13-002254 Bernard Spinrad And Marion Spinrad vs. William Guerrero, Christina Bang, A/K/A Christina Guerrero, And Department Of Environmental Protection
 Status: Appeal.


View Dockets  
Summary: The Applicants demonstrated that they were entitled to the exemptions and general permit for structures and activiites on their property, and to the soverign submerged lands authorizations related thereto.

1STATE STATE STATE OF OF OF FLORIDA FLORIDA FLORIDA

10DEPARTMENT DEPARTMENT DEPARTMENT OF OF OF ENVIRONMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PROTECTION PROTECTION

22BERNARD BERNARD BERNARD SPINRAD SPINRAD SPINRAD and and and MARIEN MARIEN MARIEN ) ) )

37SPINRAD, SPINRAD, SPIN RAD, ) ) )

44) ) )

47Petitioners, Petitioners, Petitioners, ) ) )

53) ) )

56vs. vs. vs. ) ) ) OGC OGC OGC CASE CASE CASE NO. NO. NO. 13-0858 13-0858 13-0858

74) ) ) DOAH DOAH DOAH CASE CASE CASE NO. NO. NO. 13-2254 13-2254 13-2254

89WILLIAM WILLIAM WILLIAM GUERRERO, GUERRERO, GUERRERO, CHRISTINA CHRISTINA CHRISTINA BANG, BANG, BANG, ) ) )

104a/kJa a/kJa a/k/a CHRISTINA CHRISTINA CHRISTINA GUERRERO, GUERRERO, GUERRERO, and and and ) ) )

119DEPARTMENT DEPARTMENT DEPARTMENT OF OF OF ENVIRONMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL ) ) )

131PROTECTION, PROTECTION, PROTECTION, ) ) )

137) ) )

140Respondents. Respondents. Respondents. ) ) )

146---------------) ---------------)

148CONSOLIDATED CONSOLIDATED CONSOLIDATED FINAL FINAL FINAL ORDER ORDER ORDER

157On On On July July July 25,2014, 25,2014, 25, 2014, an an an administrative administrative administrative law law law judge judge judge ("judge") (Ujudge") ("judge") with with with the the the Division Division Division of of of

201Administrative Administrative Administrative Hearings Hearings Hearings ("DOAH") (UDOAH") ("DOAH") submitted submitted submitted a a a Recommended Recommended Recommended Order Order Order ("RO") (URO") ("RO") to to to the the the

241Department Department Department of of of Environmental Environmental Environmental Protection Protection Protection ("DEP" (UDEP" ("DEP" or or or "Department") "Department") "Department") in in in the the the above above above

276captioned captioned captioned administrative administrative administrative proceeding. proceeding. proceeding. A A A copy copy copy of of of the the the RO RO RO is is is attached attached attached hereto hereto hereto as as as Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit A. A. A.

318The The The Respondents, Respondents, Respondents, William William William Guerrero Guerrero Guerrero and and and Christina Christina Christina Bang, Bang, Bang, alkla alkla a/k/a Christina Christina Christina Guerrero Guerrero Guerrero

348("Guerreros"), ("Guerreros"), ("Guerreros"), and and and the the the Respondent, Respondent, Respondent, Department Department Department filed filed filed Exceptions Exceptions Exceptions to to to the the the RO RO RO on on on August August August

39011,2014. 11,2014. 11, 2014. The The The Petitioners, Petitioners, Petitioners, Bernard Bernard Bernard Spinrad Spinrad Spinrad and and and Marien Marien Marien Spinrad Spinrad Spinrad ("Petitioners" ("Petitioners" ("Petitioners" or or or

"426Spinrads"), "Spinrads"), "Spinrads"), filed filed filed their their their Response Response Response to to to Exceptions Exceptions Exceptions and and and Revised Revised Revised Response Response Response to to to Exceptions Exceptions Exceptions on on on

465August August August 22,2014. 22,2014. 22, 2014. 1 1 1 On On On August August August 26, 26, 26, 2014, 2014, 2014, the the the Guerreros Guerreros Guerreros filed filed filed their their their Objection Objection Objection to to to

5071 1 1 The The The Petitioners' Petitioners' Petitioners' Response Response Response and and and Revised Revised Revised Response Response Response were were were filed filed filed after after after 5 5 5 p.m. p.m. p.m. on on on August August August

54921,2014. 21, 21, 2014. 2014. Under Under Under Florida Florida Florida Administrative Administrative Administrative Code Code Code rule rule rule 28-106.104(3), 28-106.104(3), 28-106.104(3), any any any document document document

579received received received by by by the the the office office office of of of the the the agency agency agency clerk clerk clerk "after "after "after 5:00 5:00 5:00 p.m. p.m. p.m. shall shall shall be be be filed filed filed as as as of of of 8:00 8:00 8:00 a.m. a.m. a.m.

633on on on the the the next next next regular regular regular business business business day." day." day."

651Petitioners, Spinrads' Late-filed Responses to Exceptions. The Petitioners' Response

660and Revised Response to Exceptions are hereby accepted as timely filed. 2 This matter

674is now on administrative review before the Secretary of the Department for final agency

688action.

689BACKGROUND

690The Department issued a proposed authorization containing regulatory and

699proprietary approvals to the Guerreros on February 20,2013 ("Authorization").3 The

712Authorization was for repair of the shoreline, repair of the NE and SW jetties,

726replacement of an earthen boat ramp with a concrete boat ramp, repair and

739replacement of a wood dock, replacement of mooring piles, removal of the mid-jetty

752extension, and maintenance dredging of an eXisting channel. The authorized activities

763would occur at the Guerreros' property at 58478 Overseas Highway, Marathon, Florida

775("the Property"). The structures that are the subject of the Authorization are to be

791constructed near or waterward of the shoreline of the Property.

801The Property is located on Grassy Key, an island in the middle Florida Keys,

815within limits of the city of Marathon, Monroe County, Florida. U.S. Highway 1 passes

829through Grassy Key. The Spinrads own adjoining parcels of property with the

841addresses of 58418 and 58420 Overseas Highway, Marathon, Florida. They acquired

8522 See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-110.106 and Hamilton Countyv. Dep'tofEnvtl.

863Regulation, 587 So. 2d 1378 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991).

8723 The Secretary of the Department is delegated the authority from the Board of

886Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund ("Board of Trustees") to review and

901take final agency action on applications to use sovereignty submerged lands when the

914application involves an activity for which the Department has permitting responsibility.

925See Fla. Admin. Code R. 18-21.0051(2).

931their parcels in December 2001, and recently completed construction of two residential

943structures on the properties. The structure at 58418 Overseas Highway is currently

955listed for sale. The structure at 58420 Overseas Highway is a vacation rental property.

969Neither structure is the Spinrads' permanent residence.

976The Spinrads challenged the Authorization and the Department referred the

986challenge to DOAH on June 14,2013. On September 20,2013, the Department

999provided notice of an additional basis for its proposed agency action, that being that the

1014proposed activities are exempt from the need to obtain an Environmental Resource

1026Permit because the activities will have only minimal or insignificant individual or

1038cumulative adverse impacts on water resources grounds as set forth in section

1050373.406(6), Florida Statutes ("F.S."). On December 12, 2013, the Guerreros filed a

1064Notice of Filing Proposed Changes to the Pending Agency Action, by which they agreed

1078to several permit conditions, and proposed conforming modifications to the "Background

1089Facts" of the proposed agency action. This matter being de novo in nature, the judge

1104conducted the final hearing on the issues noticed.

1112The final hearing was held on November 18-21, 2013, and March 31-Apri14,

11242014. The eighteen-volume Transcript was filed on April 18, 2014. The parties filed

1137Proposed Recommended Orders on or about May 19, 2014, and the judge

1149subsequently issued the RO on July 25, 2014.

1157SUMMARY OF THE RECOMMENDED ORDER

1162The judge recommended that the Department enter a final order approving the

1174February 20,2013, Authorization, as conditioned by the Guerreros' December 12,2013,

1186Proposed Changes to the Pending Agency Action. (RO at page 83). The judge denied

1200the motions for attorney's fees, costs, and sanctions under sections 120.569(2)(e) and

1212120.595, F.S.; and reserved jurisdiction "to rule, by separate order after issuance of the

1226final order," on the motions for sanctions, attorney's fees, and costs under section

123957.105, F.S.

1241Standing

1242The judge found that the Spinrads assert standing on the basis of potential direct

1256impacts to their property, which is in close proximity to the Guerreros, from activities

1270subject to the regulatory approval and proprietary authorization. (RO,-r 107). The judge

1283found that the Spinrads assert detrimental effects to include, water quality and shoreline

1296processes that will adversely affect their enjoyment of their property. (RO 1m 102, 103).

1310The judge concluded that the Spinrads had proven that they have the requisite standing

1324to initiate and maintain this proceeding. (RO ,-r1J 102 - 107).

1335Nature of the Proceeding

1339The judge concluded that the instant proceeding was de novo proceeding

1350intended to formulate final agency action and not to review action taken earlier and

1364preliminarily. The judge found that the proposed permit at issue included the February

137720,2013, notice of proposed agency action; the September 20,2013, Notice of

1390Additional Grounds for Exemption Determination; and the December 12,2013, Notice of

1402Filing Proposed Changes to the Pending Agency Action. (RO 1m 44, 108).

1414Burden of proof

1417The judge found that the Spinrads challenged the issuance of a general permit to

1431the Guerreros for construction of a concrete boat ramp; the determination that the NE

1445jetty, the SW jetty, the mid-bulkhead, the dock, and the channel qualify for certain

1459exemptions; and the related proprietary authorizations. (RO,-r 109). The judge

1470concluded that, under the modified burden of proof provision in section 120.569(2)(p),

1482F.S., the general permit is a "license, permit, or conceptual approval" to which it applies.

1497(RO,-r 111). Thus, the Spinrads had the burden of ultimate persuasion to prove their

1512case in opposition to the permit. (RO,-r 112).

1521The judge noted that precedent is mixed as to whether an exemption is not a

"1536license, permit, or conceptual approval." (RO,-r 113). The Department's final order in

1549the Padron 4 case adopted that jUdge's conclusion that because no permit is being

1563issued regarding an exemption, then section 120.569(2)(p), F.S., did not apply. (RO,-r

1576114). The judge stated that he relied on Padron "in the initial ruling regarding the

1591burden of proof and order of presentation in this case." (RO ,-r 114).

1604The judge noted that, after the final hearing in the instant case had commenced,

1618the Department's final order in Pirtle 5 was entered. In Pirtle the type of exemption in

1634section 373.406(6), F.S., that requires a written determination from the Department, was

1646found to fit within the definition of a "license" in section 120.52(10), F.S., such that

1661section 120.569(2)(p), F.S., applied. (RO W 115-116). Although the judge agreed with

1673the Pirtle case, he concluded that this case commenced and procedural rulings were

1686entered in reliance on the Padron final order. The judge concluded, therefore, that the

1700Guerreros had the burden of proof with regard to the exemptions. (RO W 115-116).

17144 Padron v. Ekblom and Dep't of Envtl. Prot., Case No. 12-3291 (Fla. DOAH Mar. 11,

17302013; Fla. DEP August 29,2013), affirmed -- SO.3d --,39 Fla. L. Weekly 01546 (Fla. 3d

1747DCA 2014).

