98-004260 Construction Industry Licensing Board vs. Juan Rodriguez
 Status: Closed
Recommended Order on Wednesday, May 12, 1999.

View Dockets  
Summary: Respondent was found guilty of assisting uncertified and unregistered person to practice contracting.








23Petitioner, )


26vs. ) Case No. 98-4260




36Respondent. )



41Pursuant to notice, the Division of Administrative Hearings

49by Administrative Law Judge William J. Kendrick, held a formal

59hearing in the above-styled case on February 2, 1999, in Miami,



72For Petitioner: Theodore R. Gay, Esquire

78Department of Business and

82Professional Regulation

84401 Northwest Second Avenue

88Suite N-607

90Miami, Florida 33128

93For Respondent: Jorge E. Otero, Esquire

99Tomlin & Tomlin, P.A.

10375 Valencia Avenue, 4th Floor

108Coral Gables, Florida 33134


116At issue in this proceeding is whether Respondent committed

125the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaint and, if

135so, what penalty should be imposed.


143On February 18, 1998, Petitioner issued a three-count

151Administrative Complaint against Respondent which charged that

158Respondent, a certified general contractor, committed certain

165acts or omissions which subjected him to disciplinary action

174under the provisions of Chapter 489, Part I, Florida Statutes.

184Count I alleged that Respondent violated the provisions of

193Subsection 489.129(1)(e), Florida Statutes, "by performing an act

201which assists a person or entity in engaging in the prohibited

212uncertified and unregistered practice of contracting . . . [when]

222the certificateholder or registrant knows or has reasonable

230grounds to know that the person or entity was uncertified and

241unregistered." Count II alleged that Respondent violated the

249provisions of Section 489.1265, Florida Statutes (1995), now

257codified at Subsection 489.127(4), Florida Statutes, and,

264therefore, Subsection 489.129(1)(j), Florida Statutes, "by

270allowing and/or agreeing to allow an unlicensed contractor to use

280his license number and/or by obtaining a building permit for

290construction work without having entered into a contract to make

300improvements to, or perform the contacting at, the real property

310specified in the permit." Count III alleged that Respondent

319failed to "continually maintain liability and property damage

327insurance," as required by Rule 61G4-15.003(1), Florida

334Administrative Code, and was, therefore, guilty of "misconduct or

343incompetency in the practice of contacting," as defined by Rule

35361G4-17.001(14)(b), Florida Administrative Code, and as

359proscribed by Subsection 489.129(1)(n), Florida Statutes.

365Respondent filed an answer to the Administrative Complaint

373which raised disputed issues of fact. Consequently, on

381September 21, 1998, Petitioner referred the matter to the

390Division of Administrative Hearings for the assignment of an

399administrative law judge to conduct a formal hearing pursuant to

409Sections 120.569, 120.57(1), and 120.60(5), Florida Statutes.

416At hearing, Petitioner called Joseph Wilson, Oscar Zapata,

424and Consuelo Zapata as witnesses, and Petitioner's Exhibits 1

433through 11 were received into evidence. Respondent testified on

442his own behalf, but offered no additional proof.

450The transcript of hearing was filed April 12, 1999, and the

461parties were initially accorded 10 days from that date to file

472proposed recommended orders; however, at Respondent's request the

480time for filing was extend to May 7, 1999. Any proposal filed

492prior to the entry of this order has been duly-considered.


505Preliminary matters

5071. At all times material hereto, Respondent, Juan

515Rodriguez, was licensed by Petitioner, Department of Business and

524Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board

530(Department), as a certified general contractor, having been

538issued license number CG C005171. Respondent was licensed as an

548individual and not as the qualifying agent of any corporation or

559other business organization.

5622. At all times material hereto, Henry Pena was the sole

573officer and director of U.S.A. Henry Roofing Corp., a Florida

583corporation. Neither Henry Pena nor U.S.A. Henry Roofing Corp.

