-hour entry

5411in 11 of the cases: “Finalize and forward Joint Motion for

5422Continuance of Final Hearing to client in this matter.” These

5432entries are deleted; as they represent clerical tasks and an

5442unreasonable amount of time to finalize a motion for continuance

5452for which GFI had charged 1.1 hours for preparing the motion.

546354. In several cases JP, identified as a law clerk, made

5474entries on July 15, 2008, for .30-hour for creating, numbering,

5484and copying exhibits. Such service is clerical.

549155. On July 30, 2008, PD made the following .20-hour entry

5502in 13 of the cases:

5507Prepare Petitioners’ Notice of Service of

5513Second Set of Interrogatories and Certificate

5519of Filing and Service. Prepare

5524correspondence to Debra Loucks, attorney for

5530Board of Pharmacy regarding filing and

5536Service of Petitioners’ Fourth Set of Request

5543to Produce and Second Set of Interrogatories.

5550However, 2.6 hours is not a reasonable amount of time to prepare

5562a notice of service of discovery and a transmittal letter to

5573opposing counsel. A reasonable amount of time to prepare such

5583documents is .50 hours, and the time is prorated among

5593the 13 cases.

559656. On July 28, 2008, PD made the following .10-hour entry

5607in 13 of the cases:

5612Prepare Notice of Filing Videotaped

5617Depositions of Elizabeth Ranne and Erika

5623Lilja. Prepare draft of Notice of Filing

5630Deposition Transcript of Elizabeth Ranne.

5635However, 1.3 hours is an unreasonable amount of time to prepare

5646two notices of filing depositions. A reasonable amount of time

5656is .40 hours, and that amount is prorated among the 13 cases.

566857. On June 17, 2008, PD made the following .20-hour entry

5679in each of the 11 cases:

5685Prepare Petitioners’ Notice of Service of

5691First Set of Interrogatories to Respondent

5697and Certificate of Filing and Service.

5703Prepare correspondence to Debra Loucks,

5708attorney for Board of Pharmacy, regarding

5714filing and service of Petitioners’ First Set

5721of Request to Produce, Petitioners’ First Set

5728of Request for Admissions and Petitioners’

5734First Set of Interrogatories.

5738However, 2.2 hours is an unreasonable amount of time to prepare a

5750notice of service of discovery and a transmittal letter to

5760opposing counsel. A reasonable amount of time is .50, which is

5771prorated among the 11 cases.

577658. On June 21, 2008, in Case Nos. 08-2821RX, 08-2823RX,

5786and 08-2824RX, there is a .30-hour entry for SF for finalizing

5797and forwarding a petition for formal hearing to the Department of

5808Health for filing. This entry does not appear to be related to

5820the rule challenges and is deleted.

582659. In Case No. 08-3298RX, MRG made an entry of .50 hours

5838for a telephone conference regarding the date of rule challenge

5848and petition for rehearing. The petition for rehearing dealt

5857with the client’s petition for waiver and should not be included.

5868Thus, the entry is reduced to .25 hours.

587660. After all the cases were consolidated The Health Law

5886Firm began to make entries for all cases in the first

5897consolidated invoice. On July 28, 2008, GFI made an entry of

59082.8 hours, which related exclusively to the issue of retroactive

5918application of the rule. This entry is deleted.

592661. RS made entries in the first consolidated invoice for

5936August 12, 14, 28, and 29, 2008, and September 2, 5, 10, and 18,

59502008, relating to filing, indexing, copying, and forwarding

5958documents. There are similar entries for SF on August 26, 2008,

5969and September 4 and 9, 2008, and for AE on September 8, 2008.

5982Those entries are for clerical tasks.

598862. PD had entries for reviewing, organizing, and indexing

5997documents on September 4, 8, 11, and 17, 2008, and October 8,

60092008. Those entries are for clerical tasks.

601663. There were numerous entries in August 2008 relating to

6026a Board of Pharmacy meeting on August 21, 2008, in which the

6038Board of Pharmacy heard motions for reconsideration of orders

6047denying Petitioners’ petitions for waivers. Those entries are

6055related to the petitions for waiver and not to the rule

6066challenges. Although, The Health Law Firm makes reference to a

6076settlement agreement in which the Board of Pharmacy agreed to

6086grant the waivers, there was no settlement agreement of the rule

6097challenges because the parties proceeded to litigate the issues

6106by summary disposition. Thus, the references to attending and

6115preparing for the August 21, 2008, Board of Pharmacy meeting as

6126well as advising the clients of the outcome of the meeting on

6138August 20 and 21, 2008, are deleted. Additionally, an entry by

6149MRG on August 20, 2008, which included reviewing the August 21st

6160agenda is reduced to .75 hours.

616664. On August 25, 2008, MRG made an entry which included a

6178telephone conference with Mr. Bui and a telephone conference with

6188Ms. Ranne regarding Mr. Bui. Mr. Bui is not a Petitioner, and

6200the entry is reduced to .55 hours. Based on the invoices, it

6212appears that Mr. Bui and Ms. Ranne were also foreign pharmacy

6223graduates seeking waivers from the Board of Pharmacy. On

6232August 29, 2008, MRG made another entry which included the

6242preparation of an e-mail to Mr. Bui. The entry is reduced to two

6255hours.

625665. On August 6, 2008, MRG made a 1.80-hour entry which

6267included preparing e-mail to Mr. Bui and a telephone conference

6277with Mr. Sokkan regarding the rule challenge and settlement

6286negotiations. Neither of these persons is a Petitioner; thus,

6295the entry is reduced to .60 hours.

630266. On August 28, 2008, TJJ made a 3.60-hour entry for

6313researching and preparing Petitioners’ second motion to compel

6321discovery. No such motion was filed. Thus, the entry is

6331deleted. Another entry was made on September 2, 2008, which

6341included, among other things, the revision of the motion to

6351compel. That entry is reduced to .80 hours.

635967. On August 8, 2008, MRG made a 1.00-hour entry which

6370included a telephone conference with Ms. Alameddine regarding her

6379passing the MPJE and being licensed in Michigan. Those issues

6389relate to the petition for reconsideration of the waiver. The

6399entry is reduced to .50 hours.

640568. On September 4, 2008, TJJ made a .80-hour entry for

6416preparing a letter to Mr. Modi regarding his approval to take the

6428examination, a 1.00-hour entry dealing with Mr. Lakshminarary’s

6436application, a .90-hour entry dealing with Petitioner Narayanan’s

6444application, a .70-hour entry dealing with Mr. Shah’s

6452application, and a .60-hour entry dealing with Ms. Hernandez’s

6461application. The entries deal with the petitions for a waiver

6471and are deleted.

647469. On September 4, 2008, MRG made an entry which included,

6485among other tasks, time for determining if the Board of Pharmacy

6496had sufficient funds to pay Petitioners’ attorney’s fees. This

6505entry is reduced to two hours.

651170. On October 10, 2008, MRG made a 1.20-hour entry which

6522included, among other things, analyzing pleadings to determine if

6531persons who were not Petitioners should file petitions for

6540attorney’s fees. The entry is reduced to .60 hours.

654971. On July 16, 2008, MRG and JP made entries in ten of the

6563cases for traveling to Tallahassee and attending the depositions

6572of Elizabeth Ranne and Erika Lilja. The total hours for MRG was

658416.9 hours and for JP the total was 17 hours. These total hours

6597are reduced by ten hours each for travel time.

660672. On August 12 and 13, 2008, MRG made entries which

6617included travel time to attend Board of Pharmacy meetings. 6 Those

6628entries are reduced each by one hour to account for travel time.

664073. The following is a listing of the amount of hours and

6652dollar amount for fees, which are considered to be reasonable for

6663the rule challenges.

