09-001218 Brooklyn Luncheonette, Llc, D/B/A Del Tura Pub And Restaurant vs. Department Of Business And Professional Regulation, Division Of Alcoholic Beverages And Tobacco
 Status: Closed
Settled and/or Dismissed prior to entry of RO/FO on Monday, November 9, 2009.


View Dockets  
Summary: The contiguous square footage requirement in the Rule is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority because the statute does not confer specific power to adopt and enlarge the specific provision of the statute.

1STATE OF FLORIDA

4DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

8BROOKLYN LUNCHEONETTE, LLC, )

12d/b/a DEL TURA PUB AND )

18RESTAURANT, )

20)

21Petitioner, )

23)

24vs. ) Case No. 09-1973RX

29)

30DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND )

35PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, )

38DIVISION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES )

43AND TOBACCO, )

46)

47Respondent. )

49)

50SUMMARY FINAL ORDER

53This matter came before the undersigned Administrative Law

61Judge on Petitioner’s Motion for Summary Adjudication and

69Respondent’s response thereto. The parties have filed a Pre-

78hearing Statement and have waived the requirement for an

87adjudicatory hearing relating to the companion case (Case No.

9609-1218) until this rule challenge case is resolved. Being

105fully advised in the premises, it is FOUND and DETERMINED, as

116follows:

117APPEARANCES

118For Petitioner: Harold F. X. Purnell, Esquire

125Rutledge, Ecenia & Purnell, P.A.

130Post Office Box 551

134Tallahassee, Florida 32302

137For Respondent: Cecelia D. Jefferson, Esquire

143Michael B. Golen, Esquire

147Department of Business and

151Professional Regulation

1531940 North Monroe Street, Suite 42

159Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202

162STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES

166Whether Florida Administrative Code Rule 61A-3.0141(2)(a)2.,

172and its directive that the square footage making up the licensed

183constitutes a valid exercise of delegated legislative authority.

191Whether a genuine issue of material fact exists, and, if

201so, whether Petitioner’s Motion for Summary Adjudication should

209be denied.

211PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

213Petitioner sought an SRX license from Respondent pursuant

221to Subsection 561.20(2)(a)4., Florida Statutes (2007), 1 and

229currently holds a temporary SRX license. Respondent noticed its

238intent to deny the application for a permanent license on

248October 30, 2007. Petitioner duly-sought an administrative

255hearing thereon, pursuant to Subsection 120.57(1), Florida

262Statutes, which matter is pending in the Division of

271Administrative Hearings (DOAH) Case No. 09-1218. Respondent has

279stipulated that the sole basis upon which it seeks to deny the

291permanent license to Petitioner is the application of the

300“contiguous” requirement contained in Florida Administrative

306Code Rule 61A-3.0141(2)(a)2. Petitioner filed a Petition

313Challenging Validity of Existing Rule 61A-3.0141(1)

319and (2), on April 15, 2009, which was assigned DOAH Case

330No. 09-1973RX. Petitioner alleges that the cited rule

338constitutes an invalid exercise of delegated legislative

345authority. By Motion to Cancel Hearing and Initially Resolve

354the Issue of Rule Validity First, the parties agreed to have the

366issue of the validity of the “contiguous” requirement of Florida

376Administrative Code Rule 61A-3.0141(2)(a)2. considered initially

382by summary adjudication. The parties have submitted a joint

391Pre-hearing Stipulation and Petitioner filed the depositions of

399Susan Doherty, chief of the Division’s Bureau of Licensing, and

409Major Carol Owsiany, Respondent’s agency representative.

415Respondent filed its response in opposition to the motion, and

425both parties filed notices of filing supplemental authority.

433The entire file has been carefully considered in the preparation

443of this Final Order.

447FINDINGS OF FACT

450The following findings of facts are determined:

4571. The State of Florida, Department of Business and

466Professional Regulation (Respondent) is the state agency

473responsible for adopting the existing rule which is the subject

483of this proceeding.

4862. Under the provisions of Section 561.02, Florida

494Statutes, the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco,

502within the Department of Business and Professional Regulation,

510is charged with the supervision and enforcement of all alcoholic

520beverages manufactured, packaged, distributed and sold within

527the state under the Beverage Law. The Division issues both

537general and special alcoholic beverage licenses.

5433. Petitioner, Brooklyn Luncheonette, LLC, d/b/a Del Tura

551Pub and Restaurant is the owner/operator of a restaurant located

561in North Fort Myers, Florida. It is seeking issuance of a

572special restaurant license (SRX) pursuant to Subsection

579561.20(2)(a)4., Florida Statutes, from the Division. Therefore,

586Petitioner is substantially affected by the challenged rule.