17495 Pirtle v. Voss and Dep't of Envtl. Prot., Case No. 13-0515 (Fla. DOAH Sept. 27,

17652013; Fla. DEP Dec. 26, 2013).

1771The judge found that the related proprietary authorizations ("consent to use

1783sovereignty submerged lands") are issued under chapter 253, F .S., and are not subject

1798to section 120.569(2)(p), F.S. Thus, the Guerreros (as the applicants) had the burden

1811of ultimate persuasion to demonstrate entitlement to the proprietary authorizations. (RO

1822'fJ 117). The judge also concluded that the standard of proof was preponderance of the

1837evidence under section 120.57(1), F.S. (RO'fJ 118).

1844Exemptions

1845The jUdge found that the exemption rules cited in the proposed agency action

1858dated February 20,2013, were repealed effective October 1,2013. (RO mI119-123).

1870The concluded, based on case law, that the exemptions at issue would be

1883gauged against the standards established for exempt activities by applicable statutes

1894and currently valid rules promulgated thereunder. (RO mI124-125).

1902The judge found that the three groin structures have been maintained and

1914repaired to substantially the size, shape and dimensions as they existed since 1971

1927(SW Jetty), and 1981 (NE Jetty and Mid-bulkhead). (RO W 47,52-57,60-63, 134-136).

1941Based on the nature of the materials from which the structures were made, and the

1956damage associated with Hurricane Wilma in 2005, the judge found that any deviation

1969from original dimensions was minor. (RO mI56, 62-64, 136). The judge concluded that

1982the Guerreros clearly demonstrated the three groin structures were eligible for

1993exemptions under section 373.406(6), F.S., based on the site-specific conditions

2003existing on that stretch of Grassy Key and minimal individual or cumulative adverse

2016impacts on water resources, fish, and wildlife. (RO mI137-138).

2025The judge found that the evidence demonstrated that maintenance dredging of

2036the channel was consistent with the original design specifications, and that the essential

2049character of the channel has been maintained since it was dredged in 1964. (RO 1m 75­

206580, 142, 144). The judge concluded that the maintenance dredging complied with the

2078applicable exemption standards in section 403.813(1)(f), F.S. (RO 11 147).

2088The jUdge found that the evidence demonstrated that the dock has been in

2101existence since at least 1981, was substantially intact after Hurricane Wilma, and was

2114functional at the time work began to repair or replace it. (RO 1m 84-86, 150). The judge

2131determined that the dock will be less than 500 square feet and meets the exemption

2146standards for replacement or repair under section 403.813(1)(d), F.S.,and rule 62­

2158330.051(5)(d), Florida Administrative Code (UF.A.C."). (R01m86, 151, 153).

2167General Permit - Concrete Boat Ramp

2173The jUdge found that the proposed boat ramp is landward of the mean high

2187waterline; will provide access to the channel; work on it does not involve any seagrass

2202beds or coral communities; and will require no more than 100 cubic yards of dredging.

2217(RO 1m 88-89). The jUdge concluded that the Guerreros demonstrated that they are

2230eligible to use the general permit for a boat ramp under rule 62-330.417, F.A.C. (RO 1m

2246155-157).

2247Proprietary Authorization

2249The judge noted that a request to use sovereignty submerged lands involves

2261consideration of a number of general policies, standards, and criteria set forth in rule 18­

227621.004, F.A.C. The primary issues raised by the Spinrads included those provisions of

2289rule 18-21.004, F.A.C., related to consideration of the public interest and riparian rights.

2302(RO 11 158). The judge concluded that, as to other issues in rule 18-21.004, F.A.C.,

2317including but not limited to issues of water quality, sovereignty lands and associated

2330resources, fish and wildlife habitat, and navigation, the Guerreros proved that the

2342proposed agency action meets the standards imposed by the rule. (RO 1f1f 25,49,57,

235767, 73, 83, 86, 96, 159).

2363The judge concluded that rule 18-21.004(1)(a), F.A.C., provides, "[fjor approval,

2373all activities on sovereignty lands must be not contrary to the public interest ... " The

2388judge further concluded that, although "public interest" is defined in rule 18-21.003(51),

2400F.A.C., the factors that go into a determination of the public interest are not otherwise

2415defined in chapter 18-21, F.A.C. (RO 1f1f 160-162). The judge stated that section

2428373.414(1), F.S., sets forth factors to balance in determining the public interest in the

2442context of obtaining individual or conceptual approval permits; and although section

2453373.414(1) does not apply to proprietary authorizations, the factors in section

2464373.414(1) "are useful and instructive -- though not dispositive." (RO 1}162). The judge

2477concluded that the totality of the evidence adduced at the hearing leads to the

2491conclusion that proprietary authorization for the structures will not be contrary to the

2504public interest. (RO 1f1f 163-165).

2509The judge concluded that the totality of the evidence adduced at the hearing

2522demonstrates that proprietary authorization for the structures will not violate the riparian

2534rights provisions of rule 18-21.004(3), F.A.C. (RO 1f1f 166-169). The jUdge found that

2547the Guerreros obtained letters of concurrence from the owners of adjacent upland

2559riparian properties, which falls within the exception to a 25-foot setback inside an

2572applicant's riparian rights lines. The judge also found that the Spinrads were not

2585owners of upland riparian property adjacent to the Guerreros. (RO mJ 1, 3, 102, 167).

2600Criteria for a Letter of Consent

2606The judge concluded that the three groins, the channel, the dock, and the beach

2620area between the SW Jetty and the Mid-bulkhead, met the standards for a Letter of

2635Consent from the Board of Trustees under rule 18-21.005(1), F.A.C. (RO 1111 170-178,

2648181-183). The judge found that since the boat ramp is entirely above the mean high

2663water line, proprietary authorization from the Board of Trustees is not required. (RO 11

2677179).

2678Attorney's fees

2680The judge concluded that the Spinrads' claims were not made for an improper

2693purpose under sections 120.569(2)(e) and 120.595(1), F.S. (RO mJ 189-193). The

2704judge found that "[b]ased upon a full review and consideration of the record in this

2719proceeding, and applying an objective standard based on reasonable inquiry regarding

2730pertinent facts and applicable law, ... the facts of this case, and the application of the

2746law as asserted by [the Spinrads] were not made for an improper purpose." (RO mJ 191

2762and 193).

2764The judge concluded that since section 57.105(5) is a "prevailing party" statute,

"2776the [judge] cannot rule on the motions requesting fees under the authority of section

279057.105" unless the Guerreros and the DEP "are ultimately determined to be the

2803prevailing parties in this proceeding." (RO 11 203). The judge, however, did make the

2817following findings:

2819• that the motions for attorney's fees under section 57.105, F.S., filed by

2832the Guerreros and the DEP, "concern actions that occurred well before

2843the motions were served on the Spinrads, and pleadings that were filed

2855and disposed of without a motions for attorney's fees having been filed

2867within the 'safe harbor' period established in section 57.105(4)." (RO

2877195).

2878• that the motions for attorney's fees under section 57.105, F.S., were filed

2891after the conclusion of the final hearing, which does not comply with the

"2904safe harbor" provision as established in section 57.105(4), F.S. (RO

2914195-196).

2915• that "[s]ince most of the activities authorized ... had beencompleted at

2927the time of the hearing, there is little to suggest that the actions of [the

2942Spinrads] in challenging the [Authorization] were taken for purposes of

2952delaying the outcome." (RO 197).

2957• that "the evidence relied upon by [the Spinrads] and the application of the

2971law as asserted by [the Spinrads] were not so lacking in merit as to

2985warrant an award of attorney's fees or costs under section 57.105, [F.S.]."

2997STANDARDS OF REVIEW OF DOAH RECOMMENDED ORDERS

3004Section 120.57(1)(1), Florida Statutes, prescribes that an agency reviewing a

3014recommended order may not reject or modify the findings of fact of a judge, "unless the

3030agency first determines from a review of the entire record, and states with particularity in

3045the order, that the findings of fact were not based on competent substantial evidence."

3059§ 120.57(1)(1), Fla. Stat. (2012); Charlotte Cty. v. IMC Phosphates Co., 18 SO.3d 1089

3073(Fla. 2d DCA 2009); Wills v. Fla. Elections Comm'n, 955 So.2d 61 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007).

3089A reviewing agency may not reweigh the evidence presented at a DOAH final

3102hearing, attempt to resolve conflicts therein, or judge the credibility of witnesses. See,

3115e.g., Rogers v. Dep't of Health, 920 SO.2d 27, 30 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005); Belleau v. Dep't

3132of Envtl. Prot., 695 SO.2d 1305, 1307 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997); Dunham v. Highlands Cty.

3147Sch. Bd., 652 SO.2d 894 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). If there is competent substantial evidence

3162to support an administrative law judge's findings of fact, it is irrelevant that there may

3177also be competent substantial evidence supporting a contrary finding. See, e.g., Arand

3189Construction Co. v. Dyer, 592 SO.2d 276, 280 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Conshor, Inc. v.

3204Roberts, 498 SO.2d 622 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986).

3212The judge's decision to accept the testimony of one expert witness over that of

3226another expert is an evidentiary rUling that cannot be altered by a reviewing agency,

3240absent a complete lack of any competent substantial evidence of record supporting this

3253decision. See, e.g., Peace River/Manasota Regional Water Supply Authority v. IMC

3264Phosphates Co., 18 SO.3d 1079, 1088 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009); Collier Med. Ctr. V. State,

3279Dep't of HRS, 462 SO.2d 83, 85 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Fla. Chapter of Sierra Club v.

3296Orlando Uti/so Comm'n, 436 SO.2d 383, 389 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983). In addition, an

3310agency has no authority to make independent or supplemental findings of fact. See,

3323e.g., North Port, Fla. v. Consol. Minerals, 645 SO.2d 485,487 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994).

3338Section 120.57(1 )(1), Florida Statutes, authorizes an agency to reject or modify a

3351judge's conclusions of law and interpretations of administrative rules "over which it has

3364substantive jurisdiction." See Barfield v. Dep't of Health, 805 SO.2d 1008 (Fla. 1st DCA

33782001); L.B. Bryan & Co. v. Sch. Bd. of Broward Cty., 746 SO.2d 1194 (Fla. 1st DCA

33951999); Deep Lagoon Boat Club, Ltd. v. Sheridan, 784 So.2d 1140 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001).

3410Considerable deference should be accorded to these agency interpretations of statutes

3421and rules within their regulatory jurisdiction, and such agency interpretations should not

3433be overturned unless "clearly erroneous." See, e.g., Falk v. Beard, 614 So.2d 1086,

34461089 (Fla. 1993); Dep't of Envtl. Regulation v. Goldring, 477 SO.2d 532, 534 (Fla. 1985).

3461Furthermore, agency interpretations of statutes and rules within their regulatory

3471jUrisdiction do not have to be the only reasonable interpretations. It is enough if such

3486agency interpretations are "permissible" ones. See, e.g., Suddath Van Lines, Inc. v.

3498Dep't of Envtl. Prot., 668 So.2d 209, 212 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996).

