09-003646 Department Of Business And Professional Regulation vs. Ronald R. Marra, D/B/A Pro Tech Building Systems, Llc
 Status: Closed
Recommended Order on Wednesday, March 31, 2010.

View Dockets  
Summary: Petitioner proved by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent committed mismanagement that caused financial harm, incompetency and abandonment of the job. Respondent's defense was not persuasive. Recommend suspension and probation.






17Petitioner, )


20vs. ) Case No. 09-3646





38Respondent. )



43Pursuant to notice, a formal hearing was held before

52Daniel M. Kilbride, Administrative Law Judge of the Division of

62Administrative Hearings, in the above-styled case on

69November 19, 2009, in Fort Myers, Florida.


77For Petitioner: Sorin Ardelean, Esquire

82Department of Business and

86Professional Regulation

881940 North Monroe Street

92Tallahassee, Florida 32399

95For Respondent: Ronald R. Marra

100Pro Tech Building Systems, LLC

10511332 Pond Cypress

108Fort Myers, Florida 33913


116Whether disciplinary action should be taken against

123Respondent’s license to practice contracting, license number

130CGC1507637, based on the violations alleged as follows:

138a) By committing mismanagement or misconduct in the

146practice of contracting that causes financial harm to a customer

156in violation of Subsection 489.129(1)(g)2., Florida Statutes

163(2006) 1 ;

165b) By abandoning a construction project in which the

174contractor is engaged or under contract as a contractor, in

184violation of Subsection 489.129(1)(j), Florida Statutes; and

191c) By committing incompetency or misconduct in the

199practice of contracting, in violation of Subsection

206489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes, and, if so, what penalty should

215be imposed.


219On May 12, 2008, Petitioner, Department of Business and

228Professional Regulation, filed an Administrative Complaint

234alleging that Respondent, Ronald Mara, violated the laws

242regulating his professional activities as a certified contractor

250in the State of Florida. Respondent disputed the allegations

259contained in the Administrative Complaint and elected to have a

269formal administrative hearing. Subsequently, the case was

276transferred to the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) to

285conduct a hearing pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes.

294At the hearing, Petitioner offered the testimony of four

303witnesses: Investigator Larry Chatfield, Michael Dalla Costa,

310Alvin Coiner and Harley Carter. Petitioner introduced 12

318exhibits, which were entered into evidence.

324Respondent testified in his individual capacity, and

331introduced four exhibits which were entered into evidence.

339Petitioner moved that the record remain open in order to

349permit Petitioner to take the deposition testimony of Scott

358White, the successor contractor on the project in question.

367Petitioner was granted permission to take the deposition within

376a reasonable period of time. As of the date of this Recommended

388Order, the deposition testimony of Scott White has not been

398taken or filed. The Transcript of the hearing was filed on

409December 4, 2009. Petitioner filed its Proposed Recommended

417Order on December 14, 2009. Respondent has not filed his

427proposal as of the date of this Recommended Order.


439Based on the evidence, the following facts are found:

4481. At all times material, Respondent was a certified

457general contractor, having been issued license number CGC1507637

465by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board (CILB).

4732. At all times material, Respondent was the qualifier of

483Pro-Tech Building Systems, LLC.

4873. On September 14, 2006, Respondent entered into a

496contract with the owner, Alvin Coiner, to erect the walls of

507the residence that Coiner was building on a lot he owned in

519St. James City, Florida.

5234. The price of the contract with Respondent was

532$38,253.00. It called for the erection of reinforced concrete

542walls, using insulated concrete Integra-Spec ® forms produced by

551the Canadian manufacturer Phil-Insul Corporation.

5565. Initially, Coiner planned to build the house using

565concrete blocks for the outer walls, and engineering plans were

575submitted to the County building department, which were


5846. At some time before September 14, 2006, Respondent,

593Michael Dalla Costa and Coiner met at Respondent’s office and

603agreed to construct the walls using the Integra-Spec ® Insulated

613Concrete forms (ICF) system instead of regular concrete blocks.

6227. All parties agreed that the transitioning from concrete

631blocks to Integra-Spec ® ICF should not present any issues if the

643slab was code-compliant.

6468. Integra-Spec ® insulated concrete forms are a technology

655used to build steel-reinforced concrete walls. It uses

663Styrofoam Lego ® -like interlocking inner and outer panels, locked

673together with a web of plastic ties, between which the rebar is

685installed inside, vertically and horizontally. After the forms

693are installed and the rebar is put in place, raw concrete is

705then pumped in the space between the panels, thus forming the

716concrete insulated walls after the concrete cures.

