18-006338TTS Lake County School Board vs. Cara Sanderlin
 Status: Closed
Recommended Order on Friday, March 22, 2019.


View Dockets  
Summary: The preponderance of the evidence failed to demonstrate that Ms. Sanderlin violated any of the School Board's rules.

1STATE OF FLORIDA

4DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

8LAKE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD,

12Petitioner,

13vs. Case No. 18 - 6338TTS

19CARA SANDERLIN,

21Respondent.

22_______________________________/

23RECOMMENDED ORDER

25Pursuant to notice, a final hearing was conducted on

34January 15, 2019, in Tavares, Florida, before Garnett W.

43Chisenhall, a duly designated Administrative Law Judge of the

52Division of Administrative Hearings (ÐDOAHÑ).

57APPEARANCES

58For Petitioner: Stephen W. Johnson, Esquire

64Elizabeth A. Tur ner, Esquire

69Johnson Turner , PLLC

72215 North 2nd Street

76Leesburg, Florida 34748

79For Respondent: Mitchell L. Davis, Esquire

85Smothers Law Firm, P.A.

89523 Wekiva Commons Circle

93Apopka, Florida 32712

96STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

100Whether Petitioner, Lake County Sc hool Board (Ðthe School

109BoardÑ), ha s just cause to terminate Respondent, Cara Sanderlin,

119for the reasons specified in the agency action letter, dated

129November 13, 2018.

132PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

134The Superintendent of Schools for Lake County (Ðthe

142Superintenden tÑ) notified Ms. Sanderlin, via a November 13, 2018,

152letter, that the Superintendent would be recommending that the

161School Board terminate Ms. Sanderlin from her teaching position.

170This proposed action resulted from an investigation indicating

178that Ms. Sa nderlin had Ðused a water bottle to shape the behavior

191of a disabled student by squirting him.Ñ According to the

201letter, the aforementioned allegation amounted to Ðmisconduct in

209officeÑ in violation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A -

2195.056(2) and Ðinc ompetencyÑ in violation of rule 6A - 5.056(3).

230The letter further stated that Ms. SanderlinÓs alleged conduct

239amounted to a violation of Florida Administrative Code

247R ule 6A - 10.081(1)(b), (1)(c), and (2)(a).

255Ms. Sanderlin responded by requesting a formal

262administrative hearing, and the Superintendent referred this

269matter to DOAH on November 28, 2019.

276Via a Notice of Hearing issued on December 12, 2018, the

287undersigned scheduled the final hearing to occur in Tavares,

296Florida, on January 15, 2019.

301The fina l hearing commenced as scheduled and was completed

311that day. Ms. Sanderlin testified on her own behalf and

321presented testimony from Stephanie Henry, Charlene Hochreiter,

328and Erin Shropshire. The School Board presented testimony from

337Laine Obando, Danelle Crinion, Carol Phelps, Abdias Rodriguez,

345Ms. Sanderlin, and David Meyers.

350The School BoardÓs Exhibits 1 through 7 and Ms. SanderlinÓs

360Exhibit 1 were accepted into evidence.

366The one - volume Transcript of the final hearing was filed on

378January 31, 2019. Both parties filed timely proposed recommended

387orders on February 20, 2019. Those proposed recommended orders

396were considered in the preparation of this Recommended Order.

405FINDING S OF FACT

409Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the

419final h earing, matters subject to official recognition, and the

429entire record in this proceeding, the following Findings of Fact

439are made:

4411. The School Board is the constitutional entity authorized

450to operate, control, and supervise the public schools within La ke

461County. See Art. IX, § 4(b), Fla. Const.; § 1001.32, Fla. Stat. 1/

474The School Board is also authorized to discipline instructional

483staff and other school employees. See § 1012.22(1)(f), Fla.

492Stat.

4932. The School Board utilizes a progressive discipli nary

502system. It is a five - step process that begins with an

514undocumented counseling session and can progress to termination.

522However, if an offense is sufficiently severe, then the School

532Board can bypass lesser disciplinary measures and proceed

540directly to termination.

5433. Pine Ridge Elementary is within the Lake County School

553District.