6666Individual and First Consolidated Invoice

6671H o u r s R a t e A m o u n t

6686G F I 1 4 6 . 1 0 $ 3 5 0 . 0 0 $ 5 1 , 1 3 5 . 0 0

6711M L S 3 . 7 0 $ 3 0 0 . 0 0 $ 1 , 1 1 0 . 0 0

6733J K 1 . 4 0 $ 3 0 0 . 0 0 $ 4 2 0 . 0 0

6753T J J 8 0 . 1 3 $ 2 0 0 . 0 0 $ 1 6 , 0 2 6 . 0 0

6777M R G 2 1 0 . 1 6 $ 1 5 0 . 0 0 $ 3 1 , 8 2 4 . 0 0

6802J P 3 7 . 8 0 $ 1 0 0 . 0 0 $ 3 , 7 8 0 . 0 0

6824P D 3 9 . 0 5 3 $ 8 0 . 0 0 $ 3 , 1 2 4 . 2 4

6846S F 1 6 . 8 0 $ 8 0 . 0 0 $ 1 , 3 4 4 . 0 0

6867G J . 4 0 $ 8 0 . 0 0 $ 3 2 . 0 0

6884R S 1 . 3 $ 8 0 . 0 0 $ 1 0 4 . 0 0

6902$ 1 0 8 , 8 9 9 . 2 4

691274. The Partial Final Order found that Petitioners were

6921entitled to an award of attorney’s fees pursuant to Subsection

6931120.595(3), Florida Statutes. Thus, the issue of entitlement to

6940fees and costs pursuant to Subsection 120.595(3), Florida

6948Statutes, was not an issue that was litigated in the instant fee

6960cases. The issue of whether Petitioners were entitled to fees

6970and costs pursuant to Subsections 57.105(5), 120.569(2)(e), and

6978120.595(4), Florida Statutes, were entitlement issues which were

6986litigated in the instant fee cases. 7 Most of the charges dealing

6998with the petitions for fees and costs are related to the amount

7010of fees that are to be awarded and not to the entitlement to

7023fees.

702475. In Petitioners’ second consolidated invoice

7030(Petitioners’ Exhibit 4), there is a two-hour entry by MLS on

7041November 3, 2008, for research of entitlement to fees pursuant to

7052Subsection 120.595(3), Florida Statutes. This entry is deleted

7060since the issue of entitlement to fees pursuant to Subsection

7070120.595(3), Florida Statutes, had already been determined.

707776. The following entries in the second consolidated

7085invoice relate to the litigation of the amount of fees to be

7097awarded and are deleted:

71011 1 - 5 - 0 8 G F I 6.90 h o u r s

71171 1 - 6 - 0 8 S F 7.00 h o u r s

71321 1 - 6 - 0 8 G F I 7.40 h o u r s

71481 1 - 7 - 0 8 S F 7.00 h o u r s

71631 1 - 7 - 0 8 M L S 1.00 h o u r

71781 1 - 7 - 0 8 J C P 7.00 h o u r s

71941 1 - 8 - 0 8 J C P 1.00 h o u r s

72101 1 - 8 - 0 8 G F I 7.10 h o u r s

72261 - 2 6 - 0 9 G F I 1.00 h o u r

72412 - 9 - 0 9 G F I .60 h o u r s

72562 - 1 0 - 0 9 G F I .30 h o u r s

72722 - 1 2 - 0 9 G F I .60 h o u r s

72882 - 1 7 - 0 9 G F I .30 h o u r s

73042 - 1 7 - 0 9 G F I .60 h o u r s

73202 - 1 9 - 0 9 G F I .60 h o u r s

733677. The following entries were made in the second

7345consolidated invoice for clerical tasks performed by paralegals

7353and legal assistants:

73561 1 - 3 - 0 8 R A S .30 h o u r s

73722 - 9 - 0 9 R A S .30 h o u r s

73872 - 1 0 - 0 9 R A S .30 h o u r s

74032 - 1 2 - 0 9 A C E .40 h o u r s

741978. The issue of entitlement to fees pursuant to statutes

7429other than Subsection 120.595(3), Florida Statutes, was a small

7438portion of the litigation relating to attorney’s fees and costs.

7448The major areas of litigation dealt with the amount of fees and

7460costs that should be awarded. The invoices do not specifically

7470set forth the amount of time that was spent on the issue of

7483entitlement to fees on statutes other than Subsection 120.595(3),

7492Florida Statutes. Based on a review of the pleadings in these

7503fee cases and a review of the invoices submitted for litigation

7514of attorney’s fees and costs, it is concluded that ten percent of

7526the time should be allocated to the issue of entitlement to fees.

7538The percentage is applied to the fees after the fees listed in

7550paragraphs 76, 77, and 78, above, have been deleted. Thus, the

7561following entries in the second consolidated invoice are reduced

7570to the following amount of hours:

75761 1 - 1 - 0 8 J C P .26 h o u r s

75921 1 - 3 - 0 8 M L S .10 h o u r s

76081 1 - 4 - 0 8 M L S .40 h o u r s

76241 1 - 8 - 0 8 J C P .32 h o u r s

76401 2 - 2 2 - 0 8 G F I .04 h o u r s

76571 2 - 3 0 - 0 8 M L S .03 h o u r s

76741 - 7 - 0 9 G F I .02 h o u r s

76891 - 1 4 - 0 9 G F I .04 h o u r s

77051 - 1 5 - 0 9 G F I .07 h o u r s

772179. In the third consolidated invoice (Petitioners’

7728Exhibit 5), the following entries relate to the amount of fees to

7740be awarded and are deleted:

77453 - 4 - 0 9 S M E 4.80 h o u r s

77603 - 4 - 0 9 G F I 1.20 h o u r s

77754 - 3 - 0 9 G F I 3.20 h o u r s

77904 - 7 - 0 9 G F I .50 h o u r s

78054 - 7 - 0 9 G F I .60 h o u r s

78204 - 7 - 0 9 G F I .30 h o u r s

78354 - 8 - 0 9 G F I 4.20 h o u r s

78504 - 8 - 0 9 G F I 1.00 h o u r

78644 - 9 - 0 9 M R G 1.50 h o u r s

78794 - 9 - 0 9 G F I 3.20 h o u r s

78944 - 1 1 - 0 9 G F I .60 h o u r s

79104 - 1 5 - 0 9 G F I 4.40 h o u r s

792680. On April 14, 2009, GFI made an entry which included

7937time for travel to the expert witness’ office. The entry is

7948reduced by .75 hours for travel time. Ten percent of the time

7960not excluded or reduced above related to the issue of entitlement

7971of fees pursuant to statutes other than Subsection 120.595(3),

7980Florida Statutes. The following entries are reduced to that

7989percentage:

79903 - 3 1 - 0 9 G F I .05 h o u r s

80064 - 1 - 0 9 G F I .20 h o u r s

80214 - 6 - 0 9 G F I .19 h o u r s

80364 - 6 - 0 9 G F I .03 h o u r s

80514 - 7 - 0 9 M R G .05 h o u r s

80664 - 7 - 0 9 G F I .07 h o u r s

80814 - 7 - 0 9 G F I .19 h o u r s

80964 - 7 - 0 9 G F I .27 h o u r s

81114 - 9 - 0 9 G F I .10 h o u r s

81264 - 1 3 - 0 9 G F I .50 h o u r s

81424 - 1 4 - 0 9 G F I .48 h o u r s

81584 - 1 4 - 0 9 G F I .275 h o u r s

817481. The following is a list of the fees in the second and

8187third consolidated invoices which are related to entitlement of

8196fees pursuant to Florida Statutes other than Subsection

8204120.595(3), Florida Statutes.

8207Second and Third Consolidated Invoice

8212H o u r s R a t e A m o u n t

8227G F I 2 . 5 2 5 $ 3 5 0 . 0 0 $ 8 8 3 . 7 5

8249M L S . 4 3 $ 3 0 0 . 0 0 $ 1 2 9 . 0 0

8269M R G . 0 5 $ 1 5 0 . 0 0 $ 7 . 5 0

8287J C P . 3 2 $ 1 0 0 . 0 0 $ 3 2 . 0 0

8306$ 1 , 0 5 2 . 2 5

831482. With the exception of the costs related to the

8324Transcripts of the Board of Pharmacy meetings of April 8 and 9,

83362008, and June 10, 2008, Respondent, as stipulated in the

8346parties’ Joint Pre-hearing Stipulation, does not dispute that the

8355amounts of costs set forth in the invoices submitted by

8365Petitioners are fair and reasonable. 8 The cost of the Transcripts

8376of the Board of Pharmacy meetings on April 8 and 9, 2008, was

8389$1,476.00. The cost of the Transcript of the Board of Pharmacy

8401meeting on June 10, 2008, was $524.00. At the final hearing, the

8413Board of Pharmacy’s objection appeared to be based on the timing

8424of the payment of the court reporter’s fees related to the

8435transcribing of those meetings. The Transcripts were filed with

8444the Division of Administrative Hearings prior to the issuance of

8454the Partial Final Order. Thus, the costs of the transcribing of

8465the Board of Pharmacy meetings are properly included in the

8475amount of costs to be awarded to Petitioners. The amounts of the

8487costs claimed for the rule challenges in the individual and first

8498consolidated invoice are reasonable.