3510Agencies do not have jurisdiction, however, to modify or reject rulings on the

3523admissibility of evidence. Evidentiary rulings of the judge that deal with "factual issues

3536susceptible to ordinary methods of proof that are not infused with [agency] policy

3549considerations," are not matters over which the agency has "substantive jurisdiction."

3560See Marluccio v. Dep't of Prof! Regulation, 622 So.2d 607, 609 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993);

3575Heifetz v. Dep't of Bus. RegUlation, 475 SO.2d 1277, 1281 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Fla.

3590Power & Light Co. v. Fla. Siting Bd., 693 SO.2d 1025, 1028 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997).

3606Evidentiary rulings are matters within the judge's sound "prerogative ... as the finder of

3620fact" and may not be reversed on agency review. See Marluccio, 622 SO.2d at 609.

3635RULINGS ON EXCEPTIONS

3638A party that files no exceptions to certain findings of fact "has thereby expressed

3652its agreement with, or at least waived any objection to, those findings of fact." Envtl.

3667Coalition of Fla., Inc. v. Broward Cty., 586 So.2d 1212, 1213 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); see

3683also Colonnade Medical Ctr., Inc. v. State of Fla., Agency for Health Care Admin., 847

3698SO.2d 540, 542 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). An agency head reviewing a recommended order

3712is free to modify or reject any erroneous conclusions of law over which the agency has

3728substantive jurisdiction, however, even when exceptions are not filed. See §

3739120.57(1)(1), Fla. Stat. (2012); Barfield v. Dep't of Health, 805 SO.2d 1008 (Fla. 1st DCA

37542001); Fla. Public Employee Council, 79 v. Daniels, 646 SO.2d 813,816 (Fla. 1st DCA

37691994).

3770Proprietary public interest under 18-21

3775The Department does not adopt in this Final Order, the jUdge's conclusions of

3788law in paragraphs 162 and 163 of the RO, where he uses the regulatory public interest

3804testfor Environmental Resource Permitting (lCERP") in section 373.414(1)(a), F.S., to

3815glean "the nature of the criteria that may go into a determination of [proprietary] public

3830interest." (RO mT 162, 163); see Fla. Public Employee Council, 79 v. Daniels, 646 SO.2d

3845813,816 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)(reflecting that an agency has the principal responsibility of

3859interpreting statutes and rules dealing with matters within their substantive jurisdiction

3870and expertise.). The Department has previously made clear that "[t]he ERP and

3882[proprietary authorization] are governed by separate statutory schemes with separate

3892rule criteria, which must be separately applied by the Uudge]." Retreat House, LLC v.

3906Damico and Dep't of Envtl. Prot., Case No. 10-10767 (Fla. DOAH October 14, 2011;

3920Fla. DEP January 12, 2012).

3925Contrary to the judge's conclusion in paragraph 162, "useful and instructive"

3936guidance regarding the proprietary public interest determination is found in the final

3948orders where the Board of Trustees interpret and apply chapter 18-21, F.A C. 6 For

3963example, in the case of Haskett v. Rosati and Dep't of Envtl. Prot., Case No. 13-0465

3979(Fla. DOAH July 31,2013; Fla. DEP October 29,2013), the final order 7 stated:

3994Chapter 18-21, F.AC., contains the general standards and

4002criteria governing the use of sovereignty submerged lands.

4010Rule 18-21.004, F.AC., establishes the management

4016policies, standards, and criteria which shall be used in

4025determining [when] to approve ... or deny all requests for

4035activities on sovereignty submerged lands. As the ALJ

4043noted, Rule 18-21.004(1)(a), F.AC., requires that activities

4050on sovereignty submerged lands not be contrary to the

4059public interest. [] These proprietary rules in chapter 18-21 ,

4068F.AC., authorize the private use of portions of sovereignty

4077lands under navigable waters when not contrary to the public

4087interest. See Hayes v. Bowman, 91 SO.2d 795 (Fla. 1957);

4097Yonge v. Askew, 293 SO.2d 395 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974); Krieter

4108v. Chiles, 595 So.2d 111 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992), rev. denied,

4119601 SO.2d 552 (Fla.1992), cert, denied, 506 U.S. 916,113

4129S.Ct. 325, 121 L.Ed.2d 244 (1992). When structures. such

4138as docks. meet the standards and criteria governing dock

4147construction prescribed in the proprietary rules. they are

4155presumed to be not contrary to the public interest. See, e.g.,

4166Bd. of Comm. of Jupiter inlet District v. Thibadeau, Case No.

417703-4099 (Fla. DOAH July 25,2005; Fla. DEP September 7,

41872005); Trump Plaza of the Palm Beaches v. Palm Beach

4197Cty., Case No. 08-4752 (Fla. DOAH September 24,2009;

4206Fla. DEP November 9,2009). The presumption can be

4215rebutted with evidence showing that on balance, the

4223demonstrable environmental, social, and economic costs

4229exceed the demonstrable environmental, social, and

4235economic benefits accruing to the public at large. See Fla.

4245Admin. Code. R. 18-21.003(51). F .AC. (definition for "Public

42546 Other Board of Trustees' rules also provide "useful and instructive" guidance, e.g.

4267chapters 18-2,18-18, and 18-20, F.A.C.

42737 The Secretary of the Department is delegated the authority from the Board of

4287Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund ("Board of Trustees") to review and

4302take final agency action on applications to use sovereignty submerged lands when the

4315application involves an activity for which the Department has permitting responsibility.

4326See Fla. Admin. Code R. 18-21.0051(2).

4332interest"). Such showings, however, are limited to the

4341standards and criteria prescribed in the proprietary rules.

4349(Emphasis added).

4351In this proceeding, the judge concluded that the three groins, the channel, the dock, and

4366the beach area between the SW Jetty and the Mid-bulkhead, met the standards for a

4381Letter of Consentfrom the Board of Trustees under rule 18-21.005(1), F.A.C. (RO mr

4394170-178, 181-183). As such, the Letter of Consent authorizing these structures is

4406presumed to be "not contrary to the public interest." Id.; see also Lineburger, et al. v.

4422Prospect Marathon Coquina and Dep't of Envtl. Prot., Case No. 07-3757 (Fla. DOAH

4435March 21,2008; Fla. DEP August 4,2008); Surfrider Foundation, Inc., et al. v. Town of

4451Palm Beach, Case No. 08-1511 (Fla. DOAH March 2, 2009; Fla. DEP July 15,

44652009)(reflecting that the public interest determination is ultimately a conclusion of law

4477within the substantive jurisdiction of the Board of Trustees).

4486Therefore, based on the foregoing reasons, the jUdge's conclusions of law in

4498paragraphs 162 and 163 are not adopted in this Final Order. See § 120.57(1)(1), Fla.

4513Stat. (2013).

4515Timeliness of petition for administrative hearing

4521DEP Exception Nos. 1, 2, and 3; Guerreros' Exception No.1

4531The DEP and the Guerreros (collectively "the Respondents") take exception to

4543the first, second, and third paragraphs of the "Preliminary Statement" and endnote 1.

4556where the judge found that the Spinrads timely filed their petition for administrative

4569hearing. (RO at pages 2-4 and 84). In the second paragraph of the "Preliminary

4583Statement," the jUdge adopted and incorporated by reference, the findings and

4594conclusions in the July 23, 2013, Order Denying Respondents' Motions to Dismiss and

4607Motion for Attorney's Fees and Costs. The Respondents argue that the judge's findings

4620and conclusions are not supported by competent substantial record evidence.

4630The Respondents do not dispute the underlying facts described by the judge in

4643the July 23, 2013, Order as this case's "complex and convoluted history." See July 23,

46582013, Order pages 2-7. Instead, the Respondents disagree with the judge's legal

4670conclusion that the facts do not constitute a waiver by the Spinrads of their right to a

4687hearing by filing an untimely petition. Rule 62-110.106(3)(b), F.A.C, provides that

"4698[f]ailure to file a petition within the applicable time period after receiving notice of

4712agency action shall constitute a waiver of any right to request an administrative

4725proceeding under Chapter 120, FloridaStatutes." The judge's factual findings in the

4736July 23, 2013, Order, establish that the "Spinrads' March 5, 2013, Petition that

4749challenged the DEP's February 20,2013, Notice ... was timely." See July 23,2013,

4763Order pages 8-9.

4766Therefore, based on the foregoing reasons, the Respondents' exceptions (DEP

4776Exception Nos. 1, 2, and 3; Guerreros' Exception No.1) are denied.

4787DEP Exception No.4

4790The DEP takes exception to paragraph 35 of the RO, where the judge found that

4805the September 19, 2008 "notice of Rights of Affected Parties did not apply to the

4820proprietary authorization." The DEP argues that the September 19, 2008, agency

4831action specifically included proprietary review and a legally sufficient notice of rights.

4843See The DEP's March 28, 2014, Motion for Limited Judicial Notice/Official Recognition,

4855item number 5- a/kla DEP Ex. 22. 8

4863Review of DEP Ex. 22 shows that the judge's finding regarding the attachment

4876titled "Rights of Affected Parties" is accurate. Further review of DEP Ex. 22, however,

4890shows that the attachment titled "Notice of Determination of Exemption" contains a

4902reference to the Department's determination that the activities described in the Notice

"4914qualif[y] for consent to use sovereign submerged lands." Thus, the judge's finding is

4927supported by competent substantial record evidence.

4933The Department is bound by the standards for reviewing recommended orders.

4944The reasonable inferences to be drawn from the record evidence and the resolution of

4958any conflicts in the evidence lies in the province of the judge. See, e.g., Rogers v. Dep't

4975of Health, 920 SO.2d 27,30 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005). In addition, if there is competent

4991substantial evidence to support a jUdge's findings of fact, it is irrelevant that there may

5006also be competent substantial evidence supporting a contrary finding. See, e.g., Arand

5018Construction Co. v. Dyer, 592 So.2d 276, 280 (Fla. 1 st DCA 1991); Conshor, Inc. v.

5034Roberts, 498 So.2d 622 (Fla. 1 st DCA 1986).

5043Therefore, based on the foregoing reasons, the DEP's Exception NO.4 is denied.

50558 DEP Ex. 22 was admitted into evidence. (RO at page 6; T. Vol. 1, pages 31-32).

5072The Motion was granted. (T. Vol. 9, page 943).

5081Standing

5082DEP Exception Nos. 14 and 15

5088The DEP takes exception to paragraphs 103 and 107 of the RD, where the judge

5103concluded that the Spinrads "have proven that they have the requisite standing to

5116initiate and maintain this proceeding." (RD mr 103, 107). The DEP argues that this

5130conclusion should be rejected "with respect to riparian setbacks," for two reasons. First,

5143the Spinrads did not offer any proof of their allegation in the "Amended Petition at 3" that

5160the Guerrero project fails to comply with riparian setbacks. Second, the judge found

5173that the Spinrads are not adjacent land owners to the Property.