5544. Cara Sanderlin has a bachelorÓs degree in special

563education and approximately 16 years of teaching experience

571during which she has taught students with conditions such as

581intellectual disabilities, emotional/mental handicaps, and

586autism.

5875. Ms. Sanderlin has taught autistic students at Pine Ridge

597Elementary since 2015. She did so in a Ðself - contained

608classroomÑ in which the students stayed with her the entire

618sc hool day.

6216. Ms. Sanderlin kept a small, plastic spray bottle 2/ in her

633classroom. The bottle is slightly less than eight inches tall

643and capable of holding approximately six ounces of water. The

653spray bottle has a trigger mechanism that enables one to project

664a stream of water approximately 10 feet. At the outer limit of

676the spray bottleÓs range, the stream loses continuity. The spray

686bottleÓs nozzle can be adjusted so that one can project mist

697rather than a stream.

7017. Ms. Sanderlin used the spray bottle to mist he r students

713when they were on the playground during warm months. That was

724necessary because there were no water fountains on the playground

734or her classroom.

7378. During the fall of 2018, Ms. Sanderlin had two to four

749students in her cla ss. D.H. was one of those students.

7609. During the time period relevant to the instan t case,

771D.H. was an 11 - year - old fifth - grader and had attended Pine Ridge

787Elementary since second grade. D.H. is nonverbal but is able to

798understand what is said to him. He indicates that he wants

809something by pulling someone to the objectÓs vicinity so that it

820can be retrieved for him. While D.H. is able to use sign

832language to communicate the words ÐmoreÑ and Ðplease,Ñ it can be

844difficult to discern what he wants. Fo r example, D.H. cannot

855communicate if someone is doing something to him that he does not

867like.

86810. D.H. is unable to use a bathroom on his own . When

881accompanied by a teacher, he insists on activating the water

891faucet and flushing the toilet immediately upon entering the

900bathroom. He also likes to splash water in the bathroom.

910However, D.H. does not like to wash his hands, and the teacher

922accompanying him to the bathroom must utilize a hand - over - hand

935technique in order to get his hands clean. Thus, D. H. and the

948person accompanying him tend to get wet.

95511. In order to prevent a therapy session from being

965interrupted, D.H. would be taken to the bathroom just before

975another teacher would visit the classroom to administer speech

984thera py. Therefore, it i s possible that a visiting teacher could

996arrive in the classroom and find D.H. wet.

100412. Erin Shropshire, a teaching assistant, usually worked

1012with D.H. on a one - on - one basis until the new teaching assistant,

1027McKenzie Shaw , 3/ s tarted on September 28, 201 8.

103713. In the fall of 2018, Abdias Rodriguez was a full - time

1050teaching assistant in Ms. SanderlinÓs classroom. She observed

1058Ms. Sanderlin spray water in D.H.Ós general direction without

1067intending to get him wet. This action was used when

1077Ms. Sanderlin n eeded to get D.H.Ós attention and other measures,

1088such as calling his name or tapping her desk, were unsuccessful.

1099While this was not an uncommon occurrence, it did not happen

1110every day. 4/

111314. Ms. Shaw sometimes used the spray bottle in a similar

1124man ner in order to stop D.H. from doing something in the

1136classroom that he was not supposed to be doing.

114515. Danelle Crinion began working at Pine Ridge Elementary

1154as the schoolÓs speech and language teacher in the fall of 2018.

1166She and her teaching a ssistant, Carol Phelps, go from class to

1178class in order to provide instruction.

118416. While in Ms. Sanderli nÓs class in the fall of 2018,

1196Ms. Crinion and Ms. Phelps saw Ms. Sanderlin and/or Ms. Shaw, on

1208three or four occasions, use the spray bottle to redi rect D.H.

1220after a verbal cue was ineffective in prompting D.H. to move from

1232one part of the classroom to another. 5/ On one occasion, they saw

1245that D.H.Ós shirt was wet.

125017. Ms. Crinion did not question Ms. Sanderlin about those

1260instances but did report them to Laine Obando, the principal of

1271Pine Ridge Elementary, on October 19, 2018. Ms. CrinionÓs report

1281indicated that Ms. Sanderlin and Ms. Shaw would direct a stream

1292of water directly at D.H.Ós person rather than alongside him.