850283. The costs incurred by Petitioners for the rule

8511challenges as set forth in the individual and first consolidated

8521invoices are listed below:

8525Name A m o u n t

8532Vipul Patel $1,773.62

8536Miriam Hernandez $1,801.41

8540Mirley Aleman-Alejo $1,213.80

8544Valliammai Natarajan $321.17 [9]

8548John H. Neamatalla $1,118.72

8553Samad Mridha $975.12

8556Se Young Yoon $1,097.07

8561Saurin Modi $1,168.75

8565Deepakkumar Shah, M.Ph. $1,119.24

8570Mijeong Chang $1,213.16

8574Nabil Khalil $961.32

8577Hadya Alameddine $464.60

8580Balaji Lakshminarayanan $509.71

8583Anand Narayanan $461.87

858684. The total amount of costs to be awarded for the

8597challenge to the existing rule and to the policy statements is

8608$14,199.56.

861085. The parties stipulated to the reasonableness of the

8619costs contained in the second consolidated invoice. The second

8628consolidated invoice lists the total costs as $2,096.12.

8637Therefore, the costs for the second consolidated invoice are

8646reduced to $209.61, 10 which represents the amount attributable to

8656litigation of entitlement of fees, ten percent of the total

8666costs.

866786. The parties stipulated to the reasonableness of the

8676costs contained in the third consolidated invoice. The third

8685consolidated invoice lists the total costs as $580.62.

8693Therefore, the costs for the third consolidated invoice are

8702reduced to $58.06, 11 which represents the amount attributable to

8712litigating the entitlement of fees, ten percent of the total

8722costs.

872387. Petitioners incurred costs in the litigation of the

8732amount of attorney’s fees to be awarded. Petitioners retained an

8742expert witness, Sandra Ambrose, Esquire. Ms. Ambrose’s fee

8750relating to the issue of attorney’s fees is $5,200.00. Her fee

8762is reasonable; however, Ms. Ambrose’s testimony was related to

8771the amount of the fees not to the entitlement to fees and are,

8784therefore, not awarded as part of the costs.

879288. The total costs to be awarded for the litigation of the

8804fees is $267.67.

8807CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

881089. The Division of Administrative Hearings has

8817jurisdiction over the parties to and the subject matter of this

8828Stat. (2008).

883090. Subsection 120.595(3), Florida Statutes, provides:

8836(3) If the court or administrative law judge

8844declares a rule or portion of a rule invalid

8853pursuant to s. 120.56(3), a judgment or order

8861shall be rendered against the agency for

8868reasonable costs and reasonable attorney's

8873fees, unless the agency demonstrates that its

8880actions were substantially justified or

8885special circumstances exist which would make

8891the award unjust. An agency's actions are

"8898substantially justified" if there was a

8904reasonable basis in law and fact at the time

8913the actions were taken by the agency. If the

8922agency prevails in the proceedings, the court

8929or administrative law judge shall award

8935reasonable costs and reasonable attorney's

8940fees against a party if the court or

8948administrative law judge determines that a

8954party participated in the proceedings for

8960an improper purpose as defined by

8966paragraph (1)(e). No award of attorney's

8972fees as provided by this subsection shall

8979exceed $15,000.

898291. Each Petitioner is seeking fees for his or her specific

8993case, which would equal to each Petitioner receiving up to a

9004maximum of $15,000.00 in fees. The Board of Pharmacy contends

9015that fees should be awarded for only one Petitioner. The basis

9026for this argument is that all 14 Petitioners could have filed one

9038rule challenge and gained the same results that were gained by

9049the filing of 14 separate petitions. Petitioners conceded at the

9059final hearing that the reason for filing 14 separate petitions

9069was to increase the amount of attorney’s fees which could be

9080awarded. The cases were taken on a contingency fee basis,

9090principally because Petitioners could not afford to pay on an

9100hourly basis. The statutory limit on the amount of attorney’s

9110fees that can be awarded pursuant to Subsection 120.595(3),

9119Florida Statutes, is $15,000.00.

912492. Petitioners rely on the Final Order entered in Anderson

9134Columbia Company, Inc. v. Board of Trustees of the Internal

9144Improvement Trust Fund , Case Nos. 00-0754F, 00-0755F, 00-0756F,

915200-0757F, and 00-0828F (DOAH July 18, 2000), per curiam aff’d Bd.

9163of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund v. Anderson

9173Columbia, et al. , 796 So. 2d 1176 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001), to support

9186their position that each Petitioner is entitled to receive

9195attorney’s fees. In Anderson Columbia , the Administrative Law

9203Judge found that the petitioners in a rule challenge to a

9214proposed rule were entitled to the maximum allowed pursuant to

9224Subsection 120.595(2), Florida Statutes, for each petition filed.

9232Three of the petitioners were corporations, one petitioner was a

9242limited partnership, and one petitioner consisted of a group of

9252individuals and corporations. In rejecting the respondent’s

9259contention that the fees should be reimbursed on per case client

9270basis, the Administrative Law Judge stated:

9276Support Terminals and Commodores Point were

9282unrelated clients who happened to choose the

9289same counsel; they were not a “shared

9296venture.” Each brought a different

9301perspective to the case since Commodores

9307Point had already received a disclaimer with

9314no reversionary interest on June 26, 1997.

9321The latter event ultimately precipitated this

9327matter and led to the proposed rulemaking.

9334Likewise, in the case of Anderson Columbia

9341and Panhandle Land, one was a land owner

9349while the other was a tenant, and they also

9358happened to choose the same attorney to

9365represent them. For the sake of convenience

9372and economy, the underlying cases were

9378consolidated and the matters joined for

9384hearing.

9385Anderson Columbia , Final Order, pages 6-7.

939193. In the instant cases, the Petitioners are not bringing

9401different perspectives to the cases. Each Petitioner graduated

9409from a pharmacy school located outside the United States and had

9420taken and passed the Foreign Pharmacy Graduate Equivalency

9428Examination, the Test of Spoken English, and the Test of English

9439as a Foreign Language. Petitioners had been issued Intern

9448Registrations by the Board of Pharmacy. All but two of the

9459Petitioners had submitted applications to sit for the licensure

9468examination and had their applications denied. All Petitioners

9476had sought a variance or waiver of the FPGEC certification

9486requirement and had been denied a variance or waiver.

9495Essentially, the Petitioners were all in the same boat. It is

9506true that the hardships that Petitioners may have had because

9516they were not allowed to sit for the licensure examination

9526differed; the hardships were irrelevant to the issue of whether

9536the rule was invalid or whether the challenged statements

9545constituted rules.

954794. The facts in these cases do not demonstrate that

9557Petitioners just happened to choose the same law firm to

9567represent them. The Health Law Firm had represented the

9576Petitioners in their petitions to the Board of Pharmacy for a

9587variance or waiver. The Health Law Firm acknowledged that the

9597reason that 14 petitions were filed was to increase the amount of

9609attorney’s fees which could be claimed. The Health Law Firm sent

9620out letters soliciting clients to join in the rule challenge.

9630All the Petitioners knew each other and had a web site for the

9643foreign pharmacy graduates.

964695. Notwithstanding the reference to these cases as

9654separate, supra , it is concluded that the 14 challenges to the

9665existing rule should be treated as one case and that the amount

9677of fees to be awarded to Petitioners for the challenge to the

9689existing rule is the statutory limit of $15,000.00.