7239. Coiner discussed with a representative of the Phil-

732Insul Corporation the requirements to build a home using the

742Integra-Spec ® forms. To do so required a trained professional.

75210. Respondent assured Coiner that he was fully trained to

762install Phil-Insul products and that he had completed several

771jobs in the Ft. Myers area. Respondent claimed that he was very

783experienced with both Integra-Spec ® forms and with Greenblock

792concrete forms, and he was also very knowledgeable as to the

803building code requirements for insulated concrete forms in Lee

812and Collier Counties.

81511. The Integra-Spec ® walls were to be constructed in

825compliance with all local building codes and requirements and

834were to be certified by the design engineer.

84212. Coiner hired Gary Harvey Engineering of Ft. Myers as

852the engineer of record.

85613. Michael Dalla Costa supervised and coordinated the

864work on behalf of Coiner during Coiner’s absence from the area.

87514. In the fall of 2006, Respondent submitted to Dalla

885Costa some plans that were not approved by Harvey Engineering.

895Through an error, the plans were submitted to the Lee County

906Building Department. The building department denied the plans,

914as they were not approved by the engineer of record, Harvey


92615. On November 20, 2006, and January 30, 2007, Harvey

936Engineering submitted revised plans that were approved by the

945building department.

94716. The revised plans by Harvey Engineering were the

956official documentation to show how the job should proceed.

96517. Between October and December 2006, the relationship

973deteriorated between Respondent, and the building inspector,

980Dalla Costa and Coiner. Respondent repeatedly argued with the

989others over whether an additional quantity of rebar, required by

999the building department, had to be installed.

100618. The building inspector did not approve work done by

1016Respondent. Based on his inspection and determination that

1024rebar was missing, the building inspector advised the owner

1033that, in the inspector’s opinion, Respondent did not do a proper

1044job in preparing the walls for the pouring of the concrete into

1056the walls.

105819. Respondent installed the Integra-Spec ® ICF forms and

1067the additional rebar, and then stopped work at some point in the

1079beginning of December 2006.

108320. Dalla Costa had paid Respondent a total of $34,955.00

1094up to this point.

109821. Respondent sent a proposed change order and asked

1107Coiner to pay him an additional $9,239.44, in addition to the

1119agreed contract price. He threatened to completely stop work

1128and leave the job. Coiner did not agree to the proposed change

1140order or to pay additional money over the original contract


115122. According to Respondent the slab was not level, which

1161created additional work for Respondent to properly install the

1170Integra-Spec ® forms. However, there is no dispute that the slab

1181was code-compliant and passed inspection. The contract between

1189parties does not provide for contract price adjustments based on

1199additional work incurred due to slabs that are out of level.

121023. According to the Integra-Spec ® installation manual,

1218there are two methods of adjustment when the slabs are out of

1230level, including provision for tolerances in excess of one inch.

1240The manual recommends that when the slab is in excess of one

1252inch out of level, shaving the bottom course of the form units

1264at highest point of slab.

126924. Respondent testified that he was familiar with the

1278adjustment methods when the slab is out of level.

128725. Due to lack of work on the construction site between

1298the second half of December 2006, and the end of March 2007,

1310Coiner hired an attorney to help him deal with Respondent.

1320Coiner’s attorney contacted Respondent in writing on April 2 and

1330April 13, 2007, requesting that Respondent resume work. He did

1340not return to the job.

134526. Based on advice from the attorney, Coiner hired

1354contractor Scott White as a consultant to oversee the project

1364and advise Coiner as to how to proceed on the project.

137527. As the project situation deteriorated further due to

1384Respondent ceasing work completely, failing inspections and

1391Integra-Spec ® forms falling down, Coiner hired White to finish

1401the job for the price of $17,250.00. White erected the walls

1413and finished the job in a professional manner, which passed


142428. According to testimonies by Coiner and Respondent

1432himself, Respondent completed between 75% to 90% of the job.

1442However, due to Respondent’s abandoning the job site for months,

1452the Integra-Spec ® forms had been blown down by winds and had to

1465be re-installed or re-aligned by White.

147129. The concrete pre-pour inspection was never completed.

1479Respondent never poured the concrete and he never finished the


149030. Due to Respondent’s abandonment of the job, Coiner

1499incurred additional expenses of $26,550.00 as follows: an

1508additional six months of construction loan interest at $200.00

1517per month, $6,500.00 in legal fees, $1,500.00 for consulting

1528fees, about $100.00 for failed inspections fees, and $17,250.00

1538paid to White to finish Respondent’s job.