1302After talking to Ms. Sa nderlin, Ms. Rodriguez, and Ms. Phelps,

1313Ms. Obando contacted David Meyer, the School BoardÓs Supervisor

1322of Employee Relations, and Mr. Meyer initiated an investigation,

1331which ultimately led to the SuperintendentÓs recommendation that

1339Ms. Sanderlin be termi nated from her teaching position.

134818. Ms. Obando is familiar with the methods used to

1358redirect autistic students and testified that spraying a child

1367with water is an inappropriate mean s of redirection.

1376Ms. Sanderlin concurred with Ms. ObandoÓs testimon y. 6/

138519. Ms. Sanderlin has no prior violations of the rules

1395governing teacher conduct in Florida. As for why the School

1405Board is seeking to terminate Ms. Sanderlin rather than utilizing

1415its progressive disciplinary system, Mr. Meyer testified that

1423Ms . SanderlinÓs alleged conduct is sufficiently egregious to

1432justify termination because D.H. is nonverbal and unable to

1441express his feelings.

1444Ultimate Findings

144620. Ms. Rodriguez was the most persuasive witness at the

1456final hearing, and her testimony has be en credited as the most

1468accurate description of how Ms. Sanderlin used a spray bottle in

1479her classroom. 7/

148221. The preponderance of the evidence does not demonstrate

1491that Ms. Sanderlin intended for the streams of water to make

1502direct contact with D.H.Ós person.

150722. The prepo nderance of the evidence demonstrates that Ms.

1517Sanderlin directed streams of water to the side of D.H. in order

1529to get him to comply with verbal directions. While this practice

1540should not be condoned as an acceptable means of redir ecting a

1552student, it is insufficient to support a finding that Ms.

1562Sanderlin committed Ðmisconduct in officeÑ in

1568violation of rule 6A - 5.056(2) or ÐincompetencyÑ in violation of

1579rule 6A - 5.056(3). Nor does such beha vior amount to a violation

1592of rule 6A - 10. 081(1)(b), (1)(c), and (2)(a). Ther efore, while

1604Ms. Sanderlin should receive some manner of discipline, the

1613School Board lacks justification for bypassing lesser

1620disciplinary measures within its progressive disciplinary system

1627and proceeding directly to t ermination. There is no just cause

1638for terminating Ms. Sanderlin.

1642CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

164523. DOAH has jurisdiction over the subject matter and

1654parties in this case, pursuant to section 1012.33(6) and

1663sections 120.569 and 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.

166924. The School Board is a duly constituted school board

1679charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise all free

1690public schools within the school district of Lake County,

1699Florida, under section 1012.22.

170325. The School Board seeks to terminate M s. SanderlinÓs

1713employment and has the burden of proving the allegations set

1723forth in its November 13, 2018, letter by a preponderance of the

1735evidence, as opposed to the more stringent standard of clear and

1746convincing evidence applicable to the loss of a li cense or

1757certification. Cropsey v. Sch. Bd. of Manatee Cnty. , 19 So. 3d

1768351 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009), rev. denied , 29 So. 3d 1118 (Fla. 2010);

1781Cisneros v. Sch. Bd. of Miami - Dade Cnty. , 990 So. 2d 1179 (Fla.

17953d DCA 2008).

179826. The preponderance of the evidence standard requires

1806proof by Ðthe greater weight of the evidence,Ñ BlackÓs Law

1817Dictionary 1201 (7th ed. 199), or evidence that Ðmore likely than

1828notÑ tends to prove a certain proposition. See Gross v. Lyons ,

1839763 So. 2d 276, 289 n.1 (Fla. 2000).

184727. It i s well - established under Florida law that

1858determining whether alleged misconduct violates a statute or rule

1867is a question of ultimate fact to be decided by the trier - of - fact

1883based on the weight of the evidence. Holmes v. Turlington , 480

1894So. 2d 150, 153 (F la. 1985); McKinney v. Castor , 667 So. 2d 387,

1908389 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Langston v. Jamerson , 653 So. 2d 489,

1920491 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). Thus, determining whether alleged

1929misconduct violates the law is a factual, rather than a legal,

1940inquiry.