969896. Petitioners’ rule challenge included a challenge to

9706eight statements which had not been promulgated as rules.

9715Petitioners were not successful on four of the statements and

9725prevailed on the other statements. Subsection 120.595(4),

9732Florida Statutes, provides for the award of reasonable costs and

9742attorney’s fees upon the entry of a final order that all or part

9755of an agency statement meets the definition of a rule and has not

9768been promulgated as a rule. Subsection 120.595(4), Florida

9776Statutes, states:

9778(4) CHALLENGES TO AGENCY ACTION PURSUANT TO

9785SECTION 120.56(4).--

9787(a) Upon entry of a final order that all or

9797part of an agency statement violates

9803s. 120.54(1)(a), the administrative law judge

9809shall award reasonable costs and reasonable

9815attorney's fees to the petitioner, unless the

9822agency demonstrates that the statement is

9828required by the Federal Government to

9834implement or retain a delegated or approved

9841program or to meet a condition to receipt of

9850federal funds.

9852(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of

9857chapter 284, an award shall be paid from the

9866budget entity of the secretary, executive

9872director, or equivalent administrative

9876officer of the agency, and the agency shall

9884not be entitled to payment of an award or

9893reimbursement for payment of an award under

9900any provision of law.

990497. The Board of Pharmacy has not demonstrated that the

9914statements and policies which were deemed to be rules were

9924required to implement or retain a federal program or that the

9935statements or policies were necessary to meet conditions for the

9945receipt of federal funds. Thus, Petitioners are entitled to an

9955award of attorney’s fees pursuant to Subsection 120.595(4),

9963Florida Statutes. Unlike Subsection 120.595(3), Florida

9969Statutes, Subsection 120.595(4), Florida Statutes, does not

9976contain a limit on the amount of attorney’s fees which are to be

9989awarded except that the fees must be reasonable. As with the

10000portion of the challenges to the existing rule, the portion of

10011the challenges dealing with the non-rule policy are treated as

10021one case.

1002398. Ms. Ambrose testified on behalf of Petitioners that the

10033fees charged by The Health Law Firm were reasonable. However,

10043Ms. Ambrose has never litigated a rule challenge before. A

10053review of the invoices for the rule challenges show that many of

10065the entries are for time which is unreasonable or which should

10076not be awarded.

1007999. Many of the entries are for clerical tasks performed by

10090legal assistants, paralegals, or a law clerk. Section 57.104,

10099Florida Statutes, is instructive on the types of services that

10109can be included for legal assistants and paralegals in an award

10120of attorney’s fees and provides:

10125In any action in which attorneys' fees are to

10134be determined or awarded by the court, the

10142court shall consider, among other things,

10148time and labor of any legal assistants who

10156contributed nonclerical, meaningful legal

10160support to the matter involved and who are

10168working under the supervision of an attorney.

10175For purposes of this section "legal

10181assistant" means a person, who under the

10188supervision and direction of a licensed

10194attorney engages in legal research, and case

10201development or planning in relation to

10207modifications or initial proceedings,

10211services, processes, or applications; or who

10217prepares or interprets legal documents or

10223selects, compiles, and uses technical

10228information from references such as digests,

10234encyclopedias, or practice manuals and

10239analyzes and follows procedural problems that

10245involve independent decisions.

10248100. The court in Dayco Products v. McLane , 690 So. 2d 654

10260(Fla. 1st DCA 1977), held that fees for clerical tasks could not

10272be awarded pursuant to Section 57.104, Florida Statutes. The

10281entries for clerical tasks performed in the rule challenges are

10291not included in the award of fees.

10298101. An attorney’s travel time is not to be included in a

10310fee award. See C.B.T. Realty Corporation v. St. Andrews Cove I

10321Condominium Assoc. , 508 So. 2d 409 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). The

10332entries for travel are deleted.

10337102. The Health Law Firm represented the Petitioners before

10346the Board of Pharmacy on their petitions for a waiver and their

10358petitions for reconsideration on the denial of their waivers.

10367Some of the entries related to the petitions for waivers, which

10378are separate cases from the rule challenges. The time related to

10389the waivers is not compensable in the rule challenge cases.

10399103. At first blush, many of the entries on the individual

10410invoices appear to be reasonable. However, when the time is

10420multiplied by ten or 14, for performing a single task, the time

10432becomes unreasonable. Entries have been reduced where the time

10441was excessive for the task performed.

10447104. In Case No. 08-2731RX, the client indicated that she

10457no longer wished to pursue the case, and The Health Law Firm

10469continued to bill for services after she so indicated. It is

10480unknown why no voluntary dismissal was filed in this case. In

10491any case, no entries after the client advised that she no longer

10503wished to proceed are included in the award of attorney’s fees.

10514105. Petitioners did not prevail on the issue of

10523retroactive application of the rule in the rule challenge. To

10533the extent that the invoice entries specifically state that the

10543time relates to the retroactive application issue, that time is

10553deleted or reduced if other tasks are included in the entry.

10564106. The rule challenge petitions dealt with two distinct

10573types of challenges. One was for an existing rule, and the other

10585was for policy statements which were alleged to meet the

10595definition of a rule but were not promulgated as rules. The

10606invoices do not delineate the time that was spent on the

10617challenge to the existing rule and the time that was spent on the

10630nonpromulgated rules, except for the retroactive application

10637issue. The reasonable time and charges for both aspects of the

10648rule challenges are stated in paragraph 73, above, with a total

10659of $108,899.24. This amount is divided equally between the

10669challenge to the existing rule and the challenge to the agency

10680policy statements. Because Subsection 120.595(3), Florida

10686Statutes, limits the amount of fees to be awarded to $15,000.00,

10698Petitioners are awarded a total of $15,000.00 for the challenge

10709to the existing rule. The Petitioners are awarded $54,449.62 for

10720the challenge to the unpromulgated agency statements.

10727107. Petitioners seek a lodestar multiplier of 1.5 as an

10737enhancement of the fees being claimed. In Florida Patient’s

10746Compensation Fund v. Rowe , 472 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 1985), the

10757Florida Supreme Court set forth guidelines in determining

10765reasonable attorney’s fees. The criteria set forth in Rules

10774Regulating the Florida Bar, Rule 4-1.5(b)(1), which provides:

10782(1) Factors to be considered as guides in

10790determining a reasonable fee include:

10795(A) the time and labor required, the

10802novelty, complexity, and difficulty of the

10808questions involved, and the skill requisite

10814to perform the legal service properly;

10820(B) the likelihood that the acceptance of

10827the particular employment will preclude other

10833employment by the lawyer;

10837(C) the fee, or rate of fee, customarily

10845charged in the locality for legal services of

10853a comparable or similar nature;

10858(D) the significance of, or amount involved

10865in, the subject matter of the representation,

10872the responsibility involved in the

10877representation, and the results obtained;

10882(E) the time limitations imposed by the

10889client or by the circumstances and, as

10896between attorney and client, any additional

10902or special time demands or requests of the

10910attorney by the client;

10914(F) the nature and length of the

10921professional relationship with the client;

10926(G) the experience, reputation, diligence,

10931and ability of the lawyer or lawyers

10938performing the service and the skill,

10944expertise, or efficiency of effort reflected

10950in the actual providing of such services, and

10958(H) whether the fee is fixed or contingent,

10966and, if fixed as to the amount or rate, then

10976whether the client’s ability to pay rested to

10984any significant degree on the outcome of the

10992representation.

10993108. The first step is to determine the lodestar, which is

11004the number of reasonable hours expended in the litigation

11013multiplied by the reasonable hourly rate. The parties have

11022stipulated that the hourly rates charged are reasonable.

11030Petitioners have not demonstrated that the number of hours

11039claimed in the litigation is reasonable. The invoice entries for

11049the rule challenges have been reduced as set forth in the

11060Findings of Fact.

11063109. Thus, the lodestar is the amount of fees set forth in

11075paragraph 73, above, which is $108,899.24.

11082110. Petitioners contend that a lodestar multiplier should

11090be applied in determining reasonable attorney’s fees.