154531. The total investigative costs of this case to

1554Petitioner, excluding costs associated with an attorney’s time,

1562were $351.47.

156432. Respondent’s reasons for abandoning the job are not



157733. DOAH has jurisdiction over the parties to and the

1587subject matter of this proceeding pursuant to Section 120.569

1596and Subsection 120.57(1), Florida Statutes (2009).

160234. Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating

1611the practice of contracting, pursuant to Section 20.165 and

1620Chapters 455 and 489, Florida Statutes.

162635. Pursuant to Section 489.129, Florida Statutes, the

1634CILB is empowered to revoke, suspend or otherwise discipline the

1644license of a contractor who is found guilty of any of the

1656grounds enumerated in Subsection 489.129(1), Florida Statutes.

166336. Petitioner has the burden of proving by clear and

1673convincing evidence the allegations filed against Respondent in

1681the Administrative Complaint. § 120.57(1)(j), Fla. Stat.;

1688Department of Banking and Finance v. Osborne Stern and Co. , 670

1699So. 2d 932 (Fla. 1996), and Ferris v. Turlington , 510 So. 2d 292

1712(Fla. 1987).

171437. Evans Packing Co. v. Department of Agriculture and

1723Consumer Services , 550 So. 2d 112, 116, fn.5 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)

1735provides the following guidance regarding the clear and

1743convincing evidence standard:

1746That standard has been described as follows:

1753[C]lear and convincing evidence requires

1758that the evidence must be found to be

1766credible; the facts to which the witnesses

1773testify must be distinctly remembered; the

1779evidence must be precise and explicit and

1786the witnesses must be lacking in confusion

1793as to the facts in issue. The evidence must

1802be of such weight that it produces in the

1811mind of the trier of fact the firm belief of

1821[sic] conviction, without hesitancy, as to

1827the truth of the allegations sought to be

1835established. Slomowitz v. Walker , 429 So.

18412d 797, 800 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983).

184838. The Administrative Complaint alleges that Respondent

1855Florida Statutes, which provide, in pertinent part:

1862(1) The Board may take any of the following

1871actions against any certificate holder or

1877registrant: place on probation or reprimand

1883the licensee, revoke, suspend, or deny the

1890issuance or renewal of the certificate or

1897registration, require financial restitution to

1902a consumer, impose an administrative fine not

1909to exceed $10,000 per violation, require

1916continuing education, or assess costs

1921associated with investigation and prosecution,

1926if the contractor . . . or business

1934organization for which the contractor is a

1941primary qualifying agent . . . is found guilty

1950of any of the following acts;

1956* * *

1959(g) Committing mismanagement or misconduct

1964in the practice of contracting that causes

1971financial harm to a customer. Financial

1977mismanagement occurs when:

1980* * *

19832. The contractor has abandoned a

1989customer’s job and the percentage of

1995completion is less than the percentage of

2002the total contract price paid to the

2009contractor as of the time of abandonment,

2016unless the contractor is entitled to retain

2023such funds under the terms of the contract

2031or refunds the excess funds within 30 days

2039after the date the job is abandoned;

20463. The contractor’s job has been completed,

2053and it is shown that the customer has had to

2063pay more for the contracted job than the

2071original contract price, as adjusted for

2077subsequent change orders, unless such

2082increase in cost was the result of

2089circumstances beyond the control of the

2095contractor, was the result of circumstances

2101caused by the customer, or was otherwise

2108permitted by the terms of the contract

2115between the contractor and the customer.

2121* * *

2124(j) Abandoning a construction project in

2130which the contractor is engaged or under

2137contract as a contractor. A project may be

2145presumed abandoned after 90 days if the

2152contractor terminated the project without

2157just cause or without proper notification to

2164the owner, including reason for termination,

2170or fails to perform work without just cause

2178for 90 consecutive days.

2182* * *

2185(m) Committing incompetency or misconduct

2190in the practice of contracting.

219539. Petitioner has proven by clear and convincing evidence

2204that Respondent violated Subsection 489.129(1)(g)2., Florida

2210Statutes, Count I of the Administrative Complaint, by committing

2219mismanagement or misconduct in the practice of contracting that

2228causes financial harm to a customer.

223440. Respondent abandoned the Coiner contract when the

2242percentage of completion of the job (more than 75% but less than

225490%) was less than the total contract price paid to him (90%).