194128. The Super intendentÓs November 13, 2018, letter alleged

1950that Ms. Sanderlin is guilty of Ðmisconduct in officeÑ in

1960violation of rule 6A - 5.056(2) and ÐincompetencyÑ in violation of

1971rule 6A - 5.056(3). The letter further stated that Ms. SanderlinÓs

1982alleged conduct amoun ted to a violation of rule 6A - 10.081(1)(b),

1994(1)(c), and (2)(a).

1997The Principles

199929. The School Board alleges that Ms. Sanderlin violated

2008provisions within rule 6A - 10.081, which is entitled ÐPrinciples

2018of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in FloridaÑ

2027(Ðthe PrinciplesÑ). Subsection (1) of the Principles provides

2035that ÐFlorida educators shall be guided by the [] ethical

2045principlesÑ enumerated in rule 6A - 10.081.

205230. The School Board specifically alleges that

2059Ms. Sanderlin violated the followi ng provisions of the

2068Principles:

20696A - 10.081(1)(b): The educatorÓs primary

2075professional concern will always be for the

2082student and the development of the studentÓs

2089potential. The educator will therefore

2094strive for professional growth and will seek

2101to exerc ise the best professional judgment

2108and integrity.

21106A - 10.081(1)(c): Aware of the importance of

2118maintaining the respect and confidence of

2124oneÓs colleagues, of students, of parents,

2130and of other members of the community, the

2138educator strives to achieve and sustain the

2145highest degree of ethical conduct.

21506A - 10.081(2)(a): Florida educators shall

2156comply with the following disciplinary

2161principles: Violation of any of these

2167principles shall subject the individual to

2173revocation or suspension of the individual

2179e ducatorÓs certificate, or the other

2185penalties as provided by law.

2190(a) Obligation to the student requires that

2197the individual:

2199(1) Shall make reasonable effort to protect

2206the student from conditions harmful to

2212learning and/or to the studentÓs mental

2218and /or physical health and/or safety.

2224* * *

2227(5) Shall not intentionally expose a student

2234to unnecessary embarrassment or

2238disparagement.

223931. The Principles are divided into two sections:

2247subsection (1), which consists of ethical principles; and

2255subsect ion (2), which provides disciplinary principles with which

2264educators Ðshall comply.Ñ

226732. The ethical principles in subsection (1) have been

2276described as Ðaspirational in nature, and in most cases [are] not

2287susceptible of forming a basis for suspension o r dismissal , Ñ

2298Sarasota C ounty Sch ool B oar d v. Simmons , Case No. 92 - 7278 (Fla.

2314DOAH Nov. 9, 1993), and Ðof little practical use in defining

2325normative behavior.Ñ Miami - Dade Cnty. Sch. Bd. v. Lantz , Case

2336No. 12 - 3970 (Fla. DOAH July 29, 2014); Broward Cnty. S ch. Bd. v.

2351Weinberg , Case No. 15 - 4993 (Fla. DOAH Apr. 13, 2016; Fla. Broward

2364Cnty. Sch. Bd. Aug. 23, 2016). By contra s t, the disciplinary

2376principles enumerate specific ÐdosÑ and ÐdonÓtsÑ to put a teacher

2386on notice concerning what conduct is forbidden. Se e Miami - Dade

2398Cnty. Sch. Bd. v. Brenes , Case No. 06 - 1758 (Fla. D OA H Feb. 27,

24142007; Fla. Miami - Dade Cnty . Sch. Bd. Apr. 25, 2007). ÐThus, it

2428is concluded that while any violation of [subsection

2436e is not

2439true.Ñ Id. ÐPut another way, in order to punish a teacher for

2451misconduct in office, it is necessary but not sufficient that a

2462proved, whereas it is both necessary and sufficient that a

2472violation of a specific rule in [subsection (2)] be proved.Ñ

2482Id. ; see also Miami - Dade Cnty. Sch. Bd. v. Regueira , Case No. 06 -

24974752 n.4 (Fla. DOAH Apr. 11, 2007; Fla. Miami - Dade Cnty. Sch. Bd.