11097Petitioners have not demonstrated that either the issues of law

11107or fact were novel, complex, or difficult. Although counsel for

11117Petitioners testified that a rule challenge was novel to him

11127because he had never litigated a rule challenge, the legal and

11138factual issues were fairly clear cut. The inexperience of the

11148attorney does not mean that the questions involved in the case

11159were novel.

11161111. The representation of Petitioners was taken on a

11170contingency fee basis; however, the likelihood of success on at

11180least a portion of the statement or policies challenged was very

11191high. Counsel for Petitioners made a conscious decision to file

1120114 separate petitions in order to increase the amount of

11211attorney’s fees which could be awarded. Additionally, a

11219multiplier is not mandatory in a contingency fee situation.

11228Standard Guaranty Insurance Co. v. Quanstrom , 555 So. 2d 828

11238(Fla. 1990).

11240112. One of the factors to be considered is the time

11251constraints placed on the attorneys by the circumstances or the

11261clients. Pursuant to Subsection 120.56(1)(c), Florida Statutes,

11268the final hearing in a rule challenge is to be held within

1128030 days of receipt of the petition by the Division of

11291Administrative Hearings, and a final order is to be issued within

1130230 days of the final hearing. In the instant rule challenge, the

11314final hearing was scheduled to be held within 30 days of the

11326receipt of the first rule challenge filed by Petitioner Patel.

11336The final hearing was continued at the request of the parties,

11347and the parties eventually agreed to have the issue determined by

11358summary disposition. Additionally, by August 21, 2008, each of

11367the Petitioners who had filed an application was granted a waiver

11378or variance that would allow them to sit for the licensure

11389examination, which was their ultimate goal.

11395113. Another factor to be considered is the result

11404obtained. There were eight statements or policies that

11412Petitioners were challenging as constituting rules which were

11420unpromulgated. Petitioners failed to establish that three of the

11429statements or policies constituted rules and failed to establish

11438that one alleged policy or statement actually existed. The four

11448remaining statements or policies challenged by the Petitioners

11456were deemed to meet the definition of a rule. Three of the

11468remaining policies or statements that were found to constitute

11477rules dealt with petitions for waivers or variances. The Board

11487of Pharmacy had taken the position that one who petitioned for a

11499variance or waiver prior to submitting an application did not

11509have standing to request a variance or waiver from Florida

11519Administrative Code Rule 64B16-26.2031. This position was

11526premised on the underlying policy that applications could not be

11536accepted until the applicant complied with Florida Administrative

11544Code Rule 64B16-26.2031. The Board of Pharmacy conceded that the

11554underlying policy was an invalid non-rule policy. Each of the

11564Petitioners who requested a variance or waiver had been given a

11575hearing and granted a variance or waiver, prior to the issuance

11586of the Partial Final Order.

11591114. The fourth policy statement deemed to constitute a

11600rule dealt with the statements found on the application forms for

11611taking the licensure examination. The Board of Pharmacy conceded

11620that the statements at issue were invalid non-rule policies. On

11630August 1, 2008, the Board of Pharmacy began the rulemaking

11640process to address the issues raised by the invalid non-rule

11650policies. Additionally, by August 21, 2008, all of the

11659Petitioners who had submitted an application were granted a

11668variance or waiver.

11671115. It cannot be concluded that prevailing on half of the

11682issues alleged in the challenge to statements or policies which

11692constituted rules would require the application of a multiplier.

11701116. Another factor to be considered in determining whether

11710a multiplier is applicable is the skill and experience of the

11721attorneys and the effort and efficiency of the attorneys in

11731providing the legal services. The attorneys who represented the

11740Petitioners were skilled litigators, but had no previous

11748experience in rule challenges. As discussed in the Findings of

11758Fact, there were many areas in which the attorneys did not

11769demonstrate efficiency in the provision of the legal services.

11778Thus, this factor does not warrant the application of a

11788multiplier.

11789117. Petitioners contend that it was difficult for them to

11799retain the services of an attorney to represent them, and that is

11811a factor which should be considered in determining the use of a

11823multiplier in determining the amount of fees to be awarded. This

11834argument is disingenuous since The Health Law Firm had

11843represented each of the Petitioners in his/her petitions before

11852the Board of Pharmacy for a variance or waiver. No evidence was

11864presented that any of the Petitioners had sought legal

11873representation for the rule challenge from any other law firm

11883other than The Health Law Firm.

11889118. The Health Law Firm had represented the Petitioners in

11899their petitions for waivers before the Board of Pharmacy before

11909and after the rule challenges were filed. The professional

11918relationship between the Petitioners and The Health Law Firm does

11928not warrant the use of a multiplier.

11935119. Based on the factors set forth in Florida Patient’s

11945Compensation Fund v. Rowe , Petitioners are not entitled to a

11955lodestar multiplier.

11957120. Petitioners contend that they are entitled to be

11966reimbursed for attorney’s fees and costs related to the

11975litigation to determine the amount of fees to be awarded. In

11986State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Palma , 629 So. 2d 830 (1993),

11999the Florida Supreme Court determined attorney’s fees for

12007litigating the amount of attorney’s fees to be awarded is not

12018recoverable unless the statute which provides for the award of

12028attorney’s fees to a prevailing party specifically provides for

12037an award of attorney’s fees for litigating the amount of the

12048attorney’s fees. In Palma , the court was dealing specifically

12057with Section 627.428, Florida Statutes, and stated:

12064[T]he terms of section 627.428 are an

12071implicit part of every insurance policy

12077issued in Florida. When an insured is

12084compelled to sue to enforce an insurance

12091contract because the insurance company has

12097contested a valid claim, the relief sought is

12105both the policy proceeds and attorney’s fees

12112pursuant to section 627.428. the language of

12119subsection (3), which provides that

12124“compensation or fees of the attorney shall

12131be included in the judgment or decree

12138rendered in the case[,]” also supports this

12146conclusion. §627.428(3), Fla. Stat. (1983).

12151Thus, if an insurer loses such a suit but

12160contests the insured’s entitlement to

12165attorney’s fees, this is still a claim under

12173the policy and within the scope of section

12181627.428. Because such services are rendered

12187in procuring full payment of the judgment,

12194the insured does not have an interest in the

12203fee recovered. Accordingly, we hold that

12209attorney’s fees may be awarded under section

12216627.428 for litigating the issue of

12222entitlement to attorney’s fees.

12226However, we do not agree with the district

12234court below that attorney’s fees may be

12241awarded for litigating the amount of

12247attorney’s fees. The language of the statute

12254does not support such a conclusion. Such

12261work inures solely to the attorney’s benefit

12268and cannot be considered services rendered in

12275procuring full payment of the judgment.

12281(Emphasis in the original)

12285Id. at 832-833.

12288121. The court in Palma recognized that federal courts had

12298not distinguished between entitlement to attorney’s fees and the

12307amount of attorney’s fees when awarded fees for litigating fees

12317and disagreed with the federal view:

12323Florida courts, including this Court, have

12329consistently held that the purpose of section

12336627.428 is “to discourage the contesting of

12343valid claims against insurance companies and

12349to reimburse successful insureds for their

12355attorney’s fees when they are compelled to

12362defend or sue to enforce their insurance

12369contracts.” Lexow , 602 So. 2d at 531. Our

12377conclusion that statutory fees may be awarded

12384for litigating the issue of entitlement to

12391attorney’s fees but not the amount of

12398attorney’s fees comports with the purpose of

12405section 627.428 and with the plain language

12412of the statute. If the scope of section

12420627.428 is to be expanded to include time

12428spent litigating the amount of attorney’s

12434fees, then the Legislature, rather than this

12441Court, is the proper party to do so.

12449Id. at 833.

12452122. In Agency for Health Care Administration v. HHCI

12461Limited Partnership , 865 So. 2d 593 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004), the

12472court specifically dealt with whether attorney’s fees could be

12481recovered for litigating the amount of attorney’s fees to be

12491awarded pursuant to Subsection 120.595(4), Florida Statutes. The

12499court followed Palma in concluding that the Administrative Law

12508Judge must exclude from the fee award any fees expended in

12519attempting to prove the amount of the fees.