5944. Petitioner operates a restaurant on a leased parcel of

604property consisting of two buildings with a dedicated pathway

613between the two buildings. Petitioner’s restaurant premises

620consist of two buildings which contain a minimum of 2,500 square

632feet in the aggregate of service area. Petitioner’s restaurant

641facility is equipped to serve 150 patrons full course meals at

652tables at one time.

6565. The sole reason asserted by Respondent for denial of

666Petitioner’s application is the alleged noncompliance with the

674“contiguous” requirement of Florida Administrative Code

680Rule 61A-3.0141(2)(a)2.

6826. The provision of general law, applicable to Petitioner,

691which sets forth the specific criteria for an SRX license, is

702Subsection 561.20(2)(a)4., Florida Statutes.

7067. To these statutory criteria, Respondent has, by Florida

715Administrative Code Rule 61A-3.0141(2)(a)2., added an additional

722criteria: “The required square footage shall be contiguous and

731under the management and control of a single establishment.”

740Respondent has interpreted the provision to mean that the

749buildings containing the square footage must physically touch.

7578. Florida Administrative Code Rule 61A-3.0141 reflects

764that the sole law implemented is Subsection 561.20(2)(a)4.,

772Florida Statutes.

7749. Susan Doherty is the chief of Respondent’s Bureau of

784Licensing, whose duties include determining “if a license will

793be issued based upon the qualifications of the applicant [and]

803whether the premises meets all requirements based on the type of

814license applied for.”

81710. Ms. Doherty, whose deposition was taken on May 12,

8272009, testified in pertinent part:

832Q. All right. If I can direct your

840attention to Subsection (2)(a)(2) of Rule

84661A-3.0141, it says, “The required square

852footage shall be contiguous and under the

859management and control of a single licensed

866restaurant establishment.” What does

870“contiguous” mean?

872A. Touching, actually connected, touching.

877* * *

880Q. Do you see anything in the statute that

889prohibits a licensee from qualifying if the

896square footage is in two buildings that the

904applicant leases and they’re connected by a

911pathway which the applicant leases? Do you

918see anything in the statute that precludes

925that?

926A. In the statute, no.

931Q. Do you see anything in the rule that

940precludes that?

942A. In my opinion, Section (2)(a)(2), the

949contiguous would.

951Deposition of S. Doherty, pp. 15 and 18.

95911. Chief Doherty conceded, however, that she could not

968point to any provision of the relevant statute that imposes a

979“contiguous” requirement regarding the square footage.

98512. Chief Doherty further noted that for special licenses

994issued for hotels pursuant to Subsection 561.20(2)(a)1., Florida

1002Statutes, she was aware that there were numerous non-contiguous

1011buildings licensed pursuant to such section.

101713. The deposition of Respondent’s agency representative,

1024Major Carol Owsiany, was taken on May 13, 2009. Major Owsiany

1035testified:

1036Q. . . . Isn’t it correct that there’s

10452,500 square feet of service area located in

1054the two buildings that are currently the

1061subject of the [Petitioner’s] temporary SRX

1067license?

1068A. Yes, sir.

1071Q. Can you point to me any provision of

1080Section 561.20(2)(1)(4) that precludes the

1085petitioner from having the requisite square

1091footage in two buildings?

1095A. One second, sir. Not in the statute,

1103but I can in the rule.

1109Deposition of C. Owsiany, p. 8.

111514. For purposes of this rule challenge case, there are no

1126genuine issues of material fact in dispute.

1133CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1136Jurisdiction

113715. DOAH has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject

1147matter of this proceeding pursuant to Subsections 120.56 (1)

1156and (3), Florida Statutes (2009).

116116. Petitioner is a company whose substantial interests

1169are affected by the rule, and it has standing to bring this rule

1182challenge. Petitioner is seeking to challenge an existing rule

1191of Respondent, alleging that Section 561.11 and Subsection

1199561.20(2)(a), Florida Statutes, do not provide the necessary

1207authorization to promulgate the rule.

1212Burden of Proof

121517. Petitioner “has a burden of proving by a preponderance

1225of the evidence that the existing rule is an invalid exercise of

1237delegated legislative authority as to the objections raised.”

1245§ 120.56(3)(a), Fla. Stat.