2266Respondent testified that he completed 90% of the job, however

2276the evidence is clear that parts of the work completed by

2287Respondent had to be redone by the second contractor; that

2297Respondent never completed the pre-pour inspection (when second

2305draw was due to him, according to contract); and that he never

2317poured the concrete, which would have cost in his own estimate

2328$3,500.00 (more than 10% of the contract price). Therefore, the

2339evidence clearly and convincingly shows that Respondent did not

2348complete 90% of the job at the time when he abandoned the Coiner


236241. Petitioner has proven by clear and convincing evidence

2371that Respondent violated Subsection 489.129(1)(j), Florida

2377Statutes, Count II of the Administrative Complaint, by

2385abandoning a construction project in which the contractor is

2394engaged or under contract as a contractor. A project may be

2405presumed abandoned after 90 days if the contractor terminates

2414the project without just cause or without proper notification to

2424the owner, including reason for termination, or fails to perform

2434work without just cause for 90 consecutive days.

244242. The evidence established that Respondent failed to

2450perform any meaningful work under the Coiner contract for a

2460period of time exceeding 90 days. Respondent did not perform

2470work between the second half of December 2006 to April 2007.

2481Although Respondent may have occasionally been present on the

2490site or met with other people involved in the project, the

2501evidence does not show that any identifiable work was done by

2512Respondent during this period. However, Respondent effectively

2519abandoned the project by requesting additional payment not

2527justified under the contract and threatening to abandon the job

2537if he was not paid, then completely stopping any work after

2548Coiner refused to pay above and beyond the contract price.

255843. Respondent asked Coiner to pay in excess of $9,000.00

2569in addition to the agreed contract price, as a “change order.”

2580However, there is no evidence that the scope of work of the

2592contract changed so that a change order would be necessary.

2602Although Respondent had to deal with issues that (despite his

2612familiarity with ICF construction and the building code

2620requirements in Lee County) he apparently did not foresee when

2630he proposed the contract to Coiner. Nothing changed as far as

2641the scope of work of the contract is concerned. Respondent was

2652under contract to build ICF walls for Coiner’s residence, and

2662that did not change after the slab was poured, or after the

2674building department requested enough rebar in the walls to meet

2684order upon Coiner were due to his initial inaccurate estimates

2694as to what it would cost Respondent to build the walls, and not

2707to an unforeseeable change in the circumstances.

271444. According to Respondent’s own testimony, he was

2722thoroughly familiar with both ICF building techniques and the

2731building code requirements in Lee County. Thus, due to his

2741experience with ICF construction, Respondent cannot reasonably

2748argue that, when he contracted with Coiner, he did not foresee

2759the possibility that the slab would be out of level sufficiently

2770to require adjustments. Even the Integra-Spec ® installation

2778manual recognized that adjustments might become necessary.

278545. Respondent cannot persuasively claim that it was

2793beyond his reasonable expectation that the Lee County Building

2802Department would require additional rebar in order to meet the

2812local building code. Respondent stated he was very familiar

2821with the building department requirements. If he was familiar

2830with the building requirements, as he contends, not only should

2840Respondent have foreseen at the time of the contract how much

2851rebar the inspector would require, but also he should have

2861expected that the inspector will require in fact that specific

2871quantity of rebar.

287446. Respondent argues that when non-level slabs are

2882involved on a project, the necessary adjustments should not be

2892done for free by the contractor, and Petitioner agrees.

2901However, if Respondent contemplated to be paid for additional

2910work he had to do due to the out of level slab, he should have

2925provided for a higher contract price, or for price adjustment in

2936the contract, not add such charges later, above and beyond the

2947agreed contract price. In fact, Subsection 489.129(1)(g)3.,

2954Florida Statutes, specifically prohibits contracting practices

2960in which the customer ends up paying above the contract price,

2971except where the customer agrees to a change order, or where

2982circumstances beyond the control of the contractor exist, or

2991where such additional charges are provided for by the contract.

3001In this case, there was no agreed change order, no extenuating

3012unforeseeable circumstances, and the contract does not provide

3020for a price adjustment based on slab deficiencies. Moreover,

3029the slab was code compliant, and passed final inspection, which

3039clearly indicates that it was ready to be built upon.

304947. Respondent failed to provide any explanation at the

3058hearing as to any excusable reasons for his failure to complete

3069the project, other than he completed 90% and he “left” after

3080being paid 90% of the contract price. Even if we assume that he

3093indeed performed 90% of his contract, Respondent still abandoned

3102the contract without a reasonable justification.