5184In paragraph 102 of the RD, the judge found that the Spinrads "assert that they

5199have standing since they reside in close proximity to the [Guerreros], and that the

5213activities proposed will have detrimental effects on, among other things, water quality

5225and shoreline processes that will adversely affect their enjoyment of their property." (RD

52381J 102). 9 The judge did not find that failure to comply with riparian setbacks was one of

5256the Spinrads' standing assertions. The Department has no authority to make

5267independent or supplemental findings. See,e.g., North Port, Fla. v. Consol. Minerals,

5279645 SO.2d 485, 487 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994).

5287Therefore, based on the foregoing, the DEP's Exception Nos. 14 and 15, are

5300denied.

53019 The DEP did not take exception to paragraph 102. A party that files no exceptions

5317to certain findings of fact "has thereby expressed its agreement with, or at least waived

5332any objection to, those findings of fact." Envtl. Coalition of Fla., Inc. v. Broward Cty., 586

5348SO.2d 1212, 1213 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991).

5355Burden of proof

5358DEP Exception No. 6

5362The DEP takes exception to paragraph 113 of the RO, where the judge observed

5376that U[p]recedent is mixed as to whether an exemption is not a 'license, permit, or

5391conceptual approval. '" (RO 1J 113). The DEP argues that the two cases discussed by

5406the judge in paragraphs 114 and 115 involved different exemptions. The exemption in

5419Padron was a single family dock exemption under section 403.813(1)(b), F.S., which

5431can be used without the need to obtain a license, permit, or any kind of approval. See

5448Padron v. Ekblom and Dep't of Envtl. Prot., Case No. 12-3291 (Fla. DOAH Mar. 11,

54632013; Fla. DEP August 29,2013), affirmed - So.3d -,39 Fla. L. Weekly D1546 (Fla. 3d

5480DCA 2014). On the other hand, the exemption in Pirtle was a de minimus exemption

5495under section 373.406(6), F.S., which requires that requests to qualify for the exemption

5508be submitted in writing and that the activities shall not commence without a written

5522determination from the Department. See Pirtle v. Voss and Dep't of Envtl. Prot., Case

5536No. 13-0515 (Fla. DOAH Sept. 27, 2013; Fla. DEP Dec. 26, 2013).

5548Contrary to the DEP's argument that paragraph 113 should be rejected, the

5560judge's observation generally appears to be accurate. Therefore, the DEP's Exception

5571NO.6 is denied.

5574DEP Exception No.8

5577The DEP takes exception to paragraph 116 of the RO, where the judge rules the

5592following with regard to application of the modified burden of proof in section

5605120.569(2)(p), F.S.:

5607116. Having reviewed the cases cited herein, the

5615undersigned agrees that in cases in which an exemption is

5625subject to a case-by-case determination and written approval

5633from the relevant regulatory authority, as is the case for

5643exemptions under section 373.406(6), the Pirtle case

5650controls. However, since this case was commenced while

5658the Padron Final Order was the only applicable authority,

5667and since the parties were governed by and relied upon the

5678procedural rulings entered in reliance on the Padron Final

5687Order, the Respondents are found to have the burden of

5697proof with regard to the exemptions, and thus bear the

5707burden of demonstrating, by a preponderance of the

5715evidence, that the qualifying conditions for the exemptions

5723have been met.

5726The judge's ruling gives the Pirtle case prospective effect, based on the facts and

5740circumstances of this proceeding. See, e.g., RO "Preliminary Statement" at pages 4-5;

5752RO 1m 114-116). The DEP argues that the jUdge's ruling should be rejected because

5766under the Pirtle case the burden of proof regarding the de minimus exemption in section

5781373.406(6), F.S., is subject to section 120.565(2)(c), F.S., which has been in effect

5794since 2011. See § 10, ch. 2011-225, Laws of Fla.

5804As the judge found in paragraph 115, however, the Department's interpretation of

5816the "license" in section 120.569(2)(p), F.S., to include the "written determination" under

5828section 373.406(6), F.S., was first announced in the December 2013 Pirtle final order.

5841The judge also stated in paragraph 114 that he relied on the Padron final order, which

5857was entered before the final hearing, in the "initial ruling regarding the burden of proof

5872and order of presentation in this case." (RO 11114 and "Preliminary Statement" pages 4-

58865). The judge's ruling is supported by case law, which holds that where an agency's

5901decision "might constitute a change of official position in a matter of [statutory]

5914interpretation ... [s]uch change should be given only prospective effect, never

5925retroactive." Communications Wor1

5928Comm'n, 174 SO.2d 751,755-756 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965).

5937Therefore, based on the foregoing reasons, the DEP's Exception NO.8 is denied.

5949Attorney's fees - sections 120.569(2)(e) and 120.595(1), F.s.

5957Guerreros' Exception No. 2

5961The Guerreros take exception to paragraph 191 of the RO, where the judge

5974found that "[b]ased upon a full review and consideration of the record in this proceeding,

5989and applying an objective standard based on reasonable inquiry regarding pertinent

6000facts and applicable law ... the facts of this case, and theapplication of the law as

6016asserted by [the Spinrads] were not made for an improper purpose under section

6029120.569(2)(e), [F.S.]." (RO 11 191). The Guerreros argue that the judge's finding is not

6043supported by competent substantial record evidence or application of the law.

6054It is well established that under section 120.569(2)(e), F.S., DOAH has

6065jurisdiction to enter the final order. See 'Order Denying Sanctions under Section

6077120.569(2)(e)," Rustic Hills Phase 11/ Property Owners Assoc. v. Olson, Case No. 00­

60904792 (Fla. DOAH July 31,2001); and "Order on Sanctions," Octavio Blanco v. NNP­

6104Bexley, Ltd., Case No. 08-1972 (Fla. DOAH November 17,2008). Thus, the judge's RO

6118in this case should have also "reserved jurisdiction to determine the request [for

6131sanctions] and enter the final order under Section 120.569(2)(e)." Id.

6141Therefore, since the determination of sanctions under section 120.569(2)(e),

6150F.S., is not a matter within the Department's substantive jurisdiction, the Guerreros'

6162Exception No.2 is denied.

6166Guerreros' Exception No.3

6169The Guerreros take exception to paragraph 193 of the RO, where the judge

6182found that "[b]ased upon a full review and consideration of the record in this proceeding,

6197and applying an objective standard based on reasonable inquiry regarding pertinent

6208facts and applicable law ... the facts of this case, and the application of the law as

6225asserted by [the Spinrads] were not made for an improper purpose under section

6238120.595(1), [F.S.]." (RO 1f 193). The Guerreros argue that the judge's finding is not

6252supported by competent substantial record evidence or application of the law.

6263The case law of Florida construing section 120.595, F.S., holds that the question

6276of whether a party intended to participate in an administrative proceeding for an

6289improper purpose under this statute is a factual matter within the prerogative of the

6303judge, rather than the Department. See Burke v. Harbor Estates Assoc., 591 SO.2d

63161034, 1037 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). Thus, the attorney's fee issue raised by the Guerreros

6331in this exception is not a matter within this environmental agency's regulatory expertise.

6344See Tuten v. Dep't of Envtl. Prot., Case No. 06-0186 (Fla. DOAH August 11, 2006; Fla.

6360DEP October 2006); G.E.L. Corp. v. Dep't of Envtl. Prot., 875 So.2d 1257, 1263 (Fla.

63755th DCA 2004) (concluding that DEP did not have substantive jurisdiction over the issue

6389of attorney's fees under section 120.595).

6395Therefore, based on the foregoing reasons, the Guerreros' Exception NO.3 is

6406denied.

6407DEP Exception No. 13; Guerreros' Exception No.8

6414The Respondents take exception to paragraph 204, where the judge denies the

6426Respondents' motions for relief under sections 120.569(2)(e) and 120.595, F.S. (RO 11

6438204). For the reasons set forth in the rulings on the Guerreros' Exception Nos. 2 and 3

6455above, the Respondents' exceptions (DEP Exception No. 13; Guerreros' Exception No.

64668) are denied.

6469Attorney's fees - section 57. 105, F. S.

6477DEP Exception Nos. 9, 10, 11, and 12; Guerreros' Exception Nos. 4, 5, 6, and 7

6493The Respondents take exception to paragraphs 195, 196, 197, and 202 of the

6506RO, where the judge made findings regarding their requests for attorney's fees under

6519section 57.105(5), F.S. It is clear from the statute and the judge's reservation of

6533jurisdiction in paragraph 205, however, that the Respondents' requests under section

654457.105(5), F.S., are not within the Department's substantive jurisdiction. See, e.g.,

"6555Order on Sanctions," Octavio Blanco v. NNP-Bexley, Ltd., Case No. 08-1972 (Fla.

6567DOAH November 17,2008).

6571Therefore, the Respondents' exceptions (DEP Exception Nos. 9, 10, 11, and 12;

6583Guerreros' Exception Nos. 4, 5, 6, and 7) are denied.

6593Technical Exceptions

6595DEP Exception No.5

6598The DEP takes exception to paragraph 47, where the judge states that "[f]or

6611purposes of continuity, the structures will be identified by the names given them in the

6626Permit." The DEP argues that since the judge noted in paragraphs 46 and 47 that the

6642SW Jetty, NE Jetty, and Mid-bulkhead are all "groins" rather than "jetties," the Final

6656Order should identify the structures by the term "groin."

6665The DEP does not cite any authority that prohibits the judge's adoption of the

6679naming convention "[f]or the purposes of continuity" as stated in paragraph 47.

6691Therefore, the DEP's Exception NO.5 is denied. See § 120.57(1)(k), Fla. Stat. (2013).

6704DEP Exception No. 7

6708The DEP takes exception to paragraph 114 of the RO, on the basis that the

6723Padron case citation contains a minor typographical error. The DOAH case number is

6736cited as "12-3280," however, the correct DOAH case number is "12-3291." See Padron

6749v. Ekblom and Dep'tofEnvtl. Prot., Case No. 12-3291 (Fla. DOAH Mar. 11,2013; Fla.

6763DEP August 29,2013), affirmed -- SO.3d -, 39 Fla. L. Weekly 01546 (Fla. 3d DCA

67792014).

6780Therefore, based on the foregoing, the DEP's Exception No.7 is granted.

6791CONCLUSION

6792The jUdge reserved jurisdiction to rule, by separate order after issuance of this

6805Final Order, on the Respondents' requests for attorney's fees under section 57.105,

6817F.S. (RO 11205). As outlined in this Final Order's rulings in the above exceptions, the

6832judge should also have reserved jurisdiction to rule by separate order, on the

6845Respondent's requests for sanctions under section 120.569(2)(e), F.S.

6853Having reviewed the matters of record and being otherwise duly advised,

6864It is therefore ORDERED that:

6869A. The Recommended Order (Exhibit A) is adopted in its entirety, except as it

6883may have been modified by the rulings in this Final Order, and is

6896incorporated by reference herein.

6900B. The February 20,2013, Authorization, issued to the Guerreros in DEP File

6913No. 44-0290794-001, as conditioned by the Guerreros' December 12,

69222013, Proposed Changes to the Pending Agency Action, is APPROVED.