2511May 25, 2007).

251433. Spraying water alongside a student is an inappropriate

2523means of getting an autistic studentÓs attention, but it does not

2534rise to the level of violating rule s 6A - 10.081(2)(a)1. or 6A -

254810.081(2)(a)5. Nor does it amount to just cause for terminating

2558Ms. Sanderlin. See generally Polk Cnty. Sch. Bd. v. Smith , Case

2569No. 18 - 2983TTS (Fla. DOAH March 6, 2019)(final order

2579pending)(concluding that Ð[s]leeping in class on one occasion,

2587with students present, should not be condoned, even if the safety

2598of the students is not placed in jeopardy. This action warrants

2609no more than a dated reprimand following a conference. Just

2619cause does not exist to terminate Respondent.Ñ).

2626Criteria for Suspension and Dismissal

263134. Rule 6A - 5.056 is entitled ÐCriteria for Suspension and

2642Dismissal.Ñ

264335. The School Bo ard alleges that Ms. Sanderlin committed

2653Ðmisconduct in officeÑ by violating the following provisions of

2662rule 6A - 5.056(2):

26666A - 5.056(2)(b): A violation of the

2673Principles of Professional Conduct for the

2679Education Profession in Florida as adopted in

2686Rule 6A - 10.081, F.A.C.;

26916A - 5.056(2)(c): A violation of the adopted

2699school board rules;

27026A - 5.056(2)(d): Behavior that disrupts the

2709studentÓs learning environment;

271236. The School Board also alleges that Ms. Sanderlin is

2722guilty of Ðincompetency,Ñ which rule 6A - 5.056(3) defines as Ðthe

2734inability, failure or lack of fitness to discharge the required

2744duty as a result of inefficiency or incapacity.Ñ

275237. While rule 6A - 5.056(3) sets forth multiple definitions

2762of Ðinefficiency,Ñ the School Board specifically alleges that

2771Ms. Sanderlin acted inefficiently in violation of subsection

2779(3)(a)2. by failing Ðto communicate appropriately with and relate

2788to students.Ñ

279038. With regard to rule 6A - 5.056(2)(b), the alleged

2800violations of the Principles were discussed in the pr eceding

2810section.

281139. As for whether Ms. Sanderlin violated rule s 6A -

28225.056(2)(d) or 6A - 5.056(3)(a)2., her conduct does not rise to the

2834level at which it disrupted D.H.Ós learning environment nor does

2844it demonstrate that she is Ðincompetent.Ñ See Lake Cnty . Sch.

2855Bd. v. Ockerman , Case No. 12 - 2270TTS (Fla. DOAH Nov. 14, 2012),

2868rejected in part , ( Lake Cnty. Sch. Bd. Jan. 28, 2013)(concluding

2879that ÐPetitioner proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, that

2889Respondent slapped the hands of one or more students o ver the

2901course of the 2011 - 2012 school year on, at most, a few occasions.

2915The incidents occurred when a student took something that was not

2926his, tried to place his hands on or hurt another student, or

2938struck Respondent. The incidents were isolated and mi ld, and

2948could have been defensive techniques that were misperceived by

2957the observer. There was no evidence that the incidents were

2967harmful to any studentÓs learning, adversely affected any

2975studentÓs mental or physical health, or compromised any studentÓs

2984safety.Ñ).

298540. In sum, the preponderance of the evidence fails to

2995demonstrate that Ms. Sanderlin violated any of the School BoardÓs

3005rules. Nor does the preponderance of the evidence demonstrate

3014that just cause exists to terminate Ms. Sanderlin. S ee generally

3025Lake Cnty. Sch. Bd. v. Mays , Case No. 18 - 5014TTS (Fla. DOAH March

30394, 2019)(final order pending)(finding that Ð[b]ased on the weight

3048of the evidence detailed above, the School Board failed to

3058establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Ms . Mays

3069exposed the students to unnecessary embarrassment or

3076disparagement [by making them clean a floor with a toothbrush],

3086much less that she did s o intentionally.Ñ).