592(hereinafter jointly referred to as "Pena"), were registered,

601certified, or otherwise qualified under the provisions of Chapter

610489, Florida Statutes, to engage in contracting in the State of

621Florida. Respondent was clearly aware of Pena's lack of

630licensure. 1

632The Zapata job

6353. Pertinent to this case, Oscar and Consuelo Zapata owned

645a one-story commercial building located at 59 Beacom Boulevard,

654Miami, Florida.

6564. On August 1, 1996, 2 Mr. Pena, on behalf of U.S.A. Henry

669Roofing Corp., and Mr. Zapata entered into an agreement whereby

679U.S.A. Henry Roofing Corp. would replace the roof on the building

690in exchange for an agreed price of $18,200. A first payment of

703$8,000 was to be paid after the first inspection, and the balance

716of $10,200 was to be paid following the final inspection.

7275. Later in the month of August, Mr. Pena presented a

738building and zoning permit application, as well as a request for

749permit, to Mr. Zapata (as owner of the property) for signature.

760(Petitioner's Exhibit 8.) Following Mr. Zapata's signing,

767Mr. Pena delivered the forms to Respondent who signed as the

778contractor. Thereafter, on or about September 3, 1996,

786Respondent submitted the forms to the City of Miami to obtain a

798building permit for the re-roofing job. Respondent was not then,

808nor was he ever, under contract to make improvements to the

819Zapata property, and his sole involvement was to obtain a permit

830so Pena could proceed with the job. The permit was issued on or

843about September 5, 1996. 3

8486. On September 17, 1996, Pena began work on the roof, and

860ceased work the same day when the roof collapsed. 4 With the

872discovery that Pena was not licensed or insured, Mr. Zapata

882ultimately contracted with another company (that was licensed) to

891re-roof the building for $16,000. That contract was duly

901fulfilled, and the re-roofing of the Zapata building was

910accomplished (notwithstanding the roof collapse) without

916financial loss to the Zapatas. 5

922Respondent's lapse of insurance coverage

9277. Respondent's liability and property damage insurance

934policy was terminated June 25, 1996, and was not reinstated until

945September 19, 1996. Respondent does not dispute the lapse in

955insurance coverage. (Petitioner's Exhibits 6 and 10, and

963Transcript, at pages 76-77, and 80-81.)

969The costs of investigation and prosecution

9758. At hearing, the Department offered proof, without

983objection, that its costs of investigation and prosecution,

991excluding costs associated with any attorney's time, totalled

999$306.09, as of January 27, 1999. (Petitioner's Exhibit 7.)

1008Previous disciplinary action

10119. On January 18, 1996, the Department entered a final

1021order which found the Respondent guilty of the violations set

1031forth in a two-count Administrative Complaint issued March 25,

10401993. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1.) In that complaint, the

1048Department charged (in Count I) that Respondent violated the

1057provisions of Subsection 489.129(1)(e), Florida Statutes, "by

1064performing any act which assists a person or entity in engaging

1075in the prohibited uncertified and unregistered practice of

1083contracting, if the cerfificateholder or registrant knows or has

1092reasonable grounds to know that the person or entity was

1102uncertified and unregistered," and (in Count II) that Respondent

1111violated the provisions of Subsection 489.129(1)(m), Florida

1118Statutes, "by being found guilty of fraud, deceit, or of gross

1129negligence, incompetency, or misconduct in the practice of

1137contracting." Such charges were premised on a renovation

1145contract Respondent held wherein he "subcontracted Nelson

1152Echeverria [who was not a state licensed electrical contractor]

1161to perform electrical work at customer's home for approximately

1170$4,500.00." The final order found Respondent guilty of the

1180charges, and imposed an administrative fine of $1,500 and costs

1191of $1,433.03, to be paid within 30 days. On March 8, 1996,

1204Respondent's license was suspended for failure to satisfy the

1213penalty imposed by the final order; however, the penalty was then

1224apparently satisfied and on June 19, 1996, the suspension was

1234lifted and Respondent's license was reinstated.