6932JUDICIAL REVIEW

6934Any party to this proceeding has the right to seek judicial review of the Final

6949Order pursuant to Section 120.68, Florida Statutes, by filing a Notice of Appeal pursuant

6963to Rules 9.110 and 9.190, Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, with the clerk of the

6978Department in the Office of General Counsel, 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, M.S. 35,

6990Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000; and by filing a copy of the Notice of Appeal

7003accompanied by the applicable filing fees with the appropriate District Court of Appeal.

7016The Notice of Appeal must be filed within 30 days from the date this Final Order is filed

7034with the clerk of the Department.

7040DONE AND ORDERED this of September, 2014, in Tallahassee,

7049Florida.

7050STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT

7054OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

7057Secretary

7058Marjory Stoneman Douglas Building

70623900 Commonwealth Boulevard

7065Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000

7068FILED ON THIS DATE PURSUANT TO § 120.52,

7076FLORIDA STATUTES, WITH THE DESIGNATED

7081DEPARTMENT CLERK. RECEIPT OF WHICH IS

7087HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGED.

7089CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

7092CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing Final Order was sent bye-mail to:

7105Patricia M. Silver, Esquire Luna E. Phillips, Esquire

7113John W. Annesser, Esquire Deborah K. Tyson, Esquire

7121Silver Law Group Gunster, Yoakley and Stewart, P.A.

7129Post Office Box 710 450 East Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1400

7140Islamorada, FL 33036 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301

7147psilver@silverlawgroup.com Iphillips@gunster.com

7149linda@silverlawgroup.com dtyson@gunster.com

7151service@silverlawgroup.com

7152Brynna Ross, Esquire John J. Fumero, Esquire

7159Department of Environmental Protection Nason, Yeager, Gerson, White & Lioce

71693900 Commonwealth Blvd., MS 35 7700 Congress Ave., Suite 2201

7179Tallahassee, FL 32399-3000 Boca Raton, FL 33487

7186brynna.ross@dep.state.fl.us jfumero@nasonyeager.com

7188Fernando S. Aran, Esquire

7192Aran Correa Guarch & Shapiro, P.A.

7198255 University Drive

7201Coral Gables, FL 33134

7205faran@acg-Iaw.com

7206cherrera@acg-Iaw.com

7207by electronic filing to:

7211Division of Administrative Hearings

7215The DeSoto Building

72181230 Apalachee Parkway

7221Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550

7224t!L

7225this 8" day of September, 2014.