124918. Florida Administrative Code Rule 61A-3.0141 cites as

1257its rule making authority Section 561.11, Florida Statutes,

1265which grants Respondent the “. . . authority to adopt rules

1276pursuant to Subsection 120.536(1) and Section 120.54, Florida

1284Statutes, to implement the provisions of the Beverage Law.

129319. Under the authority granted by the above-noted

1301statutes, Respondent has adopted rules to regulate the sale of

1311alcoholic beverages throughout the state of Florida,

1318specifically the licensing of retail vendors.

132420. Florida Administrative Code Rule 61A-3.0141(2)(a)2.,

1330which outlines the requirements for receiving an SRX alcoholic

1339beverage license, such as the one Petitioner had applied for,

1349provides that the 2,500 square feet required to make up the

1361licensed premises must be “contiguous and under the management

1370and control of a single establishment.”

137621. Section 120.56, Florida Statutes, provides for

1383administrative challenges to agency rules on the ground that

1392they are invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority.

140022. Subsection 120.52(8), Florida Statutes, provides:

1406“Invalid exercise of delegated legislative

1411authority" means action which goes beyond

1417the powers, functions, and duties delegated

1423by the Legislature. A proposed or existing

1430rule is an invalid exercise of delegated

1437legislative authority if any one of the

1444following applies:

1446(a) The agency has materially failed to

1453follow the applicable rulemaking procedures

1458or requirements set forth in this chapter;

1465(b) The agency has exceeded its grant of

1473rulemaking authority, citation to which is

1479required by s. 120.54(3)(a)1.;

1483(c) The rule enlarges, modifies, or

1489contravenes the specific provisions of law

1495implemented, citation to which is required

1501by s. 120.54(3)(a)1.;

1504(d) The rule is vague, fails to establish

1512adequate standards for agency decisions, or

1518vests unbridled discretion in the agency;

1524(e) The rule is arbitrary or capricious. A

1532rule is arbitrary if it is not supported by

1541logic or the necessary facts; a rule is

1549capricious if it is adopted without thought

1556or reason or is irrational; or

1562(f) The rule imposes regulatory costs on

1569the regulated person, county, or city which

1576could be reduced by the adoption of less

1584costly alternatives that substantially

1588accomplish the statutory objectives.

159223. The last paragraph of Subsection 120.52(8), Florida

1600Statutes, includes general standards for challenging a rule and

1609provides:

1610The grant of rule making authority is

1617necessary, but not sufficient, to allow an

1624agency to adopt a rule; a specific law to be

1634implemented is also required. An agency may

1641adopt only rules that implement or interpret

1648the specific powers and duties granted by

1655the enabling statute. No agency shall have

1662authority to adopt a rule only because it is

1671reasonably related to the purpose of the

1678enabling legislation and is not arbitrary

1684and capricious or is within the agency’s

1691class of powers and duties, nor shall an

1699agency have the authority to implement

1705statutory provisions setting forth general

1710legislative intent or policy. Statutory

1715language granting rule making authority or

1721generally describing the powers and

1726functions of an agency rule shall be

1733construed to extend no further than

1739implementing or interpreting the specific

1744powers and duties conferred by the enabling

1751statute.

175224. This set of general standards is to be used in

1763determining the validity of a rule in all cases. Lamar Outdoor

1774Advertising – Lakeland v. Florida Department of Transportation ,

1782__ So. 3d __, 34 Fla. L. Weekly D1670, 2009 Fla. App. Lexis

179511592 (Fla. 1st DCA August 19, 2009); Southwest Florida Water

1805Management District v. Save the Manatee Club, Inc. , 773 So. 2d

1816594, 597-98 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000).

182225. Respondent is limited in its rulemaking authority only

1831to implementing or interpreting a specific power or duty

1840conferred by the enabling statute. Neither Subsection

1847561.11(1), nor 561.20(2)(a)4., Florida Statutes, provides any

1854such authority for the contiguous square footage requirement.

1862Lamar Outdoor Advertising – Lakeland v. Florida Department of

1871Transportation , supra .