124310. The Division of Administrative Hearings has

1250jurisdiction over the parties to, and the subject matter of,

1260these proceedings. Sections 120.569, 120.57(1), and 120.60(5),

1267Florida Statutes.

126911. Where, as here, the Department proposes to take

1278punitive action against a licensee, it must establish grounds for

1288disciplinary action by clear and convincing evidence. Section

1296120.57(1)(h), Florida Statutes (1997), and Department of Banking

1304and Finance v. Osborne Stern and Co. , 670 So. 2d 932 (Fla. 1996).

1317That standard requires that "the evidence must be found to be

1328credible; the facts to which the witnesses testify must be

1338distinctly remembered; the testimony must be precise and explicit

1347and the witnesses must be lacking in confusion as to the facts in

1360issue. The evidence must be of such weight that it produces in

1372the mind of the trier of fact a firm belief or conviction,

1384without hesitancy, as to the truth of the allegations sought to

1395be established." Slomowitz v. Walker , 429 So. 2d 797, 800 (Fla.

14064th DCA 1983).

140912. Regardless of the disciplinary action sought to be

1418taken, it may be based only upon the offenses specifically

1428alleged in the administrative complaint. See Kinney v.

1436Department of State , 501 So. 2d 129 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987);

1447Sternberg v. Department of Professional Regulation, Board of

1455Medical Examiners , 465 So. 2d 1324 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); and

1466Hunter v. Department of Professional Regulation , 458 So. 2d 844

1476(Fla. 2d DCA 1984). Moreover, in determining whether Respondent

1485violated the provisions of Section 489.129(1), Florida Statutes,

1493as alleged in the Administrative Complaint, one "must bear in

1503mind that it is, in effect, a penal statute. . . . This being

1517true, the statute must be strictly construed and no conduct is to

1529be regarded as included within it that is not reasonably

1539proscribed by it." Lester v. Department of Professional and

1548Occupational Regulations , 348 So. 2d 923, 925 (Fla. 1st DCA


155913. Pertinent to this case, Section 489.129, Florida

1567Statutes, provides:

1569(1) The board may take any of the

1577following actions against any

1581certificateholder or registrant: place on

1586probation or reprimand the licensee, revoke,

1592suspend, or deny the issuance or renewal of

1600the certificate or registration, require

1605financial restitution to a consumer for

1611financial harm directly related to a

1617violation of a provision of this part, impose

1625an administrative fine not to exceed $5,000

1633per violation, require continuing education,

1638or assess costs associated with investigation

1644and prosecution, if the contractor,

1649financially responsible officer, or business

1654organization for which the contractor is a

1661primary qualifying agent, a financially

1666responsible officer, or a secondary

1671qualifying agent responsible under s.

1676489.1195 is found guilty of any of the

1684following acts:

1686* * *

1689(e) Performing any act which assists a

1696person or entity in engaging in the

1703prohibited uncertified and unregistered

1707practice of contracting, if the

1712certificateholder or registrant knows or has

1718reasonable grounds to know that the person or

1726entity was uncertified and unregistered.

1731* * *

1734(j) Failing in any material respect to

1741comply with the provisions of this part or

1749violating a rule or lawful order of the


1758* * *

1761(n) Committing incompetency or misconduct

1766in the practice of contracting.

177114. In resolving whether Respondent assisted a person or

1780entity to engage in the prohibited uncertified and unregistered

1789practice of contacting, as alleged in Count I of the

1799Administrative Complaint and proscribed by Subsection

1805489.129(1)(e), Florida Statutes, the following definition should

1812be considered:

1814(6) "Contracting" means, except as

1819exempted in this part, engaging in business

1826as a contractor and includes, but is not

1834limited to, performance of any of the acts as

1843set forth in subsection (3) which define

1850types of contractors. The attempted sale of

1857contracting services and the negotiation or

1863bid for a contract on these services also

1871constitutes contracting. If the services

1876offered require licensure or agent

1881qualification, the offering, negotiation for

1886a bid, or attempted sale of these services

1894requires the corresponding licensure. . . .