7231STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT

7235PROTECTION

723611 ......... L-YL-

7239FRANCINE M. FFOLKES

7242Administrative Law Counsel

72453900 Commonwealth Blvd., M.S. 35

7250Tallahassee, FL 32399-3000

7253Telephone 850/245-2242

Select the PDF icon to view the document.
PDF
Date
Proceedings
PDF:
Date: 07/22/2015
Proceedings: Notice filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/13/2015
Proceedings: Notice of Receipt of Motions for Sanctions.
PDF:
Date: 07/13/2015
Proceedings: Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to Fla. Stat. Sect. 57.105 (against Christina Guerrero) filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/13/2015
Proceedings: Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to Fla. Stat. Sect. 57.105 (against William Guerrero) filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/09/2015
Proceedings: Notice of Substitution of Counsel (Jeffrey Brown) filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/09/2015
Proceedings: Notice of Receipt of Motion for Attorney`s Fees and Costs.
PDF:
Date: 06/05/2015
Proceedings: Respondent's Motion for Attorney's Fees and Costs Pursuant to Florida Statue Section 57.105 filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/05/2015
Proceedings: Respondent's Motion for Attorney's Fees and Costs Pursuant to Florida Statue Section 57.105 filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/24/2014
Proceedings: Silver Law Group's Motion to Determine Entitlement to Attorneys Fees and Costs Against Department filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/24/2014
Proceedings: Silver Law Group's Motion to Determine Entitlement to Attorneys Fees and Costs filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/07/2014
Proceedings: Request for Entry of Order Denying Respondent Department of Environmental Protection's Motion for Attorney's Fees filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/07/2014
Proceedings: Notice of Appearance (Patricia Silver) filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/15/2014
Proceedings: Petitioners and Silver Law Group Response in Opposition to Respondents' Request for Evidentiary Hearing, and Entry of Final Order, Pursuant to its Amended Motion for Sanctions, Attorneys' Fees, Costs, and Damages filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/08/2014
Proceedings: Respondents', William Guerrero and Christina Guerrero, Request for Evidentiary Hearing, and Entry of a Final Order, Pursuant to its Amended Motion for Sanctions, Attorneys' Fees, Costs, and Damages, Against Petitioners, Bernard Spinrad and Marien Spinrad, Pursuant to Sections 120.595(1), 120.569(2)(e), and 57.105(5), Florida Statutes filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/03/2014
Proceedings: Notice of Appeal filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/08/2014
Proceedings: Agency Final Order
PDF:
Date: 09/08/2014
Proceedings: Revised Petitioners Spinrads' Response to Exceptions to Recommended Order Filed by Respondents, the Florida and Department of Environmental Protection and Williams and Christina Guerrero filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/08/2014
Proceedings: Petitioners Spinrads' Response to Exceptions to Recommended Order Filed by Respondents, the Florida Dpeartment of Environmental Protection and William and Christina Guerrero filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/08/2014
Proceedings: Respondents, Guerreros'Exceptions to Recommended Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/08/2014
Proceedings: Florida Department of Environmental Protection's Exceptions to Recommended Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/08/2014
Proceedings: (Agency) Consolidated Final Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/20/2014
Proceedings: Respondents, Guerreros', Response in Objection to Petitioners, Spinrads', Stipulation for Substitution of Counsel filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/20/2014
Proceedings: Florida Department of Environmental Protection's Response to Petitioners' Stipulation for Substituition of Counsel filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/14/2014
Proceedings: Stipulation for Substitution of Counsel (Fernando S. Aran) filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/07/2014
Proceedings: Notice of Appearance (Fernando Aran) filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/25/2014
Proceedings: Recommended Order
PDF:
Date: 07/25/2014
Proceedings: Recommended Order (hearing held November 18-21, 2013, and March 31-April 4, 2014). CASE CLOSED.
PDF:
Date: 07/25/2014
Proceedings: Recommended Order cover letter identifying the hearing record referred to the Agency.
PDF:
Date: 06/19/2014
Proceedings: Petitioners' Response in Opposition to Respondent DEP's Motion for Attorney's Fees Pursuant to 57.105, Fla. Stat filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/18/2014
Proceedings: Letter to Judge Early from Luna Phillips regarding a CD containing the SLERP Manual filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/17/2014
Proceedings: (Respondent's) Motion for Attorney's Fees Pursuant to Section 57.105, Florida Statutes Against Petitioners, William and Christina Guerrero filed. (DOAH CASE NO. 14-5291F ESTABLISHED)
PDF:
Date: 05/28/2014
Proceedings: Order Denying Amended Motion to Strike Petitioners` Proposed Recommended Final Order.
PDF:
Date: 05/28/2014
Proceedings: Petitioner's Response in Opposition to Respondent's Guerrero's Motion to Strike Petitioner's Proposed Recommended Final Order or, Alternatively, Motion to Accept Spinrads' Proposed Recommended Order as Timely Filed or to Accept Late Filing of the Same filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/22/2014
Proceedings: Spinrads' Proposed Recommended Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/21/2014
Proceedings: Respondents, Guerreros', Amended Motion to Strike Petitioners' Proposed Recommended Final Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/21/2014
Proceedings: Respondents, Guerreros', Motion to Strike Petitioners' Proposed Recommended Final Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/20/2014
Proceedings: Order Denying Joint Motion to Strike.
PDF:
Date: 05/20/2014
Proceedings: Petitioners' Proposed Recommended Final Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/19/2014
Proceedings: Respondents, Guerreros', Proposed Recommended Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/19/2014
Proceedings: Department of Environmental Protection's Proposed Recommended Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/16/2014
Proceedings: (Petitioner's) Response in Opposition to Respondents' Joint Motion to Strike Notice of Filing Deposition of Philip A. Frank, Ph.D filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/09/2014
Proceedings: Respondents' Joint Motion to Strike Petitioners' Notice of Filing Deposition of Philip A. Frank, Ph.D filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/05/2014
Proceedings: Notice of Filing of the Deposition of Philip A. Frank, Ph.D filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/05/2014
Proceedings: Petitioners' Response in Opposition to Respondent DEP's Motion for Attorney's Fees, Costs and Sanctions filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/02/2014
Proceedings: Respondents, Guerreros', Motion for Sanctions, Attorney's Fees, Costs, and Damages Against Petitioners, Spinrad, Pursuant to Section 57.105(5), Florida Statutes filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/29/2014
Proceedings: Department of Environmental Protection's Motion for Attorney's Fees, Costs, and Sanctions filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/29/2014
Proceedings: Notice of Unavailability for Respondent Department of Environmental Protection filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/28/2014
Proceedings: Order on Motion for Clarification on Order Regarding October 17, 2013, Motion for Judicial Notice/Official Recognition.
PDF:
Date: 04/22/2014
Proceedings: Petitioners' Response in Opposition to Respondents Guerrero's Amended Motion for Sanctions, Attorneys' Fees and Costs and Request to Retain Jurisdiction filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/21/2014
Proceedings: BY ORDER OF THE COURT: Upon consideration of the Motion to stay and the responses, the motion is denied. The temporary stay issued on April 11, 2014, is vacated.
PDF:
Date: 04/18/2014
Proceedings: Notice of Filing Transcript.
Date: 04/18/2014
Proceedings: Transcript Volumes I-18 (not available for viewing) filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/17/2014
Proceedings: Respondents, Guerreros', Notice of Filing the Final Hearing Transcripts filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/16/2014
Proceedings: Emergency Motion to Stay filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/16/2014
Proceedings: Petition for Writ of Prohibition filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/11/2014
Proceedings: Respondents, Guerreros', Notice Regarding Ordering of the Final Hearing Transcript filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/10/2014
Proceedings: (Respondent's) Motion for Clarification on Order Regarding October 17, 2013, Motion for Judicial Notice/Official Recognition filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/10/2014
Proceedings: Respondents, Guerreros', Amended Motion for Sanctions, Attorneys' Fees, and Costs and Request to Retain Jurisdiction to Determine Amount of Sanctions, Attorneys' Fees and Costs filed. (DOAH CASE NO. 14-4860F ESTABLISHED)
PDF:
Date: 04/08/2014
Proceedings: Transcripts of Telephonic Hearings with Administrative Law Judge filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/08/2014
Proceedings: Respondents, Guerreros', Notice of Filing Transcripts of Telephonic Hearings with Administrative Law Judge filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/08/2014
Proceedings: Notice of Return of Exhibits Not Offered in Evidence.
PDF:
Date: 04/07/2014
Proceedings: Order Denying Motion to Disqualify Presiding Administrative Law Judge.
PDF:
Date: 04/07/2014
Proceedings: Order Denying Petitioners' Ore Tenus Motion to Stay Proceeding.
PDF:
Date: 04/07/2014
Proceedings: Order Denying Emergency Motion to Quash Subpoena and Protective Order.
PDF:
Date: 04/07/2014
Proceedings: Order Denying Petitioners` Ore Tenus Motion to Disqualify Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart, P.A. .
PDF:
Date: 04/07/2014
Proceedings: Order Denying Motion to Disqualify the Silver Law Group, P.A..
PDF:
Date: 04/04/2014
Proceedings: (Petitioners') Motion to Disqualify filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/03/2014
Proceedings: Emergency Motion to Quash Subpoena and Protective Order (Richard Malloy) filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/03/2014
Proceedings: Notice of Filing Affidavit of Angelique Gabriele Jones filed.
Date: 03/31/2014
Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Hearing Held.
PDF:
Date: 03/31/2014
Proceedings: Motion to Disqualify the Silver Law Group, P.A., or, in the Alternative, Motion to Stay the Proceedings to Allow Additional Limited Discovery Based on New Evidence filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/31/2014
Proceedings: Notice of Appearance (of John Fumero) filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/28/2014
Proceedings: Respondents Guerreros', Motion Regarding Objection to Exhibit RG-402 filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/28/2014
Proceedings: Motion for Limited Judicial Notice/Official Recognition filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/28/2014
Proceedings: Order on Motion for Judicial Notice/Official Recognition. .
PDF:
Date: 02/25/2014
Proceedings: Petitioners' Response to Motion for Judicial Notice filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/19/2014
Proceedings: (Respondent's) Motion for Judicial Notice/Official Recognition filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/07/2014
Proceedings: Notice of Filing of Notice of Unavailability of Counsel for Petitioners filed.
PDF:
Date: 01/24/2014
Proceedings: Order Recommencing Hearing by Video Teleconference (hearing set for March 31 through April 4, 2014; 9:00 a.m.; Marathon, FL).
PDF:
Date: 01/09/2014
Proceedings: BY ORDER OF THE COURT: Review of the petition for writ of certiorari and constitutional stay writ, it is ordered that said petition is hereby denied, motion for attorney fees filed by Respondents is denied.
PDF:
Date: 01/07/2014
Proceedings: Order Canceling Hearing (parties to advise status by January 17, 2014).
Date: 01/06/2014
Proceedings: Petitioner's Proposed Exhibits filed (exhibits not available for viewing).
PDF:
Date: 12/23/2013
Proceedings: Respondents, William Guerrero and Christina Bank Guerrero's Index to Appendix filed with the Third District Court of Appeal.
PDF:
Date: 12/23/2013
Proceedings: Respondents William Guerrero and Christina Bang Guerrero's Petition for Writ of Certiorari and Constitutional Stay of Writ filed with the Third District Court of Appeal.
PDF:
Date: 12/16/2013
Proceedings: Acknowledgment of New Case, Third DCA Case No. 3D13-3161 filed.
PDF:
Date: 12/12/2013
Proceedings: Respondents Guerreros', Notice of Filing Proposed Changes to the Pending Agency Action filed.
PDF:
Date: 12/03/2013
Proceedings: Amended Order Denying Motion to Disqualify or for Further Discovery.
PDF:
Date: 12/02/2013
Proceedings: Order Denying Motion to Disqualify.
PDF:
Date: 11/27/2013
Proceedings: Respondents, Guerreros', Motion for Reconsideration of Ore Tenus Motion to Disqualify the Silver Law Group, P.A. or, in the Alternative, Motion for Further Discovery and Evidentiary Hearing Related to Collaboration and Communications with Christopher T. Byrd, Esq. filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/22/2013
Proceedings: Notice of Hearing by Video Teleconference (hearing set for January 6 through 10, 2014; 9:30 a.m.; Marathon and Tallahassee, FL).
Date: 11/18/2013
Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Hearing Partially Held; continued to January 6, 2014; Marathon, FL.
Date: 11/18/2013
Proceedings: Petitioner's (Proposed) Exhibits numbered 175, 176, 177, and 178, filed (exhibits not available for viewing).
Date: 11/18/2013
Proceedings: Respondent's Proposed Exhibits filed (exhibits not available for viewing).
PDF:
Date: 11/18/2013
Proceedings: Motion to Quash Subpoena and Request for Protective Order (regarding James Richmond) filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/18/2013
Proceedings: Notice of Filing of Petitioners' Proposed Joint Pretrial Statement filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/18/2013
Proceedings: Notice of Filing Supplement to Petitioners' Witness List filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/18/2013
Proceedings: Notice of Filing of Supplemental Petioners' Exhibit 178 filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/18/2013
Proceedings: Notice of Filing Excerpts of Petitioners' Exhibit 175 filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/18/2013
Proceedings: Notice of Filing Supplemental Petitioners' Exhibit 176 and 177 filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/18/2013
Proceedings: Respondents, Guerreros' Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/18/2013
Proceedings: Respondents Guerreros' Notice of Re-filing Exhibit RG-402 filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/15/2013
Proceedings: Department's Pre-hearing Statement filed.
Date: 11/15/2013
Proceedings: Respondent's Proposed Exhibits filed (exhibits not available for viewing).
PDF:
Date: 11/14/2013
Proceedings: Department's (Proposed) Exhibit List filed.
Date: 11/14/2013
Proceedings: Respondent's Proposed Exhibits filed (exhibits not available for viewing).
PDF:
Date: 11/14/2013
Proceedings: Department's Witness List filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/14/2013
Proceedings: Respondents Guerreros' Notice of Filing Witness List filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/14/2013
Proceedings: Respondents Guerreros' Notice of Filing of Amended (Proposed) Final Hearing Exhibits filed.
Date: 11/14/2013
Proceedings: Petitioner's Proposed Exhibits filed (exhibits not available for viewing).
PDF:
Date: 11/13/2013
Proceedings: Notice of Filing of Petitioners' (Proposed) Final Hearing Exhibit List filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/13/2013
Proceedings: Notice of Filing of Petitioners' Witness List filed.
Date: 11/12/2013
Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Pre-Hearing Conference Held.
PDF:
Date: 11/12/2013
Proceedings: Order on Motions for Protective Orders and Order Modifying Prehearing Instructions.
Date: 11/12/2013
Proceedings: Respondent's Guerreros' Notice of Filing Final Hearing Exhibits(exhibits not available for viewing).
PDF:
Date: 11/12/2013
Proceedings: Respondents Guerreros' Notice of Filing (Proposed) Final Hearing Exhibits filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/08/2013
Proceedings: Motion in Limine filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/06/2013