187426. Subsection 561.20(2)(a)4., Florida Statutes, provides

1880in pertinent part:

1883(2)(a) No such limitation on the number of

1891licenses as herein provided shall henceforth

1897prohibit the issuance of a special license

1904to:

1905* * *

1908(4) Any restaurant having 2500 square feet

1915of service area and equipped to serve 150

1923persons full course meals at tables at one

1931time, and deriving at least 51% of its gross

1940revenue from the sale of food and non-

1948alcoholic beverages . . . [2]

195427. An SRX license permits the sale of distilled spirits

1964in addition to beer and wine. The Legislature has limited the

1975categories of licenses that may sell distilled spirits to only

1985quota licenses and certain special licenses, such as the

1994licenses for restaurants and the licenses for hotels. See

2003§ 561.20, Fla. Stat. It is readily apparent from the review of

2015Subsection 561.20(2)(a)4., Florida Statutes, that the

2021Legislature limited the grant of this privilege only to

2030restaurants meeting or exceeding a certain minimum size. The

2039restaurants have to meet a minimum of 2,500 square feet of

2051service area, must be equipped to serve at least 150 persons

2062full course meals at tables at one time, and derive at least 51

2075percent of its gross revenue from the sale of food and non-

2087alcoholic beverages.

208928. In imposing these minimum size standards, the

2097Legislature did not delegate to Respondent an explicit power or

2107duty to implement or interpret such criteria. There is nothing

2117in Subsection 561.20(2)(a)4., Florida Statutes, that grants to

2125Respondent the power to add by rule a “contiguous” requirement

2135to the legislatively mandated minimum “2500 square feet of

2144service area” criteria.

214729. Respondent has conceded that the required square

2155footage can be in two separate buildings, but by rule has added

2167the requirement that such buildings containing the square

2175footage must be contiguous, i.e. touch. This is clearly beyond

2185Respondent’s authority. The Legislature knows how to use the

2194word “contiguous” and has done so in other legislation, e.g.,

2204Subsection 497.380(1), Florida Statutes, requiring that a

2211funeral establishment must consist “of at least 1,250 contiguous

2221interior square feet.” Lamar Outdoor Advertising – Lakeland ,

2229supra .

223130. In State, Department of Business Regulation v.

2239Salvation Limited, Inc. , 452 So. 2d 65, 66 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984),

2251involving a forerunner of the same special restaurant rule, the

2261court, holding it is “axiomatic” that a rule cannot enlarge,

2271modify or contravene a statute, found invalid a prior division

2281attempt to add additional criteria by rule to the special

2291restaurant license minimum standards:

2295Through section 561.20(2)(a)3., the

2299Legislature has enumerated specific criteria

2304for a special restaurant license. The

2310applicant or licensee must: (1) be a

2317restaurant, (2) have 2500 square feet of

2324service area, (3) be equipped to serve 150

2332persons full course meals at tables at one

2340time, and (4) derive at least 51% of its

2349gross revenue from the sale of food and non-

2358alcoholic beverages. To these fixed and

2364definite criteria, DABT added, by rule, a

2371fifth criterion: that meals be prepared and

2378cooked on the licensed premises. In so

2385doing, it enlarged upon the statutory

2391criteria and, thus, exceeded the “yardstick”

2397laid down by the Legislature.

2402* * *

2405The serving of food by a restaurant simply

2413does not require that the food be prepared

2421and cooked on the premises. If the

2428Legislature had intended to impose such a

2435requirement, it could easily have done so.

244231. In Southwest Florida Water Management District v. Save

2451the Manatee Club , Inc., 773 So. 2d 594, 598-599 (Fla. 1st DCA

24632000), the court noted that amendments to the APA have made

2474clear “that the authority to adopt an administrative rule must

2484be based on an explicit power or duty identified in the enabling

2496statute. Otherwise, the rule is not a valid exercise of

2506delegated legislative authority.” The court noted that the

2514authority for an administrative rule is not a matter of degree.

2525“Either the enabling statute authorizes a rule at issue or it

2536does not.”

253832. In Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor

2547Vehicles v. JM Auto, Inc. , 977 So. 2d 733, 734 (Fla. 1st DCA

25602008), the court upheld the invalidation of an agency rule which

2571identified only general rulemaking authority as the specific

2579authority for the rule’s adoption. The court noted that the

2589general grant of authority was insufficient under Subsections

2597120.52(a)(d) and 120.536(1), Florida Statutes, which allow an

2605agency to adopt “only rules that implement or interpret the

2615specific powers and duties granted by the enabling statue.” The

2625court noted that its decisions “have recognized the

2633legislature’s intent to restrict the scope of agency rulemaking

2642and consequently have approved a rule only when there is

2652statutory language authorizing the agency to adopt rules to

2661implement the subject matter of the statute.”

266833. Neither the specific authority, Section 561.11,

2675Florida Statutes, nor the law implemented, Subsection

2682561.20(2)(a)4., Florida Statutes, contains an explicit grant of

2690legislative authority for the “contiguous” rule.