1901Section 489.105(6), Florida Statutes.

190515. Subsection 489.105, Florida Statutes, defines the

1912following types of contractors:

1916(3) "Contractor" means the person who is

1923qualified for, and shall only be responsible

1930for, the project contracted for and means,

1937except as exempted in this part, the person

1945who, for compensation, undertakes to, submits

1951a bid to, or does himself or herself or by

1961others construct, repair, alter, remodel, add

1967to, demolish, subtract from, or improve any

1974building or structure, including related

1979improvements to real estate, for others or

1986for resale to others; and whose job scope is

1995substantially similar to the job scope

2001described in one of the subsequent paragraphs

2008of this subsection. . . .

2014(a) "General contractor" means a

2019contractor whose services are unlimited as to

2026the type of work which he or she may do,

2036except as provided in this part.

2042* * *

2045(e) "Roofing contractor" means a

2050contractor whose services are unlimited in

2056the roofing trade and who has the experience,

2064knowledge, and skill to install, maintain,

2070repair, alter, extend, or design, when not

2077prohibited by law, and use materials and

2084items used in the installation, maintenance,

2090extension, and alteration of all kinds of

2097roofing, waterproofing, and coating, except

2102when coating is not represented to protect,

2109repair, waterproof, stop leaks, or extend the

2116life of the roof.

212016. Also pertinent to Count I, Section 489.113, Florida

2129Statutes, imposes the following restriction on a general

2137contractor's practice:

2139(3) A contractor shall subcontract all

2145electrical, mechanical, plumbing, roofing,

2149sheet metal, swimming pool, and air-

2155conditioning work, unless such contractor

2160holds a state certificate or registration in

2167the respective trade category, however:

2172* * *

2175(g) No general, building, or residential

2181contractor certified after 1973 shall act as,

2188hold himself or herself out to be, or

2196advertise himself or herself to be a roofing

2204contractor unless he or she is certified or

2212registered as a roofing contractor.

221717. Given the facts, as found, it cannot be subject to

2228serious debate that, with regard to the Zapata project, Pena

2238engaged in contracting, and that Respondent assisted or abetted

2247that activity by procuring the building permit for the project.

2257Consequently, Respondent is guilty of having violated Section

2265489.129(1)(e), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Count I of the

2275Administrative Complaint.

227718. To support its contention that Respondent failed to

2286comply with the provisions of Chapter 489, Part I, Florida

2296Statutes, as alleged in Count II of the Administrative Complaint

2306and as proscribed by Subsection 489.129(1)(e), Florida Statutes,

2314the Department relies on Subsection 489.127(4)(c), Florida

2321Statutes, previously 489.1265, Florida Statutes (1995), which

2328provides as follows:

2331(c) A certified or registered contractor,

2337or contractor authorized by a local

2343construction regulation board to do

2348contracting, may not apply for or obtain a

2356building permit for construction work unless

2362the certified or registered contractor, or

2368contractor authorized by a local construction

2374regulation board to do contracting, or

2380business organization duly qualified by said

2386contractor, has entered into a contract to

2393make improvements to, or perform the

2399contracting at, the real property specified

2405in the application or permit. This paragraph

2412does not prohibit a contractor from applying

2419for or obtaining a building permit to allow

2427the contractor to perform work for another

2434person without compensation or to perform

2440work on property that is owned by the


244919. Here, the proof demonstrated, with the requisite degree

2458of certainty, that Respondent, within the meaning of Subsection

2467489.127(4)(c), applied for or obtained a building permit for

2476construction work for which he had no contract to perform

2486improvements to the real property specified in the application or

2496permit. Consequently, Respondent is guilty of violating the

2504provisions of Subsection 489.129(1)(j), Florida Statutes, as

2511alleged in Count II of the Administrative Complaint.