Proceedings: Petitioners' Response in Opposition to Department's Motions to Quash for Protective Order as to Blair and Iglehart filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/05/2013
Proceedings: Re-notice of Taking Videotape Deposition by Video Conference (of C. Castille) filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/31/2013
Proceedings: Motion for Protective Order (Lucy Blair) filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/31/2013
Proceedings: Motion to Quash and for Protective Order (Jon Iglehart) filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/31/2013
Proceedings: Order Denying Motion to Quash Subpoena and for Protective Order (Regarding Jeff Littlejohn) .
PDF:
Date: 10/31/2013
Proceedings: Order on Motion for Reconsideration.
Date: 10/30/2013
Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Motion Hearing Held.
PDF:
Date: 10/28/2013
Proceedings: Respondents, Guerreros' Response to Motion for Reconsideration of Second Order on Outstanding Motions as it Relates to the Emergency Motion to Quash Subpoena and Motion for Protective Order with Regard to Deposition of Colleen Castille and Motion to Strike filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/24/2013
Proceedings: Motion for Reconsideration of Second Order on Outstanding Motions as it Relates to the Emergency Motion to Quash Subpoena and Motion for Protective Order with Regard to Deposition of Colleen Castille filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/24/2013
Proceedings: Department's Response to Petitioners' Emergency Motion for Continuance filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/22/2013
Proceedings: Respondents' Notice of Deposition Duces Tecum of Petitioner, Marien Spinrad filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/22/2013
Proceedings: Respondents' Notice of Deposition Duces Tecum of Petitioner, Bernard Spinrad filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/22/2013
Proceedings: Order Granting Continuance and Re-scheduling Hearing by Video Teleconference (hearing set for November 18 through 21, 2013; 9:30 a.m.; Marathon, FL).
PDF:
Date: 10/22/2013
Proceedings: Fifth Order on Outstanding Motions.
PDF:
Date: 10/18/2013
Proceedings: Letter to Judge Early from F. Brown regarding department's privilege log for in camera review filed.
Date: 10/18/2013
Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Motion Hearing Held.
PDF:
Date: 10/18/2013
Proceedings: Department's Motion to Quash Subpoena and for Protective Order (Regarding Jeff Littlejohn) filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/18/2013
Proceedings: Notice of Correction of Scrivener's Error filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/18/2013
Proceedings: Fourth Order on Outstanding Motions.
PDF:
Date: 10/18/2013
Proceedings: Emergency Motion for Continuance filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/18/2013
Proceedings: Petitioners' Emergency Motion to Exclude Gerald Ward as a Witness During the Final Hearing filed.
Date: 10/17/2013
Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Motion Hearing Held.
PDF:
Date: 10/17/2013
Proceedings: Motion for Judicial Notice/Official Recognition filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/17/2013
Proceedings: DEP's Response to Petitioners' Motion to Limit Testimony of Ralph Clark, to Require Production of Documents Referenced in the Privilege Log Served During the Deposition of Ralph Clark on October 16, 2013, Require the Production of All Tests Taken and/or in the Alternative, Order the Continuation of the Deposition of Ralph Clark filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/17/2013
Proceedings: Notice of Filing of Notice of Unavailability of Counsel for Petitioners filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/17/2013
Proceedings: Petitioners' Motion to Limit Testimony of Ralph Clark, to Require Production of Documents Referenced in the "Privilege Log" Served During the Deposition of Ralph Clark on October 16, 2013, Require the Production of all Tests Taken and/or in the Alternative, Order the Continuation of the Deposition of Ralph Clark filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/17/2013
Proceedings: Petitioners' Response in Opposition to Motion to Quash Subpoena and Request for Protective Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/17/2013
Proceedings: Notice of Filing Subpoena filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/17/2013
Proceedings: Motion in Limine filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/16/2013
Proceedings: Motion to Quash Subpoena and Request for Protective Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/16/2013
Proceedings: Motion for Judicial Notice/Official Recognition filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/16/2013
Proceedings: Department's Witness List filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/16/2013
Proceedings: Petitioners' Response in Opposition to Motion to Quash Subpoena and Request for Protective Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/15/2013
Proceedings: Notice of Filing Subpoena filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/15/2013
Proceedings: Motion to Quash Subpoena and Request for Protective Order (Gus Rios) filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/11/2013
Proceedings: Notice of Continuation of Taking Videotape Deposition Duces Tecum by Video Conference (of R. Clark) filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/10/2013
Proceedings: Notice of Cancellation of Continuation of Taking Videotape Deposition by Video Conference (of R. Malloy) filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/09/2013
Proceedings: Notice of Filing Verified Return of Non-service filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/09/2013
Proceedings: Notice of Continuation of Taking Videotape Deposition Duces Tecum(of G. Ward) filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/09/2013
Proceedings: Order Regarding Filing of the Pre-hearing Stipulation and Exhibits.
PDF:
Date: 10/09/2013
Proceedings: Respondents Guerreros' Re-notice of Continuation of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum of Dr. Philip A. Frank filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/09/2013
Proceedings: Notice of Continuation of Taking Videotape Deposition by Video Conference (of R. Malloy) filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/08/2013
Proceedings: Third Order on Outstanding Motions.
PDF:
Date: 10/08/2013
Proceedings: Re-notice of Continuation of Taking Videotape Deposition by Video Conference (of J. Iglehart) filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/08/2013
Proceedings: Re-notice of Continuation of Taking Videotape Deposition by Video Conference (of L. Blair) filed.
Date: 10/08/2013
Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Motion Hearing Held.
Date: 10/07/2013
Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Motion Hearing Held.
Date: 10/04/2013
Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Status Conference Held.
PDF:
Date: 10/04/2013
Proceedings: Respondents Guerreros' Motion to Compel Continued Deposition of Petitioners' Expert Dr. Philip Frank, or in the Alternative, Motion in Limine to Exclude Testimony filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/03/2013
Proceedings: Notice of Unavailability for Counsel for Respondents, William Guerrero and Christina Guerrero filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/03/2013
Proceedings: Respondents Guerreros' Notice of Continuation of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum of Dr. Philip A. Frank by Video Conference filed.
Date: 10/02/2013
Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Motion Hearing Held.
PDF:
Date: 10/02/2013
Proceedings: Second Order on Outstanding Motions.
PDF:
Date: 10/02/2013
Proceedings: Re-notice of Continuation of Taking Videotape Deposition by Video Conference (of J. Iglehart) filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/02/2013
Proceedings: Re-notice of Continuation of Taking Videotape Deposition Duces Tecum by Video Conference (W. Dennis) filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/02/2013
Proceedings: Notice of Cancellation of Continuation of Taking Videotape Deposition by Video Conference (of L. Blair) filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/02/2013
Proceedings: Notice of Cancellation of Taking Videotape Deposition Duces Tecum by Video Conference (of C. Castille) filed.
Date: 10/01/2013
Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Motion Hearing Held.
PDF:
Date: 10/01/2013
Proceedings: Petitioner's Documents for in Camera Review filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/01/2013
Proceedings: Notice of Ex-parte Communication.
PDF:
Date: 10/01/2013
Proceedings: Response in Opposition to Department's Request for Protective Order (regarding Jeff Littlejohn) filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/01/2013
Proceedings: Response in Opposition to Respondents Guerrero's Motion in Limine to Exclude Testimony Regarding Petitioners' Expert, Dr. Philip Frank filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/30/2013
Proceedings: Response in Opposition to Respondents Guerrero's Emergency Motion to Quash Subpoena and Motion for Protective Order with Regard to Deposition of Colleen Castilleon filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/30/2013
Proceedings: Response in Opposition to Respondents Guerrero's Emergency Motion for Protective Order with Regard to the Continuation of Dr. Michael Dennis' Deposition filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/30/2013
Proceedings: Order on Motions for Protective Orders.
PDF:
Date: 09/30/2013
Proceedings: Respondents Guerreros' Notice of Filing filed.
Date: 09/27/2013
Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Motion Hearing Held.
PDF:
Date: 09/27/2013
Proceedings: Respondents Guerreros, Emergency Motion for Protective Order with Regard to the Continuation of Dr. Michael Dennis' Deposition filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/27/2013
Proceedings: Petitioners' Motion to Compel Production of Dr. Michael Dennis for the Continuation of His Deposition, or in the Alternative, Motion in Limine to Exclude the Testimony of Dr. Dennis at the Final Hearing filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/27/2013
Proceedings: Respondents Guerreros, Motion in Limine to Exclude Testimony Regarding Petitioners' Expert, Dr. Philip Frank filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/27/2013
Proceedings: Respondents Guerreros, Emergency Motion to Quash Subpoena and Motion for Protective Order with Regard to Deposition of Colleen Castille filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/27/2013
Proceedings: Notice of Continuation of Taking Videotape Deposition Duces Tecum by Video Conference (of W. Dennis) filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/27/2013
Proceedings: Department's Motion to Strike, Motion to Quash, and Request for Protective Order (regarding Jon Iglehart) filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/27/2013
Proceedings: Department's Motion to Strike, Motion to Quash, and Motion for Protective Order (regarding Lucy Blair) filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/26/2013
Proceedings: Department's Request for Protective Order (regarding Jeff Littlejohn) filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/26/2013
Proceedings: Emergency Second Motion to Strike/Quash Notice of Deposition (and Subpoena, if issued) of Department Attorney (C. Byrd) and Motion for Protective Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/25/2013
Proceedings: Notice of Continuation of Taking Videotape Deposition by Video Conference (of L. Blair) filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/25/2013
Proceedings: Notice of Continuation of Taking Videotape Deposition by Video Conference (of J. Iglehart) filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/25/2013
Proceedings: Re-notice of Taking Videotape Deposition by Video Conference (of C. Byrd) filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/25/2013
Proceedings: Notice of Objection filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/25/2013
Proceedings: Order Granting Emergency Motion for Protective Order.
PDF:
Date: 09/25/2013
Proceedings: Respondents Guerreros, Emergency Motion for Protective Order with Respect to Deposition of William Guerrero filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/24/2013
Proceedings: Re-notice of Taking Videotape Deposition by Video Conference (of W. Guerrero) filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/24/2013
Proceedings: Respondents Guerreros, Notice of Compliance with Court's Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/24/2013
Proceedings: Order Denying Motion to Exclude Testimony.
PDF:
Date: 09/24/2013
Proceedings: Response to September 20, 2013 Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/23/2013
Proceedings: Petitioners' Motion to Exclude from Trial Certain Testimony Related to Florida Statute 373.406(6) by DEP Personnel filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/23/2013
Proceedings: Notice of Compliance with Court's Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/20/2013
Proceedings: Re-notice of Taking Videotape Deposition by Video Conference (of J. Littlejohn) filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/20/2013
Proceedings: Re-notice of Taking Videotape Deposition by Video Conference (of R. Malloy) filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/20/2013
Proceedings: Re-notice of Taking Videotape Deposition by Video Conference (of T. Rach) filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/20/2013
Proceedings: Order on Outstanding Motions and Order Establishing Discovery Parameters.
Date: 09/20/2013
Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Pre-Hearing Conference Held.
PDF:
Date: 09/20/2013
Proceedings: Notice of Additional Grounds for Exemption Determination filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/19/2013
Proceedings: Re-notice of Taking Videotape Deposition Duces Tecum by Video Conference (of C. Castille) filed.
Date: 09/19/2013
Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Motion Hearing Held.
PDF:
Date: 09/19/2013
Proceedings: Respondents Guerreros' Motion to Compel Production of Documents, or in the Alternative, Motion in Limine filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/19/2013
Proceedings: Order Denying Assertion of Attorney-Client Privilege.
PDF:
Date: 09/19/2013
Proceedings: Petitioners' Motion to Compel Answers to Petitioners' Second Set of Interrogatories to Respondent Department of Environmental Protection filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/18/2013
Proceedings: Re-notice of Taking Videotape Deposition Duces Tecum by Video Conference (of G. Ward) filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/18/2013
Proceedings: Respondents' Re-notice of Videotaped Deposition Duces Tecum of Dr. Paul Lin filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/18/2013
Proceedings: Notice of Taking Videotape Deposition Duces Tecum by Video Conference (of R. Clark) filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/17/2013
Proceedings: Respondents Guerreros', Response to Petitioners' Motion to Compel Better Answers to Petitioners' First Set of Interrogatories and Petitioners' Motion to Compel Production of Documents filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/16/2013
Proceedings: Depertment of Environmental Protection's Answers to Petitioners' Second Set of Interrogatories filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/16/2013
Proceedings: Notice and Certificate of Service of Department of Environmental Protection's Answers to Petitioners' Second Set of Interrogatories filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/13/2013
Proceedings: Notice of Taking Videotape Deposition by Video Conference (of J. Littlejohn) filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/13/2013
Proceedings: Notice of Taking Videotape Deposition by Video Conference (of W. Guerrero) filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/12/2013
Proceedings: Notice of Filing Verified Return of Service filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/11/2013
Proceedings: Petitioners' Motion to Compel Production of Documents filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/11/2013
Proceedings: Notice of Continuation of Taking Videotape Deposition by Video Conference (of J. Iglehart) filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/10/2013
Proceedings: Petitioners' Motion to Compel Better Answers to Petitioners' First Set of Interrogatories to Respondents Guerrero filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/10/2013
Proceedings: Notice of Taking Videotape Deposition Duces Tecum by Video Conference (W. Michael Dennis, Ph.D.) filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/10/2013
Proceedings: Notice of Taking Videotape Deposition Duces Tecum by Video Conference (Gerald M. Ward) filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/10/2013