269634. Indeed, it is clear that the Legislature did not grant

2707any such specific power or duty since the detailed criteria for

2718the grant of the SRX license are expressly set forth in the

2730statute. State, Department of Business Regulation v. Salvation

2738Limited, Inc. , supra .

274235. The contiguous square footage requirement of Florida

2750Administrative Code Rule 61A-3.0141(2)(a)2. constitutes an

2756invalid exercise of authority under the aforementioned

2763definitions (b) and (c). The rule provision has exceeded its

2773grant of rule making authority by adopting a rule for which the

2785agency has not conferred any specific power or duty by the

2796enabling statute. The rule improperly adds to the minimum

2805legislative square footage criteria a “contiguous” requirement

2812not provided by the Legislature.

281736. Similarly, Respondent has enlarged, modified or

2824contravened the specific provision of Subsection 561.20(2)(a)4.,

2831Florida Statutes, by adding a requirement not provided or

2840authorized by the Legislature. The challenged rule provision

2848vests unbridled discretion in the agency since it usurps the

2858legislative function by adding a requirement not imposed by the

2868Legislature.

286937. The rule, however, is not arbitrary and/or capricious

2878and is supported by both logic and the necessary facts.

288838. Respondent’s position in regard to the rule, in that

2898somehow the lack of contiguity in the square footage of the

2909restaurant precludes a restaurant from complying with the

2917statutory criteria, is flawed.

2921ORDER

2922Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of

2932Law, it is

2935ORDERED that Florida Administrative Code Rule 61A-

29423.0141(2)(a)2. and its directive that the square footage making

2951up the licensed premises of an SRX license be “contiguous,”

2962constitutes an invalid exercise of delegated legislative

2969authority and cannot be relied upon by Respondent to deny the

2980issuance of an SRX license to Petitioner.

2987DONE AND ORDERED this 23rd day of October, 2009, in

2997Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

3001S

3002DANIEL M. KILBRIDE

3005Administrative Law Judge

3008Division of Administrative Hearings

3012The DeSoto Building

30151230 Apalachee Parkway

3018Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060

3021(850) 488-9675

3023Fax Filing (850) 921-6847

3027www.doah.state.fl.us

3028Filed with the Clerk of the

3034Division of Administrative Hearings

3038this 23rd day of October, 2009.

3044ENDNOTES

30451/ Unless otherwise indicated, all references to the Florida

3054Statutes are to the 2007 codification.

30602/ Petitioner was previously audited by Respondent and found to

3070have met the 51 percent requirement, and such is not at issue in

3083this proceeding.

3085COPIES FURNISHED :

3088Harold F. X. Purnell, Esquire

3093Rutledge, Ecenia & Purnell, P.A.

3098Post Office Box 551

3102Tallahassee, Florida 32302

3105Cecelia D. Jefferson, Esquire

3109Michael B. Golen, Esquire

3113Department of Business and

3117Professional Regulation

31191940 North Monroe Street, Suite 42

3125Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202

3128Ned Luczynski, General Counsel

3132Department of Business and

3136Professional Regulation

3138Northwood Centre

31401940 North Monroe Street

3144Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792

3147William L. Veach, Director

3151Division of Hotels and Restaurants

3156Department of Business and

3160Professional Regulation

3162Northwood Centre

31641940 North Monroe Street

3168Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792

3171F. Scott Boyd, Executive Director

3176and General Counsel

3179Joint Administrative Procedures Committee

3183120 Holland Building

3186Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1300

3189NOTICE OF RIGHT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW

3195A party who is adversely affected by this Final Order is

3206entitled to judicial review pursuant to Section 120.68, Florida

3215Statutes. Review proceedings are governed by the Florida Rules

3224of Appellate Procedure. Such proceedings are commenced by

3232filing the original Notice of Appeal with the agency Clerk of

3243the Division of Administrative Hearings and a copy, accompanied

3252by filing fees prescribed by law, with the District Court of

3263Appeal, First District, or with the District Court of Appeal in

3274the Appellate District where the party resides. The notice of

3284appeal must be filed within 30 days of rendition of the order to

3297be reviewed.