3094RECOMMENDATION

3095Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of

3105Law, it is REC OMMENDED that the Lake County School Board issue a

3118Final Order rescinding Ms. SanderlinÓs termination and imposing a

3127lesser disciplinary measure within its progressive disciplinary

3134system .

3136DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of March, 2019 , in

3146Tallahassee, Leo n County, Florida.

3151S

3152G. W. CHISENHALL

3155Administrative Law Judge

3158Division of Administrative Hearings

3162The DeSoto Building

31651230 Apalachee Parkway

3168Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3060

3173(850) 488 - 9675

3177Fax Filing (850) 921 - 6847

3183www.d oah.state.fl.us

3185Filed with the Clerk of the

3191Division of Administrative Hearings

3195this 22nd day of March, 2019 .

3202ENDNOTE S

32041/ Unless indicated otherwise, all references will be to the 2018

3215version of the Florida Statutes.

32202/ The School Board utilize d Ms. SanderlinÓs spray bottle as a

3232demonstrative exhibit during the final hearing. However, the

3240parties agreed that the undersigned could use the demonstrative

3249exhibit as a means of making findings of fact regarding the spray

3261bottleÓs height and other ch aracteristics.

32673/ Ms. Shaw did not testify during the final hearing.

32774/ There was no allegation that Ms. Sanderlin or Ms. Shaw ever

3289repeatedly sprayed D.H. in order to obtain compliance or to get

3300his attention.

33025/ This action was generally ref erred to as ÐredirectionÑ during

3313the final hearing, and Ms. Obando described redirection as Ða

3323strategy that is used in a classroom, I would say most often when

3336a student is - - for example, if a student is off task, the

3350teacher would intervene in some way to redirect a student back to

3362task. If a student is exhibiting a behavior that is not

3373compliant, then a teacher may redirect that student back to task.

3384So it is where the teacher intervenes with some skill or strategy

3396in order to redirect that student b ack to whatever the task is at

3410hand or the behavior that is requested.Ñ

34176/ In a statement to Ms. Obando, Ms. Sanderlin supposedly said

3428that she sprayed water Ðaway from himÑ but Ðnot on him.Ñ During

3440the final hearing, Ms. Sanderlin testified that she would spray

3450water to the side of D.H. in the classroom in order to ascertain

3463if he wanted the spray gun , and Ms. Sanderlin denied using the

3475spray gun to redirect D.H.

34807/ In making this finding, the undersigned is not implying that

3491Ms. Crinion or Ms. Phe lpsÓ testimony was untruthful. While

3501Ms. Phelps testified that she witnessed Ms. Sanderlin spray water

3511ÐatÑ D.H. and saw the water make contact with his face, it is

3524possible that D.H. was inadvertently struck with residual water

3533from a stream that was di rected to his side. Nevertheless,

3544Ms. SanderlinÓs actions do not amount to violations of the rules

3555cited in the School BoardÓs November 13, 2018, letter .

3565COPIES FURNISHED:

3567Mitchell L. Davis, Esquire

3571Smothers Law Firm, P.A.

3575523 Wekiva Commons Circle

3579Ap opka, Florida 32712

3583(eServed)

3584Stephen W. Johnson, Esquire

3588Johnson Turner , PLLC

3591215 North 2nd Street

3595Leesburg, Florida 34748

3598(eServed)

3599Elizabeth A. Turner, Esquire

3603Johnson Turner , PLLC

3606215 North 2nd Street

3610Leesburg, Florida 34748

3613Matthew Mears, Gener al Counsel

3618Department of Education

3621Turlington Building , Suite 1244

3625325 West Gaines Street

3629Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0400

3634(eServed)

3635Richard Co r coran

3639Commission er of Education

3643Department of Education

3646Turlington Building , Suite 1514

3650325 West Gaines Stre et

3655Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0400

3660(eServed)

3661Diane Kornegay , Superintendent

3664Lake County School Board

3668201 West Burleigh Boulevard

3672Tavares , Florida 327 78 - 2496

3678NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

3684All parties have the right to submit written exception s within

369515 days from the date of this Recommended Order. Any exceptions

3706to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that

3717will issue the Final Order in this case.