12527123. The issue of entitlement to fees is limited to whether

12538fees can be recoverable under a statute other than Subsection

12548120.595(3), Florida Statutes. Most of the time spent in the

12558litigation of the fees dealt with the issue of the amount of the

12571fees to be awarded not with whether Petitioners were entitled to

12582fees. Based on a review of the pleadings filed and the invoices

12594submitted, it is determined that ten percent of the fee

12604litigation involved litigation of entitlement of fees. Thus, the

12613invoice entries in the second and third consolidated invoices

12622which dealt specifically with the issue of the amount of fees and

12634costs is deleted. In the entries in which it could not be

12646determined the amount of time pertaining to amount or

12655entitlement, the entry is reduced to ten percent for the

12665entitlement issue. Petitioners are awarded $1,052.25 for

12673litigating fees.

12675124. Subsections 120.595(3) and 120.595(4), Florida

12681Statutes, provide that costs are to be awarded to the prevailing

12692party in rule challenges. The only limit on the amount of costs

12704that may be awarded to the prevailing party is that the costs

12716must be reasonable. The parties have stipulated that the costs

12726are reasonable with the exception of the transcript costs of the

12737Board of Pharmacy meetings. The stipulation is binding. See

12746Palm Beach Community College v. Department of Administration , 579

12755a case is to be tried upon stipulated facts, the stipulation is

12767binding not only upon the parties but also upon the trial and

12779reviewing courts. In addition, no other or different facts will

12789be presumed to exist.”). The transcript costs, which are in

12799dispute, are reasonable. The amount of costs awarded for the

12809rule challenge is $14,199.56. The amount of costs awarded for

12820the litigation of entitlement of fees is $580.62.

12828125. Petitioners also contend that fees should be awarded

12837pursuant to Subsection 120.569(2)(e), Florida Statutes, which

12844provides:

12845(e) All pleadings, motions, or other papers

12852filed in the proceeding must be signed by the

12861party, the party's attorney, or the party's

12868qualified representative. The signature

12872constitutes a certificate that the person has

12879read the pleading, motion, or other paper and

12887that, based upon reasonable inquiry, it is

12894not interposed for any improper purposes,

12900such as to harass or to cause unnecessary

12908delay, or for frivolous purpose or needless

12915increase in the cost of litigation. If a

12923pleading, motion, or other paper is signed in

12931violation of these requirements, the

12936presiding officer shall impose upon the

12942person who signed it, the represented party,

12949or both, an appropriate sanction, which may

12956include an order to pay the other party or

12965parties the amount of reasonable expenses

12971incurred because of the filing of the

12978pleading, motion, or other paper, including a

12985reasonable attorney's fee.

12988126. Petitioners have not demonstrated that Respondent

12995filed any pleading, motion, or other paper for any improper

13005purpose, for a frivolous purpose, or to needlessly increase the

13015cost of litigation. Respondent conceded the issues of law on

13025which it did not prevail in the rule challenge prior to the

13037submission of the case for summary disposition. The Board of

13047Pharmacy granted Petitioners waivers prior to the submission of

13056the case for summary disposition. Respondent was successful on

13065the portion of the rule challenge that it did not concede.

13076Petitioners are not entitled to an award of fees pursuant to

13087Subsection 120.569(2)(e), Florida Statutes.

13091127. Petitioners contend they are entitled to fees and

13100prejudgment interest pursuant to Subsection 57.105(5), Florida

13107Statutes, which provides that fees shall be awarded in an

13117administrative proceeding when the prevailing party demonstrates

13124that the non-prevailing party raised unsupported claims or

13132defenses or that any pleading filed or response to discovery was

13143made to unnecessarily delay litigation. For the reasons set

13152forth for denial of Petitioners’ claim pursuant to Subsection

13161120.569(2)(e), Florida Statutes, Petitioners are not entitled to

13169fees pursuant to Subsection 57.105(5), Florida Statutes.

13176128. Neither Subsection 120.595(3) nor Subsection

13182120.595(4), Florida Statutes, authorizes prejudgment interest.

13188Therefore, Petitioners’ claim for prejudgment interest is denied.

13196ORDER

13197Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of

13207Law, it is ORDERED that:

132121. Petitioners are awarded a total of $15,000.00 for

13222the attorney’s fees pursuant to Subsection 120.595(3), Florida

13230Statutes. The $15,000.00 is to be prorated among

13239the 14 Petitioners.

132422. Petitioners are awarded a total of $54,449.62 pursuant

13252to Subsection 120.595(4), Florida Statutes. This amount is to be

13262prorated among the 14 Petitioners.

132673. Petitioners are awarded a total of $14,199.56 for costs

13278as prevailing parties in the rule challenges. This amount is to

13289be prorated among the 14 Petitioners.

132954. Petitioners are awarded a total of $1,052.25 for the

13306litigation of entitlement to fees. This amount is prorated among

13316the 14 Petitioners.

133195. Petitioners are awarded a total of $580.62 for costs for

13330the litigation of entitlement to fees.

133366. Pursuant to Subsection 120.595(4), Florida Statutes, the

13344fee amount of $54,449.62 and half of the costs of the rule

13357challenges, $7,099.78, are to be paid from the budget entity of

13369the executive director of the Board of Pharmacy.

13377DONE AND ORDERED this 30th day of July, 2009, in

13387Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

13391S

13392SUSAN B. HARRELL

13395Administrative Law Judge

13398Division of Administrative Hearings

13402The DeSoto Building

134051230 Apalachee Parkway

13408Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060

13411(850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675

13415Fax Filing (850) 921-6847

13419www.doah.state.fl.us

13420Filed with the Clerk of the

13426Division of Administrative Hearings

13430this 30th day of July, 2009.

13436ENDNOTES

134371/ Unless otherwise indicated, all references to the Florida

13446Statutes are to the 2007 codification.

134522/ The parties agreed to delete this charge from the fees claimed

13464by Petitioners.

134663/ The Florida Supreme Court found in Standard Guaranty Insurance

13476Co. , 555 So. 2d 828 (Fla. 1990), that a contract between an

13488attorney and a client in which the attorney agrees to represent

13499the client if they prevail based on a statutory provision

13509awarding attorney’s fees to be determined by a court is a

13520contingency fee contract.

135234/ Petitioners submitted three consolidated invoices. The first

13531invoice related to the fees and costs for the rule challenge.

13542The second and third invoices related to the litigation of the

13553fees.

135545/ The Health Law Firm represented Petitioners on their petitions

13564to the Board of Pharmacy for a variance or waiver, which are

13576separate cases from the rule challenges.

135826/ It is not clear from the invoices the purpose of attending the

13595Board of Pharmacy meetings on these dates.

136027/ In the Joint Pre-hearing Stipulation, the parties stated:

13611Respondent contends that Petitioners are not entitled to any fees

13621or costs for the non-rule policy challenges on which Respondent

13631prevailed.” One of the issues of law listed to be litigated was

13643“Whether Petitioners are entitled to attorney’s fees and costs

13652pursuant to a different section of Florida Statutes other than

13662Section 120.595(3), Florida Statutes.”

136668/ Although the parties have agreed that the costs other than for

13678the Transcripts of the Board of Pharmacy meetings on April 8

13689and 9, and June 10, 2008, are fair and reasonable, a review of

13702the costs does show that many of the costs were not reasonable

13714and would not have been allowed pursuant to the Statewide Uniform

13725Guidelines for Taxation of Costs in Civil Actions and case law.

13736In Department of Transportation v. Skidmore , 720 So. 2d 1125,

137461130 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), the court held “postage, long distance

13757calls, fax transmissions, and delivery services are office

13765expenses that should not have been taxed.” The Uniform

13774Guidelines for Taxation of Costs in Civil Actions provides that

13784travel expenses of attorneys should not be taxed as costs.

13794In Case No. 08-2728RX, $566.30 is claimed for costs related to

13805office expenses and travel expenses, which includes $412.30

13813for costs to deliver documents to the Division of Administrative

13823Hearings on June 9, 2008. In Case No. 08-2728RX, $122.84 is

13834claimed for office and travel expenses. In Case No. 08-2730RX,

13844$148.98 is claimed for office and travel expenses. In Case

13854No. 08-2731RX, $42.84 is claimed for office expenses. In Case

13864No. 08-2732RX, $113.40 is claimed for office and travel expenses.