251920. To support its contention that Respondent committed

2527incompetency or misconduct in the practice of contracting, as

2536alleged in Count III of the Administrative Complaint and

2545proscribed by Subsection 489.129(1)(n), Florida Statutes, the

2552Department relies on the provisions of Chapter 61G4, Florida

2561Administrative Code. Pertinent to this issue, Rule 61G4-

256915.003(1), Florida Administrative Code, provides:

2574(1) As a prerequisite to the initial

2581issuance, or the renewal of an active

2588certificate or registration or a change in

2595the status of an active certificate or

2602registration, the applicant shall submit a

2608signed affidavit attesting to the fact that

2615the applicant has obtained and will maintain

2622public liability and property damage

2627insurance, in the amounts stated herein for

2634the life of an active certificate or

2641registration and for the safety and welfare

2648of the public. It shall be a violation of

2657this rule for any licensee to fail to

2665continually maintain liability and property

2670damage insurance in amounts set forth herein.

2677Pursuant to subparagraph (2)(h) of the foregoing Rule, a general

2687contractor must maintain public liability insurance and property

2695damage insurance in the amount of $300,000 and $50,000,

2706respectively. Under the provisions of Rules 61G4-17.001(4)(b)

2713and 61G4-17.009, Florida Administrative Code, a violation of any

2722provision of Chapter 61G4, Florida Administrative Code, is

2730considered a violation of Subsection 489.129(1)(n), Florida

2737Statutes. Consequently, by having failed to maintain liability

2745and property damage insurance as required by Rule 61G4-15.003,

2754Florida Administrative Code, Respondent has been shown to have

2763committed incompetency or misconduct in the practice of

2771contracting as alleged in Count III of the Administrative

2780Complaint and proscribed by Subsection 489.129(1)(n), Florida


278821. Having reached the foregoing conclusions, it remains to

2797resolve the appropriate penalty that should be imposed.

2805Pertinent to this issue, Rule 61G4-17.001, Florida Administrative

2813Code, provides the following guidelines to be used in

2822disciplinary cases under Chapter 489, absent aggravating or

2830mitigating circumstances:

2832(5) 489.129(1)(e): Assisting unlicensed

2836person to evade provision of Chapter 489.

2843First violation, $500 to $2,500 fine; repeat

2851violation, $2,500 to $5,000 fine and

2859suspension, or revocation.

2862* * *

2865(14) Misconduct or incompetency in the

2871practice of contracting as set forth in

2878Section 489.129(1)(n), Florida Statutes,

2882shall include, but is not limited to:

2889* * *

2892(b) Violation of any provision of Chapter

289961G4, Florida Administrative Code, or Chapter

2905489, Part I, F.S.

2909* * *

2912(d) The following guidelines shall apply

2918to cases involving misconduct or incompetency

2924in the practice of contracting, absent

2930aggravating or mitigating circumstances:

2934* * *

29372. Violation of any provision of Chapter

294461G4, Florida Administrative Code, or Chapter

2950489, Part I, F.S. First violation, $500 to

2958$1,000 fine; repeat violations $1,000 to

2966$5,000 fine and suspension or revocation.

2973* * *

2976(20) For any violation occurring after

2982October 1, 1989, the board may assess the

2990costs of investigation and prosecution. The

2996assessment of such costs may be made in

3004addition to the penalties provided by these

3011guidelines without demonstration of

3015aggravating factors set forth in rule 61G4- 6


3024The Rule does not provide a specific penalty to address a

3035violation of Subsection 489.129(j), Florida Statutes, based on

3043violation of Section 489.127(4), Florida Statutes. See Rule

305161G4-17.001(10), Florida Administrative Code. However, Rule

305761G4-17.001(22), Florida Administrative Code, provides that

"3063[t]he absence of any violation from this Chapter shall be viewed

3074as an oversight, and shall not be construed as an indication that

3086no penalty is to be assessed. The Guideline penalty for the

3097offense most closely resembling the omitted offense shall apply."

