00-003892 Department Of Business And Professional Regulation, Division Of Alcoholic Beverages And Tobacco, vs. Dawson, Fabrizzi &Amp; Fletcher, Inc., D/B/A C. J. Oscars Status: Closed Recommended Order on Friday, April 13, 2001.

Summary: Whether SRX licensee (business operating primarily as a restaurant) maintained and produced records to demonstrate 51-49 percent gross revenue sales from non-alcoholic beverages and foods.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND )

PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, )

DIVISION OF ALCOHOLIC )

BEVERAGES AND TOBACCO, )

)

Petitioner, )

vs. ) Case No. 00-3892

)

DAWSON, FABRIZZI & FLETCHER, )

INC., d/b/a C.J. OSCARS, )

)

Respondent. )

_______________________________)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuan t to notice, the Division of Administrative

Hearings, by Administrative Law Judge, Fred L. Buckine, held a

formal hearing in the above-styled case on December 20, 2000, at

video sites in Tallahassee and Fort Myers, Florida.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: M ichael Martinez, Esquire

Department of Business and

Professional Regulation

1940 North Monroe Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007

For Respondent: John Charles Coleman, Esquire

Coleman & Coleman

2300 McGregor Boulevard

Post Office Box 2089

Fort Myers, Florida 33902-2089

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES

The first issue presented is whether Respondent failed to

derive at least 51 percent of its gross revenue from sales of

food and non-alcoholic beverages during the period of

September 1, 1999 through October 31, 1999, contrary to

Section 561.20(2)(a)4, Florida Statutes, and Rule 61A-3.0141,

Florida Administrative Code.

The second issue presented is whether during the period of

November 1, 1999, through October 31, 1999, Respondent failed to

maintain and/or produce separate records of all purchases and

gross retail sales of food and non-alcoholic beverages and all

purchases of gross retail sales of alcoholic beverages, to wit:

numerous register summaries, Z tapes, contrary to

Section 561.20(2)(a)4, Florida Statutes, and Rule 61A-3.0141,

Florida Administrative Code.

The third issue presented is whether during the period of

April 1, 1999, through May 31, 1999, the Respondent failed to

maintain and/or produce separate records of all purchases and

gross retail sales of food and non-alcoholic beverages and all

purchases of gross retail sales of alcoholic beverages, to wit:

records provided failed to include cash bar sales, contrary to

Section 561.20(2)(a )4, Florida Statutes, and Rule 61-3.0141(3)

(a)2, Florida Administrative Code.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

By an Administrative Action dated December 9, 1999, and

filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings on

September 19, 2000, the Department of Business and Professional

Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco (DABT)

is attempting to revoke, suspend, or otherwise discipline

Respondent's special Alcoholic Beverage License SRX4COP

Number 46-04601.

In support thereof, DABT filed a motion to amend its

initial administrative complaint to add Count III. Respondent

filed objections. After a telephonic conference, DABT's motion

to amend was granted. Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss the

Amended Complaint, alleging vagueness of Section 561.20(2)(a )4,

Florida Statutes, and Rule 61A-3.0141, Florida Administrative

Code, and a violation of due process of law. Respondent's

Motion to Dismiss the Amended complaint was taken under

advisement and denied at the final hearing.

Count I alleges that during the period of April 1, 1999,

through May 31, 1999, Respondent failed to derive at least 51

percent of its gross revenue from the sales of food and non-

alcoholic beverages in violation of Section 561.20(2)(a),

Florida Statutes, and Rule 61A-3.0141, Florida Administrative

Code.

Count II alleges that during the period of April 1, 1999,

through May 31, 1999, Respondent failed to maintain and/or

produce separate records of all purchases and gross retail sales

of food and non-alcoholic beverages and all purchases of gross

retail sales of alcohol beverages, to wit: records failed to

include cash bar sales, catering tickets and/or catering

contracts in violation of Section 561.20(2)(a)(4), Florida

Statutes, and Rule 61-3.0141(3)(a)2, Florida Administrative

Code.

Count III alleges that during the period of September 1,

1999, through October 31, 1999, Respondent failed to maintain

and/or produce separate records of all purchases and gross

retail sales of food and non-alcoholic beverages and all

purchases of gross retail sales of alcoholic beverages to wit:

records failed to include sales from numerous register summaries

(or Z tapes), in violation of Section 561.20(2)(a )4, Florida

Statutes, and Rule 61-3.0141(3)(a) and/or Rule 61.0141(3)(a)(2),

Florida Administrative Code.

Respondent denied all allegations contained in each count

of the Amended Administrative Complaint and requested a formal

hearing under Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. By letter

dated September 19, 2000, DABT referred the matter to the

Division for the assignment of an Administrative Law Judge and

for the conduct of a formal hearing.

At the final hearing, DABT presented the testimony of David

Curry, Michael Batson, Jack Allen, Special Agent Vincent Lanza,

and Agents Steven Tompkins and Debra Martin. DABT's Exhibits 1-

9 were received as evidence. Respondent testified on his own

behalf. Respondent's Exhibits 1-12 were received as evidence.

A transcript of this proceeding was ordered by Counsel for

DBAT at the conclusion of the hearing. The Court Reporter did

not provided the transcript within fifteen days following the

final hearing. No transcript has been provided as of the date

of this Recommended Order. As a result of the extended delay

without a transcript, an Order was entered requiring the parties

to file their Proposed Recommended Orders without benefit of the

transcript.