13874In Case No. 08-2733RX, $107.55 is claimed for office and travel

13885expenses. In Case No. 08-2734RX, $124.98 if claimed for office

13895and travel expenses. In Case No. 08-2821RX, $108.43 was claimed

13905for office and travel expenses. In Case No. 08-2823RX, $123.17

13915is claimed for office and travel expenses. In Case

13924No. 08-2824RX, $123.59 is claimed for office and travel expenses.

13934In Case No. 08-3298RX, $113.95 is claimed for office and travel

13945expenses. In Case No. 08-3347RX, $23.08 is claimed for office

13955expenses. In Case No. 08-3488RX, $65.44 is claimed for office

13965expenses. In Case 08-3510RX, $49.83 is claimed for office

13974expenses. In the first consolidated invoice $370.00 is claimed

13983for office and travel expenses. Because the parties have

13992stipulated to the reasonableness of these costs, they are

14001determined to be reasonable. See Boyette v. Reliable Finance

14010Co. , 184 So. 2d 200, 202 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966), in which the court

14024opined that a stipulation could form the basis for a finding that

14036attorney’s fees are reasonable.

140409/ Costs listed after June 18, 2008, the date which the client

14052indicated that she no longer wished to continue with the case,

14063are not included.

1406610/ Again, a review of the costs in the second consolidated

14077invoice shows costs for office expenses totaling $159.37.

14085Additionally, there is a charge of $1,895.75 for photocopies,

14095which appears to be excessive.

1410011/ A review of the costs in the third consolidated invoice shows

14112costs for office expenses totaling $54.37 and a charge of $526.25

14123for photocopies, which again appears to be excessive.

14131COPIES FURNISHED:

14133George F. Indest, III, Esquire

14138Matthew R. Gross, Esquire

14142Michael L. Smith, Esquire

14146The Health Law Firm

141501101 Douglas Avenue

14153Altamonte Springs, Florida 32714

14157M. Catherine Lannon, Esquire

14161Office of the Attorney General

14166Administrative Law Section

14169The Capitol, Plaza Level 01

14174Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050

14177Josefina M. Tamayo, General Counsel

14182Department of Health

141854052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02

14191Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701

14194Deborah B. Loucks, Esquire

14198Office of the Attorney General

14203The Capitol, Plaza Level 01

14208Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050

14211Scott Boyd, General Counsel

14215Administrative Procedures Committee

14218Holland Building, Room 120

14222Tallahassee, Florida 32399

14225Rebecca Poston, R.Ph., Executive Director

14230Board of Pharmacy

14233Department of Health

142364052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C04

14242Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3254

14245NOTICE OF RIGHT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW

14251A party who is adversely affected by this Final Order is entitled

14263to judicial review pursuant to Section 120.68, Florida Statutes.

14272Review proceedings are governed by the Florida Rules of Appellate

14282Procedure. Such proceedings are commenced by filing the original

14291Notice of Appeal with the agency clerk of the Division of

14302Administrative Hearings and a copy, accompanied by filing fees

14311prescribed by law, with the District Court of Appeal, First

14321District, or with the District Court of Appeal in the Appellate

14332District where the party resides. The notice of appeal must be

14343filed within 30 days of rendition of the order to be reviewed.