310622. According to Rule 61G4-17.002, Florida Administrative

3113Code, the circumstances which may be considered in mitigation or

3123aggravation of the penalty include, but are not limited to, the


3135(1) Monetary or other damage to the

3142licensee's customer, in any way associated

3148with the violation, which damage the licensee

3155has not relieved, as of the time the penalty

3164is to be assessed. (This provision shall not

3172be given effect to the extent it would

3180contravene federal bankruptcy law.)

3184(2) Actual job-site violations of building

3190codes, or conditions exhibiting gross

3195negligence, incompetence, or misconduct by

3200the licensee, which have not been corrected

3207as of the time the penalty is being assessed.

3216(3) The severity of the offense.

3222(4) The danger to the public.

3228(5) The number of repetitions of offenses.

3235(6) The number of complaints filed against

3242the licensee.

3244(7) The length of time the licensee has


3253(8) The actual damage, physical or

3259otherwise, to the licensee's customer.

3264(9) The deterrent effect of the penalty


3272(10) The effect of the penalty upon the

3280licensee's livelihood.

3282(11) Any efforts at rehabilitation.

3287(12) Any other mitigating or aggravating


329423. The Department's proposed recommended order suggests,

3301as a penalty for the violations found, the imposition of a $5,000

3314administrative fine; assessment of the costs of investigation and

3323prosecution of $306.09; and, the suspension of Respondent's

3331license for a period of one year, followed by a two-year term of

3344probation. Given the repetitive nature of Respondent's

3351violation, the Department's proposal is consistent with the

3359provisions of Section 489.129(1), Florida Statutes, the penalty

3367guidelines established by Rule 61G4-17.001, Florida

3373Administrative Code, and the mitigation and aggravation factors

3381established by Rule 61G4-17.002, Florida Administrative Code.

3388Consequently, the Department's recommendation is accepted as

3395appropriate under the circumstances of this case.


3403Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of

3413Law, it is

3416RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding Respondent

3425guilty of the violations alleged in Counts I through III of the

3437Administrative Complaint and imposing, as a penalty for such

3446violations, an administrative fine in the sum of $5,000;

3456assessing costs of investigation and prosecution in the sum of

3466$306.09; and, suspending Respondent's licensure for a period of

3475one year, followed by a two-year term of probation subject to

3486such reasonable terms and conditions as the Construction Industry

3495Licensing Board may impose.

3499DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of May, 1999, in Tallahassee,

3510Leon County, Florida.



3517Administrative Law Judge

3520Division of Administrative Hearings

3524The DeSoto Building

35271230 Apalachee Parkway

3530Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060

3533(850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675

3537Fax Filing (850) 921-6847


3542Filed with the Clerk of the

3548Division of Administrative Hearings

3552this 12th day of May, 1999.


35591/ Such conclusion is supported by the menial nature of the tasks

3571Respondent had historically employed Pena to perform ("hot mop"

3581roofs) and, most importantly, when Respondent applied for and

3590obtained the building permit (at the request of Pena) for the

3601Zapata job, discussed infra . Clearly, had Pena been licensed, it

3612would have been unnecessary for Respondent to pull the permit.

3622Notably, Respondent offered no proof to the contrary at hearing.

36322/ The agreement (Petitioner's Exhibit 9) reveals a date of

"364201/08/96" which should be read day/month/year.

36483/ The permit erroneously noted the job address as 39 Beacom

3659Boulevard, as opposed to 59 Beacom Boulevard. (Petitioner's

3667Exhibit 8.)

36694/ No proof was offered to establish the cause of the roof


36825/ The only monies Mr. Zapata expended were for some roofing

3693materials ordered by Mr. Pena, and which Mr. Pena removed from the

3705job site. No proof was offered at hearing regarding the cost or

3717value of those materials.