310848. Petitioner has proven by clear and convincing evidence

3117that Respondent violated Subsection 489.129(1)(m), Florida

3123Statutes, Count III of the Administrative Complaint. Respondent

3131violated Subsections 489.129(1)(j) and (g)2., Florida Statutes.

3138Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G4-17.001(m)2. provides that

3145misconduct or incompetency in the practice of contracting, shall

3154include violating any provision of Florida Administrative Code

3162Chapter 61G4, or Chapter 489, Part I, Florida Statutes.

3171Respondent violated Subsection 489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes,

3177by violating Subsections 489.129(1)(g)2. and (j), Florida

3184Statutes, as provided in paragraphs 6 through 11 above.

319349. Respondent is subject to disciplinary action by the

3202CILB pursuant to Sections 455.227 and 489.129, Florida Statutes.

3211The disciplinary action under these statutes includes placing

3219the license on probation, reprimanding the licensee, revoking

3227suspending, denying the issuance or renewal of the certificate

3236or registration, requiring financial restitution to the

3243consumer, imposing an administrative fine not to exceed

3251$10,000.00 per violation, requiring continuing education and

3259assessing costs associated with the investigation and


326750. Subsection 455.2273(5), Florida Statutes, states that

3274the administrative law judge, in recommending penalties in any

3283recommended order, must follow the penalty guidelines

3290established by the CILB or department and must state in writing

3301the mitigating or aggravating circumstances upon which

3308recommended penalty is based.

331251. Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G4-17.002 provides,

3319in pertinent part, the following:

3324Circumstances which may be considered for

3330the purpose of mitigation or aggravation of

3337penalty shall include, but are not limited

3344to, the following:

3347(1) Monetary or other damage to the

3354licensee’s customer, in any way associated

3360with the violation, which damage the

3366licensee has not relieved, as of the time

3374the penalty is being assessed. (This

3380provision shall not be given effect to the

3388extent it would contravene federal

3393bankruptcy law.)

3395(2) Actual job-site violations of building

3401codes, or conditions exhibiting gross

3406negligence, incompetence, or misconduct by

3411the licensee, which have not been corrected

3418as of the time the penalty is being


3427(3) The danger to the public.

3433(4) The number of complaints filed against

3440the licensee.

3442(5) The length of time the licensee has


3451(6) The actual damage, physical or

3457otherwise, to the licensee’s customer.

3462(7) The deterrent effect of the penalty


3470(8) The effect of the penalty upon the

3478licensee’s livelihood.

3480(9) Any efforts at rehabilitation.

3485(10) Any other mitigating or aggravating


349252. Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G4-17.001 (2006)

3499provides the following guidelines that are pertinent to this


3509(1) The following guidelines shall be used

3516in disciplinary cases, absent aggravating or

3522mitigating circumstances and subject to the

3528other provisions of this Chapter.

3533* * *

3536(g) Section 489.129(1)(g), F.S.:

3540Mismanagement or misconduct causing

3544financial harm to the customer. First

3550violation, $1,500.00 to $5,000.00 fine,

3557and/or probation or suspension.

3561* * *

3564(j) Section 489.129(1)(j), F.S.:

3568Abandonment. First violation, $2,500.00 to

3574$7,500.00 fine and/or probation or


3581* * *

3584(m) Misconduct or incompetency in the

3590practice of contracting, shall include, but

3596is not limited to:

3600* * *

3603(2) Violation of any provision of Chapter

361061G4, F.A.C., or Chapter 489, Part I., F.S.

3618* * *

36214. The following guidelines shall apply to

3628cases involving misconduct or incompetency

3633in the practice of contracting, absent

3639aggravating or mitigating circumstances:

3643* * *

3646b. Violation of any provision of Chapter

365361G4, F.A.C., or Chapter 489, Part I., F.S.

3661First violation, $1,000.00 to $2,500.00

366853. There is no evidence that Respondent has been

3677previously disciplined for violations under Chapter 489 or 455,

3686Florida Statutes; therefore, the penalty guidelines that should

3694be used are for a first violation.