Proceedings: Respondents' Re-Notice of Videotaped Deposition Duces Tecum of Dr. Philip A. Frank filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/10/2013
Proceedings: Respondents' Re-Notice of Videotaped Deposition Duces Tecum of Dr. Paul Lin filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/06/2013
Proceedings: Respondents' Re-notice of Videotaped Deposition Duces Tecum of Dr. Paul Lin filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/06/2013
Proceedings: Respondents' Re-notice of Videotaped Deposition Duces Tecum of Dr. Philip A. Frank filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/04/2013
Proceedings: Respondents' Joint Notice of Videotaped Deposition Duces Tecum of Dr. Philip A. Frank filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/04/2013
Proceedings: Respondents' Joint Notice of Videotaped Deposition Duces Tecum of Dr. Paul Lin filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/04/2013
Proceedings: Re-notice of Taking Videotape Deposition Duces Tecum by Video Conference (of J. Richmond) filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/04/2013
Proceedings: Re-notice of Taking Videotape Deposition by Video Conference (of L. Blair) filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/29/2013
Proceedings: Notice of Taking Videotape Deposition by Video Conference (of T. Rach) filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/29/2013
Proceedings: Notice of Taking Videotape Deposition Duces Tecum by Video Conference (of C. Castille) filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/26/2013
Proceedings: Department of Environmental Protection's Response to Petitioners' First Request for Production of Documents to Respondent Department filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/26/2013
Proceedings: Notice and Certificate of Service of Department of Environmental Protection's Answers to Petitioners' First Set of Interrogatories filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/23/2013
Proceedings: Notice of Taking Videotape Deposition Duces Tecum (of G. Garrett) filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/23/2013
Proceedings: Order Granting Continuance and Re-scheduling Hearing by Video Teleconference (hearing set for October 23 through 25, 2013; 9:00 a.m.; Key West, FL).
PDF:
Date: 08/22/2013
Proceedings: Notice of Taking Videotape Deposition Duces Tecum by Video Conference (of J. Richmond) filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/21/2013
Proceedings: Order Denying Motions to Strike and Requests for Protective Order as Moot.
PDF:
Date: 08/20/2013
Proceedings: Notice of Taking Videotape Deposition by Video Conference (Rod Maddox) filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/20/2013
Proceedings: Re-Notice of Taking Videotape Deposition by Video Conference (Scott Woolam) filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/20/2013
Proceedings: Re-Notice of Taking Videotape Deposition by Video Conference (Al Dougherty) filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/20/2013
Proceedings: Re-Notice of Taking Videotape Deposition by Video Conference (Richard Malloy) filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/20/2013
Proceedings: Re-Notice of Taking Videotape Deposition by Video Conference (Lucy Blair) filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/20/2013
Proceedings: Re-Notice of Taking Videotape Deposition by Video Conference (Jon Iglehart) filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/20/2013
Proceedings: Notice of Cancellation of Taking Videotape Deposition (W. Michael Dennis, Ph.D.) filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/20/2013
Proceedings: Respondents, William Guerrero and Christina Guerrero's, Objections and Responses to Petitioners, Bernard Spinrad and Marien Spinrad's First Request for Production filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/20/2013
Proceedings: Notice of Serving Respondents, William Guerrero and Christina Guerrero's, Objections and Responses to Petitioners, Bernard Spinrad and Marien Spinrad's First Set of Interrogatories filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/20/2013
Proceedings: Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Motions for Protective Order of Attorneys' Depositions filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/19/2013
Proceedings: Re-notice of Taking Videotape Deposition (of G. Rios) filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/19/2013
Proceedings: Re-notice of Taking Videotape Deposition (of B. Franck) filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/19/2013
Proceedings: Notice of Cancellation of Taking Videotape Deposition (of F. Ffolkes) filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/19/2013
Proceedings: Notice of Cancellation of Taking Videotape Deposition (of C. Byrd) filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/19/2013
Proceedings: Notice of Cancellation of Taking Videotape Deposition (of N. Schaffner) filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/16/2013
Proceedings: Notice of Service of Petitioners' Second Set of Interrogatories to Respondent Department filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/15/2013
Proceedings: Notice of Filing filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/15/2013
Proceedings: Order Denying Emergency Motion as Moot.
Date: 08/15/2013
Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Motion Hearing Held.
PDF:
Date: 08/15/2013
Proceedings: Notice of Amended Certificate of Service filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/15/2013
Proceedings: Response in Opposition to Respondent Dept. of Environmental Protection's Emergency Motion to Preview Spinrads from Deposing Spinrads on August 15, or Alternatively, Motion in Limine filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/15/2013
Proceedings: Motion to Strike/Quash Notice of Deposition (and Subpoena, if Issued) of Department Attorney and Request for Protective Order (C. Byrd) filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/15/2013
Proceedings: Motion to Strike/Quash Notice of Deposition (and Subpoena, if Issued) of Department Attorney and Request for Protective Order (N. Schaffner) filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/15/2013
Proceedings: Motion to Strike/Quash Notice of Deposition (and Subpoena, if Issued) of Department Attorney and Request for Protective Order (F. Ffolkes) filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/15/2013
Proceedings: Respondents, William Guerrero and Christina Guerrero's, Joinder in Respondent Department's Emergency Motion filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/14/2013
Proceedings: Petitioners Bernard Spinrad and Marien Spinrad's Response to Respondents Guerrero's First Request for Production filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/14/2013
Proceedings: Notice of Service of Petitioners Bernard Spinrad and Marien Spinrad's Answers to Respondents Guerrero's First Set of Interrogatories filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/14/2013
Proceedings: Emergency Motion to Prevent Spinrads from Deposing Spinrads on August 15th or, Alternativly, Motion in Limine filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/13/2013
Proceedings: Petitioners Bernard Spinrad and Marien Spinrad's Response to Respondent Department's First Request for Production filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/13/2013
Proceedings: Notice of Service of Petitioners Bernard Spinrad and Marien Spinrad's Answers to Respondent Department's First Set of Interrogatories filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/13/2013
Proceedings: Order Denying Respondents` Joint Motion for Clarification of Order Denying Respondents` Motions to Dismiss and Motion for Attorney`s Fees and Costs.
PDF:
Date: 08/12/2013
Proceedings: Notice of Taking Videotape Deposition by Video Conference (of F. Fflokes) filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/12/2013
Proceedings: Notice of Taking Videotape Deposition by Video Conference (of C. Byrd) filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/12/2013
Proceedings: Notice of Taking Videotape Deposition by Video Conference (of W. Dennis) filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/12/2013
Proceedings: Notice of Taking Videotape Deposition by Video Conference (of J. Richmond) filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/12/2013
Proceedings: Notice of Taking Videotape Deposition by Video Conference (of J. Iglehart) filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/12/2013
Proceedings: Notice of Taking Videotape Deposition by Video Conference (of L. Blair) filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/12/2013
Proceedings: Notice of Taking Videotape Deposition by Video Conference (of A. Dougherty) filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/12/2013
Proceedings: Notice of Taking Videotape Deposition by Video Conference (of S. Woolam) filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/12/2013
Proceedings: Notice of Taking Videotape Deposition by Video Conference filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/12/2013
Proceedings: Notice of Taking Videotape Deposition by Video Conference (of N. Schaffner) filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/12/2013
Proceedings: Notice of Taking Videotape Deposition by Video Conference (of C. Castille) filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/12/2013
Proceedings: Notice of Taking Videotape Deposition (of B. Frank) filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/12/2013
Proceedings: Notice of Taking Videotape Deposition (of G. Rios) filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/12/2013
Proceedings: Notice of Taking Videotaped Deposition (of R. Casola) filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/12/2013
Proceedings: Notice of Taking Videotaped Deposition (of J. Dick) filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/12/2013
Proceedings: Notice of Taking Videotaped Deposition (of D. Banks) filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/12/2013
Proceedings: Notice of Taking Videotaped Deposition (of A. Banks) filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/12/2013
Proceedings: Notice of Taking Videotaped Deposition (of M. Spinrad) filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/12/2013
Proceedings: Notice of Taking Videotaped Deposition (of B. Spinrad) filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/26/2013
Proceedings: Respondents, William Guerrero and Christina Guerrero, and Respondent, Florida Department of Environmental Protection's, Joint Motion for Clarification of Order Denying Respondents' Motions to Dismiss and Motion for Attorneys Fees and Costs filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/24/2013
Proceedings: Amended Order of Pre-hearing Instructions.
PDF:
Date: 07/24/2013
Proceedings: Order Granting Continuance and Re-scheduling Hearing by Video Teleconference (hearing set for October 7 through 9, 2013; 9:30 a.m.; Marathon, FL).
PDF:
Date: 07/23/2013
Proceedings: Order Denying Respondents` Motions to Dismiss and Motion for Attorney`s Fees and Costs.
Date: 07/23/2013
Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Motion Hearing Held.
PDF:
Date: 07/23/2013
Proceedings: Department's Response to Petitioners' Motion for a Continuance filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/18/2013
Proceedings: Department's Motion to Strike Petitioners' Supplemental Response to Respondents Guerreros' Motion to Dismiss filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/17/2013
Proceedings: Petitioners' Motion for Continuance of Final Hearing filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/17/2013
Proceedings: Notice of Service of Petitioners' First Set of Interrogatories to Respondent Department filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/17/2013
Proceedings: Notice of Service of Petitioners' First Set of Interrogatories to Respondents Guerrero filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/17/2013
Proceedings: Petitioners' First Request for Production of Documents to Respondent Department filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/17/2013
Proceedings: Petitioners' First Request for Production of Documents to Respondents Guerrero filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/17/2013
Proceedings: Petitioners' Supplemental Response in Opposition to Respondents Guerrero's Motion to Dismiss filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/16/2013
Proceedings: Notice of Serving Respondents Guerreros' First Set of Interrogatories to Petitioner, Bernard Spinrad filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/16/2013
Proceedings: Notice of Serving Respondents Guerreros' First Set of Interrogatories to Petitioner, Marien Spinrad filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/16/2013
Proceedings: Respondents Guerreros' First Request for Production of Documents to Petitioner, Bernard Spinrad filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/16/2013
Proceedings: Respondents Guerreros' First Request for Production of Documents to Petitioner, Marien Spinrad filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/10/2013
Proceedings: Notice of Filing of Notice of Unavailability of Counsel for Petitioners filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/09/2013
Proceedings: Notice of Unavailability for Counsel for Respondents, William Guerrero and Christina Guerrero filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/08/2013
Proceedings: Respondent Department of Environmental Protection's First Request for Production of Documents to Petitioner, Marien Spinrad filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/08/2013
Proceedings: Respondent Department of Environmental Protection's First Request for Production of Documents to Petitioner, Bernard Spinrad filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/08/2013
Proceedings: Notice and Certificate of Service of Respondent DEP's First Ser of Interrogatoraies to Petitioner Bernard Spinrad filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/08/2013
Proceedings: Notice and Certificate of Service of Respondent DEP's First Set of Interrogatories to Petitioner, Marjen Spinrad filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/05/2013
Proceedings: Petitioners' Response in Opposition to Respondent's Guerrero's Motion to Dismiss filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/05/2013
Proceedings: Respondent Department of Environmental Protection's Response in Support of Respondents Guerrero's Motion to Dismiss filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/05/2013
Proceedings: Notice of Appearance (Patricia Comer) filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/28/2013
Proceedings: Order of Pre-hearing Instructions.
PDF:
Date: 06/28/2013
Proceedings: Notice of Hearing by Video Teleconference (hearing set for August 26 and 28, 2013; 9:00 a.m.; Key West and Tallahassee, FL).
PDF:
Date: 06/27/2013
Proceedings: Order Granting Extension of Time.
PDF:
Date: 06/26/2013
Proceedings: Notice of Designation of Primary and Secondary E-mail Addresses filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/26/2013
Proceedings: Notice of Appearance (John Annesser) filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/25/2013
Proceedings: Petitioners' Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Respondents' Guerrero's Motion to Dismiss filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/21/2013
Proceedings: Notice of Supplemental Filing filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/20/2013
Proceedings: Department of Environmental Protection's Response to Initial Order and Department's Request for Leave to File an Amended Response filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/19/2013
Proceedings: Notice of Unavailability for Respondent Department of Environmental Protection filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/18/2013
Proceedings: Initial Order.
PDF:
Date: 06/14/2013
Proceedings: Petitioners' Response in Opposition to Motion for Attorney's Fees and Costs filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/14/2013
Proceedings: Respondents, William Guerrero and Christina Guerrero's, Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Attorney's Fees and Costs filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/14/2013
Proceedings: Agency action letter filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/14/2013
Proceedings: Amended Petition for Administrative Hearing filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/14/2013
Proceedings: Request for Assignment of Administrative Law Judge and Notice of Preservation of Record filed.

Case Information

Judge:
E. GARY EARLY
Date Filed:
06/14/2013
Date Assignment:
06/18/2013
Last Docket Entry:
07/22/2015
Location:
Marineland, Florida
District:
Northern
Agency:
ADOPTED IN PART OR MODIFIED
 

Counsels

Related DOAH Cases(s) (8):

Related Florida Statute(s) (15):

Related Florida Rule(s) (7):