37216/ Consistent with the provisions of Section 489.129(1), Florida

3730Statutes, Rule 61G4-17.001(21), Florida Administrative Code,

3736provides "the board may order the contractor to make restitution

3746in the amount of financial loss suffered by the consumer." Here,

3757the proof does not demonstrate that the customer suffered any

3767financial loss and, consequently, the Department seeks no such



3779Theodore R. Gay, Esquire

3783Department of Business and

3787Professional Regulation

3789401 Northwest Second Avenue

3793Suite N-607

3795Miami, Florida 33128

3798Jorge E. Otero, Esquire

3802Tomlin & Tomlin, P.A.

380675 Valencia Avenue, 4th Floor

3811Coral Gables, Florida 33134

3815Rodney Hurst, Executive Director

3819Construction Industry Licensing Board

3823Department of Business and

3827Professional Regulation

38297960 Arlington Expressway, Suite 300

3834Jacksonville, Florida 32211-7467

3837William Woodyard, General Counsel

3841Department of Business and

3845Professional Regulation

38471940 North Monroe Street

3851Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792


3860All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within 15

3871days from the date of this Recommended Order. Any exceptions to

3882this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that will

3893issue the Final Order in this case.

Select the PDF icon to view the document.
Date: 09/14/1999
Proceedings: Final Order filed.
Date: 09/08/1999
Proceedings: Agency Final Order
Date: 09/08/1999
Proceedings: Recommended Order
Date: 05/28/1999
Proceedings: Exceptions to Recommended Order Dated May 12, 1999; Cover Letter filed.
Date: 05/12/1999
Proceedings: Recommended Order sent out. CASE CLOSED. Hearing held 02/02/99.
Date: 05/07/1999
Proceedings: Order sent out. (PRO`s due by 5/7/99)
Date: 05/03/1999
Proceedings: Letter to Judge Kendrick from J. Otero Re: Requesting an Extension be granted until 5/7/99 (filed via facsimile).
Date: 05/03/1999
Proceedings: Petitioner`s Proposed Recommended Order filed.
Date: 04/20/1999
Proceedings: Order sent out. (Respondent`s request that the time for filing proposed recommended orders be extended to May 3, 1999 is granted)
Date: 04/19/1999
Proceedings: Letter to Judge Kendrick from T. Gay Re: No objection to Extension of time to file proposed recommended orders (filed via facsimile).
Date: 04/16/1999
Proceedings: Letter to Judge Kendrick from J. Otero Re: Requesting an Extension of time to file Proposed Order (filed via facsimile).
Date: 04/14/1999
Proceedings: Letter to J. Otero from T. Gay Re: Missing material from transcript filed.
Date: 04/12/1999
Proceedings: Transcript filed.
Date: 04/09/1999
Proceedings: Letter to Judge Kendrick from T. Gay Re: Original transcript filed in DBPR instead of DOAH filed.
Date: 04/08/1999
Proceedings: Letter to Official Reporting Service, Inc. from T. Gay Re: Requesting corrections to the transcript filed.
Date: 02/02/1999
Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Hearing Held.
Date: 10/23/1998
Proceedings: Notice of Hearing sent out. (hearing set for 2/2/99; 9:00am; Miami)
Date: 10/19/1998
Proceedings: Petitioner`s First Request for Admissions filed.
Date: 10/15/1998
Proceedings: Petitioner`s Unilateral Response to Initial Order (filed via facsimile).
Date: 10/05/1998
Proceedings: Initial Order issued.
Date: 09/28/1998
Proceedings: Request for Hearing (letter form); Administrative Complaint; Answer to Administrative Complaint filed.

Case Information

Date Filed:
Date Assignment:
Last Docket Entry:
Miami, Florida

Related DOAH Cases(s) (1):

Related Florida Statute(s) (9):

Related Florida Rule(s) (4):