Select the PDF icon to view the document.
PDF
Date
Proceedings
PDF:
Date: 10/15/2019
Proceedings: BY ORDER OF THE COURT: the Stipulation for Dismissal is accepted and the above-styled cause is dismissed.
PDF:
Date: 09/18/2019
Proceedings: BY ORDER OF THE COURT: the Joint Stipulation for Extension of Time is granted.
PDF:
Date: 09/06/2019
Proceedings: BY ORDER OF THE COURT: The above-referenced case has been noted as a successful mediation.
PDF:
Date: 08/13/2019
Proceedings: Order Appointing Mediator.
PDF:
Date: 08/01/2019
Proceedings: Order of Referral to Mediation filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/24/2019
Proceedings: Notice of New Case Under Consideration for Mediation filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/24/2019
Proceedings: Acknowledgment of New Case, Fifth DCA Case No. 5D19-2151 filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/24/2019
Proceedings: Notice of Appeal filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/26/2019
Proceedings: Agency Final Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/26/2019
Proceedings: Notice of Filing of Final Order and Final Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/25/2019
Proceedings: Agency Final Order
PDF:
Date: 03/26/2019
Proceedings: Transmittal letter from Claudia Llado forwarding an Exhibit, which was not admitted into evidence to Respondent.
PDF:
Date: 03/22/2019
Proceedings: Recommended Order
PDF:
Date: 03/22/2019
Proceedings: Recommended Order (hearing held January 15, 2019). CASE CLOSED.
PDF:
Date: 03/22/2019
Proceedings: Recommended Order cover letter identifying the hearing record referred to the Agency.
PDF:
Date: 02/21/2019
Proceedings: Respondent's Proposed Recommended Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/20/2019
Proceedings: Petitioner's Proposed Recommended Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 01/31/2019
Proceedings: Notice of Filing Transcript.
Date: 01/31/2019
Proceedings: Transcript of Proceedings (not available for viewing) filed.
PDF:
Date: 01/18/2019
Proceedings: Order Extending Deadline for Filing Proposed Recommended Orders.
Date: 01/15/2019
Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Hearing Held.
PDF:
Date: 01/08/2019
Proceedings: Joint Pre-hearing Stipulation filed.
PDF:
Date: 01/02/2019
Proceedings: Subpoena (Request for Issuance of Subpoenas) filed.
PDF:
Date: 01/02/2019
Proceedings: Subpoena (Request for Issuance of Subpoenas) filed.
PDF:
Date: 01/02/2019
Proceedings: Subpoena (Request for Issuance of Subpoenas) filed.
PDF:
Date: 01/02/2019
Proceedings: Subpoena (Request for Issuance of Subpoenas) filed.
PDF:
Date: 01/02/2019
Proceedings: Request for Issuance of Subpoenas filed.
PDF:
Date: 12/21/2018
Proceedings: Notice of Taking Deposition filed.
PDF:
Date: 12/12/2018
Proceedings: Order of Pre-hearing Instructions.
PDF:
Date: 12/12/2018
Proceedings: Notice of Hearing (hearing set for January 15, 2019; 9:00 a.m.; Tavares, FL).
PDF:
Date: 12/11/2018
Proceedings: Joint Response to Initial Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 12/11/2018
Proceedings: Joint Response to Initial Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 12/04/2018
Proceedings: Initial Order.
PDF:
Date: 12/03/2018
Proceedings: Agency action letter filed.
PDF:
Date: 12/03/2018
Proceedings: Request for Administrative Hearing filed.
PDF:
Date: 12/03/2018
Proceedings: Agency referral filed.

Case Information

Judge:
G. W. CHISENHALL
Date Filed:
12/03/2018
Date Assignment:
12/04/2018
Last Docket Entry:
10/15/2019
Location:
Tavares, Florida
District:
Northern
Agency:
ADOPTED IN TOTO
Suffix:
TTS
 

Counsels

Related Florida Statute(s) (6):

Related Florida Rule(s) (2):