Select the PDF icon to view the document.
PDF
Date
Proceedings
PDF:
Date: 07/30/2009
Proceedings: DOAH Final Order
PDF:
Date: 07/30/2009
Proceedings: Final Order on Attorney's Fees (hearing held April 16, 2009). CASE CLOSED.
PDF:
Date: 05/12/2009
Proceedings: Petitioners` Proposed Final Order on Attorney`s Fees filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/12/2009
Proceedings: Respondent`s Proposed Final Order filed.
Date: 04/29/2009
Proceedings: Transcript filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/16/2009
Proceedings: Joint Pre-hearing Stipulation for Hearing on Defendants` Entitlement to Attorney`s Fees filed.
Date: 04/16/2009
Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Hearing Held.
PDF:
Date: 04/13/2009
Proceedings: Petitioners` Motion to Lift Stay and Issue Final Order for Four Non-rule Policy Statements and Supporting Memorandum of Law filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/09/2009
Proceedings: Order Granting Continuance and Re-scheduling Hearing (hearing set for April 16, 2009; 9:00 a.m.; Orlando, FL).
PDF:
Date: 04/09/2009
Proceedings: Order Allowing Testimony by Telephone.
PDF:
Date: 04/09/2009
Proceedings: Order Granting Extension of Time (pre-hearing stipulation to be filed by April 15, 2009).
PDF:
Date: 04/08/2009
Proceedings: Agreed Motion Requesting Leave to Present Testimony of Erin O`Toole, Expert Witness, by Telephone filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/08/2009
Proceedings: Joint Motion for Extension of Time to File Pre-hearing Stipulation and Exhibit List filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/30/2009
Proceedings: Petitioners` Notice of Filing (of Affidavits of S. Ambrose) filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/09/2009
Proceedings: Petitioners` Notice of Production filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/09/2009
Proceedings: Petitioners` Memorandum of Law in Support of Entitlement to Interest filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/10/2009
Proceedings: Order Granting Continuance and Re-scheduling Hearing (hearing set for April 16, 2009; 9:00 a.m.; Orlando, FL).
PDF:
Date: 02/10/2009
Proceedings: Petitioners` Notice of Production filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/04/2009
Proceedings: Notice of Substitution of Co-Counsel for Petitioners filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/04/2009
Proceedings: Notice of Appearance (filed by M. Smith).
PDF:
Date: 02/04/2009
Proceedings: Joint Motion for Rescheduling of Hearing of February 19, 2009 and for Continuance filed.
PDF:
Date: 01/12/2009
Proceedings: Order of Pre-hearing Instructions.
PDF:
Date: 01/12/2009
Proceedings: Notice of Hearing (hearing set for February 19, 2009; 9:00 a.m.; Orlando, FL).
PDF:
Date: 01/05/2009
Proceedings: Respondent`s Unilateral Response to Order Requiring Response filed.
PDF:
Date: 12/29/2008
Proceedings: Petitioners` Unilateral Response to Order of December 19, 2008 filed.
PDF:
Date: 12/19/2008
Proceedings: Order Requiring Response.
PDF:
Date: 11/10/2008
Proceedings: Petitioner Saurin C. Modi`s Motion and Petition for Attorney`s Fees and Costs Relating to Successful Rule Challenge filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/10/2008
Proceedings: Petitioner Anad Narayanan`s Motion and Petition for Attorney`s Fees and Costs Relating to Successful Rule Challenge filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/10/2008
Proceedings: Petitioner Balaji Lakshminarayana`s Motion and Petition for Attorney`s Fees and Costs Relating to Successful Rule Challenge filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/10/2008
Proceedings: Petitioner Hadya Alameddine`s Motion and Petition for Attorney`s Fees and Costs Relating to Successful Rule Challenge filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/10/2008
Proceedings: Petitioner Nabil Khalil`s Motion and Petition for Attorney`s Fees and Costs Relating to Successful Rule Challenge filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/10/2008
Proceedings: Petitioner Mijeong Chang`s Motion and Petition for Attorney`s Fees and Costs Relating to Successful Rule Challenge filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/10/2008
Proceedings: Petitioner Deepakkumar Shah`s Motion and Petition for Attorney`s Fees and Costs Relating to Successful Rule Challenge filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/10/2008
Proceedings: Petitioner A. Samad Mridha`s Motion and Petition for Attorney`s Fees and Costs Relating to Successful Rule Challenge filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/10/2008
Proceedings: Petitioner Valliammai Natarajan`s Motion and Petition for Attorney`s Fees and Costs Relating to Successful Rule Challenge filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/10/2008
Proceedings: Petitioner John H. Neamatalla`s Motion and Petition for Attorney`s Fees and Costs Relating to Successful Rule Challenge filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/10/2008
Proceedings: Petitioner Se Young Yoon`s Motion and Petition for Attorney`s Fees and Costs Relating to Successful Rule Challenge filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/10/2008
Proceedings: Petitioner Vipul Patel`s Motion and Petition for Attorney`s Fees and Costs Relating to Successful Rule Challenge filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/10/2008
Proceedings: Petitioner Mirley Aleman-Alejo`s Motion and Petiton for Attorney`s Fees and Costs Relating to Successful Rule Challenge filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/10/2008
Proceedings: Petitioner Miriam L. Hernandez`s Motion and Petition for Attorney`s Fees and Costs Relating to Successful Rule Challenge filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/16/2008
Proceedings: Partial DOAH FO
PDF:
Date: 10/16/2008
Proceedings: Partial Final Order. DOAH JURISDICTION RETAINED.
PDF:
Date: 10/02/2008
Proceedings: Petitioners` Notice of Filing (Final Order from Anderson Columbia Company, Inc.) filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/16/2008
Proceedings: Respondent`s Proposed Final Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/16/2008
Proceedings: Petitioners` Proposed Summary Final Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/08/2008
Proceedings: Order (proposed final orders shall be filed by September 16, 2008).
Date: 09/04/2008
Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Motion Hearing Held.
PDF:
Date: 09/04/2008
Proceedings: Notice of Filing Respondent`s Exhibit (exhibit not available for viewing) filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/04/2008
Proceedings: Petitioners` Notice of Service of Additional Copy of Petitioners` Motion to Amend Notice of Hearing Originally Filed & Served June 19, 2008 filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/04/2008
Proceedings: Petitioners` Notice of Filing of Petitioners` Interrogatories and Respondent`s Answers filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/04/2008
Proceedings: Petitioners` Notice of Filing of Copies of Petitioners` Exhibits as Listed in Joint Stipulation (exhibits not available for viewing) filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/04/2008
Proceedings: Petitioners` Notice of Filing Copies of Deposition Exhibits from Depositions of Elizabeth Ranne and Erika Lilja Taken on July 16, 2008 (exhibits not available for viewing) filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/03/2008
Proceedings: Joint Motion to Cancel Hearing and to Submit Consolidated Cases for Summary Disposition filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/03/2008
Proceedings: Joint Pre-hearing Stipulation filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/02/2008
Proceedings: Notice of Filing Board of Pharmacy`s Response to Petitioners` Third Set of Requests to Produce filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/02/2008
Proceedings: Notice of Filing Board of Pharmacy`s Response to Petitiners` Fourth Set of Requests to Produce filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/26/2008
Proceedings: Notice of Hearing (hearing set for September 4 and 5, 2008; 9:00 a.m.; Orlando, FL).
PDF:
Date: 08/20/2008
Proceedings: Petitioners` Status Report and Motion to Lift Abatement and Re-schedule Final Hearing filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/01/2008
Proceedings: Objections and Response to Petitioners` Second Set of Interrogatories to Respondent filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/01/2008
Proceedings: Notice of Filing Board of Pharmacy`s Objections and Response to Petitioners` Second Set of Interrogatories to Respondent filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/01/2008
Proceedings: Objections to Petitioners` Second Set of Requests for Admissions filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/01/2008
Proceedings: Notice of Filing of Pharmacy`s Objections to Petitioners` Second Set of Requests for Admissions filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/31/2008
Proceedings: Order Canceling Hearing and Placing Case in Abeyance (parties to advise status by August 20, 2008).
PDF:
Date: 07/31/2008
Proceedings: Petitioners` Fourth Set of Requests to Produce filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/31/2008
Proceedings: Petitioners` Notice of Service of Second Set of Interrogatories to Respondent filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/30/2008
Proceedings: Joint Motion for Abatement filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/30/2008
Proceedings: Petitioners` Notice of Filing of DVDs of the Videotaped Depositions of Elizabeth Ranne and Erika Lilja Taken on July 16, 2008 filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/30/2008
Proceedings: Videotaped Deposition of Elizabeth Ranne filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/30/2008
Proceedings: Petitioners` Notice of Filing of the Deposition Transcript of Elizabeth Ranne Taken on July 16, 2008 filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/29/2008
Proceedings: Petitioners` Sixth Notice of Filing and Request for Judicial Notice/Official Recognition filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/29/2008
Proceedings: Petitioners` Seventh Notice of Filing and Request for Judicial Notice/Official Recognition filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/28/2008
Proceedings: Petitioners` Memorandum of Law on the Prohibition of Retroactive Application of Administrative Rules filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/28/2008
Proceedings: Petitioners` Third Set of Requests to Produce filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/28/2008
Proceedings: Petitioners` Second Set of Request for Admissions filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/25/2008
Proceedings: Response to Petitioners` Second Set of Requests to Produce filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/25/2008
Proceedings: Notice of Filing Board of Pharmacy`s Objections to Petitioners` Second Set of Requests to Produce filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/23/2008
Proceedings: Order Taking Official Recognition (Sections 468.211, 468.306, 474.207, and 478.45, Florida Statutes (2007)).
PDF:
Date: 07/23/2008
Proceedings: Order Taking Official Recognition (Sections 456.021 and 120.536, Florida Statutes (2007)).
PDF:
Date: 07/23/2008
Proceedings: Order Taking Official Recognition (Section 465.007, Florida Statutes (2007); Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B16-26.2031 (August 8, 2007); and Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B16-26.1331 (January 11, 2005)).
PDF:
Date: 07/23/2008
Proceedings: Order Taking Official Recognition (Section 468.1695, Florida Statutes (2007)).
PDF:
Date: 07/23/2008
Proceedings: Respondent`s Answers to Request for Admissions filed.
Date: 07/23/2008
Proceedings: Transcript filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/23/2008
Proceedings: Notice of Filing Board of Pharmacy`s Answers to Petitioners` First Set of Requests for Admissions filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/23/2008
Proceedings: Petitioner`s Notice of Filing of Respondent`s Answers to Request for Admissions filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/23/2008
Proceedings: Petitioner`s Notice of Filing of Transcripts from Hearings (Board of Pharmacy Meetings June 10, 2008) filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/22/2008
Proceedings: Order of Consolidation (DOAH Case Nos. 08-2728RX, 08-2729RX, 08-2730RX, 08-2731RX, 08-2732RX, 08-2733RX, 08-2743RX, 08-2821RX, 08-2823RX, 08-2824RX, 08-3298RX, 08-3347RX, 08-3488RX, and 08-3510RX).
PDF:
Date: 07/22/2008
Proceedings: Petitioners` Second Set of Requests to Produce filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/21/2008
Proceedings: Order of Assignment.
PDF:
Date: 07/21/2008
Proceedings: Order of Consolidation (DOAH Case Nos. 08-2728RX, 08-2729RX, 08-2730RX, 08-2731RX, 08-2732RX, 08-2733RX, 08-2734RX, 08-2821RX, 08-2823RX, 08-2824RX, 08-3298RX, 08-3347RX and 08-3488RX).
PDF:
Date: 07/18/2008
Proceedings: Rule Challenge transmittal letter to Liz Cloud from Claudia Llado copying Scott Boyd and the Agency General Counsel.
PDF:
Date: 07/18/2008
Proceedings: Petition to Determine the Invalidity of an Existing Agency Rule, Rule 64B16-26.2031, F.A.C. (Licensure by Examination; Foreign Pharmacy Graduates and the Invalidity of Agency Policy and Statements defined as Rules filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/18/2008
Proceedings: Referral Letter filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/16/2008
Proceedings: Petitioner's Motion to Compel Discovery filed.

Case Information

Judge:
SUSAN BELYEU KIRKLAND
Date Filed:
07/18/2008
Date Assignment:
07/21/2008
Last Docket Entry:
07/30/2009
Location:
Orlando, Florida
District:
Middle
Agency:
Department of Health
Suffix:
RX
 

Counsels

Related DOAH Cases(s) (13):

Related Florida Statute(s) (21):

Related Florida Rule(s) (4):