3702Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of

3712law, it is recommended that a final order be rendered by the

3724CILB as follows:

37271. Finding Respondent guilty of having violated Subsection

3735489.129(1)(g)2., Florida Statutes, as alleged in Count I of the

3745Administrative Complaint, and imposing as a penalty an

3753administrative fine in the amount of $2,500.00;

37612. Finding Respondent guilty of having violated Subsection

3769489.129(1)(j), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Count II of the

3779Administrative Complaint, and imposing as a penalty an

3787administrative fine in the amount of $1,000.00;

37953. Finding Respondent guilty of having violated Subsection

3803489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Count III of the

3813Administrative Complaint, and imposing as a penalty an

3821administrative fine in the amount of $1,000.00;

38294. Suspending Respondent’s license to practice contracting

3836(CGC1507637) for three months, followed by probation for two


38465. Requiring Respondent to pay financial restitution to

3854the consumer, Alvin Coiner, in the amount of $13,952.00 for

3865consumer harm suffered due to payment of additional money to

3875complete the job abandoned by Respondent. The consumer damages

3884are calculated by adding the total payments to Respondent

3893($34,955.00) to the payment for the completion of the contract

3904to Scott White ($17,250.00), and then subtracting the contract

3914price ($38,253.00);

39176. Requiring Respondent to pay Petitioner’s costs of

3925investigation and prosecution, excluding costs associated with

3932an attorney’s time, in the amount of $351.47; and

39417. Requiring Respondent to complete continuing education

3948hours and to meet such other conditions the CILB may require.

3959DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of March, 2010, in

3969Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.



3977Administrative Law Judge

3980Division of Administrative Hearings

3984The DeSoto Building

39871230 Apalachee Parkway

3990Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060

3993(850) 488-9675

3995Fax Filing (850) 921-6847


4000Filed with the Clerk of the

4006Division of Administrative Hearings

4010this 31st day of March, 2010.


40171/ All statutory references are to Florida Statutes (2006),

4026unless otherwise noted.


4032Sorin Ardelean, Esquire

4035Department of Business and

4039Professional Regulation

40411940 North Monroe Street

4045Tallahassee, Florida 32399

4048Ronald R. Marra

4051Pro Tech Building Systems, LLC

405611332 Pond Cypress

4059Fort Myers, Florida 33913

4063Ned Luczynski, General Counsel

4067Department of Business and

4071Professional Regulation

4073Northwood Centre

40751940 North Monroe Street

4079Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792

4082G. W. Harrell, Executive Director

4087Construction Industry Licensing Board

4091Department of Business and

4095Professional Regulation

4097Northwood Centre

40991940 North Monroe Street

4103Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792


4112All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within

412215 days from the date of this Recommended Order. Any exceptions

4133to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that

4144will issue the Final Order in this case.

Select the PDF icon to view the document.
Date: 03/31/2010
Proceedings: Recommended Order
Date: 03/31/2010
Proceedings: Recommended Order (hearing held November 11, 2009). CASE CLOSED.
Date: 03/31/2010
Proceedings: Recommended Order cover letter identifying the hearing record referred to the Agency.
Date: 12/14/2009
Proceedings: Petitioner's Proposed Recommended Order filed.
Date: 12/04/2009
Proceedings: Transcript of Proceedings filed.
Date: 11/19/2009
Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Hearing Held.
Date: 11/17/2009
Proceedings: Order (Motion for Amend Notice of Service of Petitioner's Exhibits and Witnesses List is granted).
Date: 11/17/2009
Proceedings: Amended Notice of Hearing (hearing set for November 19, 2009; 9:30 a.m.; Fort Myers, FL; amended as to location).
Date: 11/16/2009
Proceedings: Request to Amend Notice of Service of Petitioner's Exhibits and Witnesses List filed.
Date: 11/13/2009
Proceedings: Order Denying Testimony by Telephone.
Date: 11/10/2009
Proceedings: Petitioner's Motion to Allow Witness by Telephone filed.
Date: 10/29/2009
Proceedings: Notice of Service of Petitioner's Exhibits and Witnesses List filed.
Date: 08/26/2009
Proceedings: Undeliverable envelope returned from the Post Office.
Date: 08/20/2009
Proceedings: Order of Pre-hearing Instructions.
Date: 08/20/2009
Proceedings: Notice of Hearing (hearing set for November 19, 2009; 9:30 a.m.; Fort Myers, FL).
Date: 07/16/2009
Proceedings: Unilateral Response to Initial Order filed.
Date: 07/13/2009
Proceedings: Initial Order.
Date: 07/10/2009
Proceedings: Election of Rights filed.
Date: 07/10/2009
Proceedings: Administrative Complaint filed.
Date: 07/10/2009
Proceedings: Agency referral filed.

Case Information

Date Filed:
Date Assignment:
Last Docket Entry:
Fort Myers, Florida
Department of Business and Professional Regulation


Related DOAH Cases(s) (1):

Related Florida Statute(s) (6):

Related Florida Rule(s) (2):