Select the PDF icon to view the document.
PDF
Date
Proceedings
PDF:
Date: 05/04/2010
Proceedings: Transmittal letter from Claudia Llado forwarding Depositions of Susan Doherty and Carol Owsiany to the agency.
PDF:
Date: 11/09/2009
Proceedings: Order Closing File. CASE CLOSED.
PDF:
Date: 11/06/2009
Proceedings: Status Report of Petitioner filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/27/2009
Proceedings: Order Continuing Case in Abeyance (parties to advise status by November 6, 2009).
PDF:
Date: 10/23/2009
Proceedings: DOAH Final Order
PDF:
Date: 10/23/2009
Proceedings: Summary Final Order.
PDF:
Date: 07/01/2009
Proceedings: Notice of Filing Transcript filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/01/2009
Proceedings: Transcript of Proceedings filed.
Date: 06/22/2009
Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Motion Hearing Held.
PDF:
Date: 06/22/2009
Proceedings: Respondent's Notice of Filing Supplemental Authority filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/12/2009
Proceedings: (Petitioner's) Notice of Filing (of lease addendum) filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/09/2009
Proceedings: Notice of Substitution of Counsel (filed by C. Jefferson) filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/04/2009
Proceedings: Notice of Telephonic Motion Hearing (motion hearing set for June 22, 2009; 1:30 p.m.).
PDF:
Date: 06/03/2009
Proceedings: Notice of Filing Supplemental Authority (Case No. 09-1973RX) filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/03/2009
Proceedings: Motion for Oral Argument by Teleconference (Case No. 09-1218) filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/02/2009
Proceedings: Respondent's Response in Opposition to Petitioner's Motion for Summary Adjudication filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/01/2009
Proceedings: Order Granting Extension of Time (Response to Petitioner`s Motion Adjudication to be filed by June 3, 2009).
PDF:
Date: 05/29/2009
Proceedings: Respondent's Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Response to Petitioner's Motion for Summary Adjudication filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/21/2009
Proceedings: Motion for Summary Adjudication filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/20/2009
Proceedings: Deposition of Susan Doherty filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/20/2009
Proceedings: Telephone Deposition of Carol Owsiany filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/20/2009
Proceedings: Notice of Filing (of Depositions of S. Doherty and C. Owsiany) filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/19/2009
Proceedings: Order (Petitioner is directed to file its motion for summary final order on or before May 22, 2009; Respondent shall file its response on or before May 29, 2009).
PDF:
Date: 05/15/2009
Proceedings: Order Canceling Hearing (parties to advise status by May 25, 2009).
PDF:
Date: 05/15/2009
Proceedings: Motion to Cancel Hearing and Initially Resolve the Issue of Rule Validity First filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/15/2009
Proceedings: Prehearing Stipulation filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/13/2009
Proceedings: (Respondent`s) Pre-hearing Stipulation filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/11/2009
Proceedings: Notice of Additional Counsel filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/08/2009
Proceedings: Amended Notice of Agency Representative Deposition Duces Tecum filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/08/2009
Proceedings: Amended Notice of Agency Representative Deposition Duces Tecum (filed in Case No. 09-1973RX).
PDF:
Date: 05/07/2009
Proceedings: Respondent`s Response to Petitioner`s First Request for Admissions and Petitioner`s First Interrogatories to Respondent filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/04/2009
Proceedings: (Respondent`s) Final Warning Notice to Brooklyn Luncheonette, LLC filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/20/2009
Proceedings: Order of Consolidation (DOAH Case Nos. 09-1218 and 09-1973RX).
PDF:
Date: 04/16/2009
Proceedings: Notice of Agency Representative Deposition Duces Tecum (of M. Wheeler) filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/16/2009
Proceedings: Petitioner`s First Request for Admissions filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/16/2009
Proceedings: Notice of Service of Petitioner`s First Interrogatories to Respondent filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/17/2009
Proceedings: Order of Pre-hearing Instructions.
PDF:
Date: 03/17/2009
Proceedings: Notice of Hearing (hearing set for May 21, 2009; 9:30 a.m.; Fort Myers, FL).
PDF:
Date: 03/12/2009
Proceedings: Joint Response to Initial Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/09/2009
Proceedings: Initial Order.
PDF:
Date: 03/09/2009
Proceedings: Request for Administrative Hearing filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/09/2009
Proceedings: Notice of Intent to Deny License filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/09/2009
Proceedings: Agency referral

Case Information

Judge:
DANIEL M. KILBRIDE
Date Filed:
03/09/2009
Date Assignment:
03/09/2009
Last Docket Entry:
05/04/2010
Location:
Fort Myers, Florida
District:
Middle
Agency:
Department of Business and Professional Regulation
 

Counsels

Related DOAH Cases(s) (2):

Related Florida Statute(s) (10):

Related Florida Rule(s) (1):