On March 30, 2001, Counsel for Respondent filed a Motion to

Withdraw as Counsel for Respondent due to his inability to

communicate with his client; his client's prolonged illness, and

the fact that C.J. Oscars Restaurant had closed it doors and

discontinued doing business. Counsel for the Agency had no

objection to Counsel's withdrawal, and the Motion to Withdraw

was granted. The Proposed Recommended Order from the Agency was

filed on March 30, 2001, and given consideration.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence

adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact

are made:

1. Petitioner, the Department of Business and Professional

Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, is the

agency charged with the responsibility of administering and

enforcing the beverage law of the State. Chapters 561-568,

Florida Statutes.

2. At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent,

Dawson, Fabrizzi, & Fletcher, Inc., d/b/a C.J. Oscars, operated

a licensed restaurant business located at 1502 Miramar Street,

Cape Coral, Florida, 33904. The corporate officers are Charles

Dawson, president; Albert N. Fabrizzi, Vice-President; and Jack

Allen, manager of C. J. Oscars.

3. At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent

applied for and was holding a series SRX4COP Alcoholic Beverage

License Number 46-04601, which authorized the sale of beer,

wine, and liquor for consumption on the licensed premises of the

restaurant business.

4. The designation "SRX" identifies a beverage license

issued to a business operating [primarily] as a restaurant.

Respondent's SRX license authorized the sale of alcoholic

beverages on the premises, so long as at lease 51 percent of the

gross revenue is derived from the sale of non-alcoholic

beverages and food.

5. Respondent was made aware of the 51 to 49 percent gross

revenue requirement when Charles Dawson applied for the SRX

license. Indeed, the application for the SRX license, 1 signed

by Charles Dawson, specifically noted these requirements and the

necessity to maintain a record of compliance. Accordingly,

Charles Dawson knew, or should have known, that he would need

purchase and sale records to show, upon demand, the SRX-imposed

percentage requirements were met by the licensee.

6. Required statutory and rule compliance are made known

to each SRX license holder and are strictly imposed upon each

licensee. 2 Section 561.20(2)(a)4, Florida Statutes, and Rule

61A-3.0141, Florida Administrative Code, clearly and

unequivocally states that records of all purchases and gross

retail sales are required to be kept, in legible English

language, by each licensee and are made available upon demand by

the DABT.

7. To enforce the above requirements, DABT performs

periodic audits of all restaurants holding a special SRX

license. As a part of that audit process, Special Agents from

DABT conduct undercover visits and announced visits, as is its

normal custom and practice.

8. Between May and October 1999, Steven Tompkins, District

Supervisor, Fort Myers office, DBAT, testified to making

undercover visits to C.J. Oscars Restaurant on five to fifteen

different occasions. During one or more of those visits, he

observed Monday night drink specials where patrons who spent

$5.00 on any combination of food/drink were given a plastic cup

along with their initial order. Thereafter, and for the

remainder of the evening, drinks were sold to cup holders for

$0.25 per drink. On several other occasions, he observed money

paid at the bar for cash sales of alcoholic drinks go directly

into the pocket of the bartender, Mr. Allen. On other

occasions, he observed Mr. Allen ring-up money on the bar cash

register for both food and alcoholic drinks. On occasions while

he sat at the bar, he observed cash sale money rung up on the

cash register and the actual receipt of the sale thrown into an

ice bucket under the bar. Mr. Tompkins, based upon his 25 years

of experience, his observations, personal purchases and

knowledge of the business operation, believed that Respondent

was selling more alcoholic beverages than food.

9. Ms. Debra Martin initially visited Respondent's

restaurant on or about May 19, 1999, and after identifying

herself as an agency employee requested access of food purchase

records for April and May 1999 and was informed that the

requested records were kept off premises. 3 Ms. Martin testified

that during September 1999 she requested bank statements and

guest checks. Respondent could not provide guest check, and

informed Ms. Martin that some guest checks were no longer kept.

Ms. Martin's request for "Z" tapes went unanswered at that time.

10. The Agency introduced in evidence Respondent's income

statement 4 for the four-month period, January 1, 1999, through

May 31, 1999, which indicated that Respondent sold 51.20 percent

alcohol and 48.80 percent food during that four-month period of

time. David Cary (Respondent's bookkeeper) testified that C.J.

Oscars had opened the business the third week of March 1999, and

Respondent's income statement related to the nine-week period

from the third week of March 1999 to May 31, 1999. Mr. Cary

testified that C.J. Oscars had met its required sale percentages

for the eight-week period of April 1, 1999, through May 31,

1999.

11. Jack Allen, III, manager of C.J. Oscars, and Michael

Batson, register expert, both testified that register Z tapes

record each register transaction in sequential numbering, with

the initials G.T., meaning grand total. Both witnesses

testified that the register records a running total of the

purchases entered and this information is recorded on the Z

tapes of each register. Mr. Allen, regarding missing Z tapes,

testified that during a new employee training, the trainee would

practice register operation by running a Z tape, and he limited

a new employee's training sessions to use of only two Z tapes.

Mr. Allen concluded his testimony by stating that cash bar

receipts were often thrown into a bucket on the bar, and as bar

manager he would check the cash receipts against other records

each morning, tally totals by pencil, and throw the cash

receipts away.

12. Special Agent, Jim Lanza testified that of the Z tapes

provided by Respondent, in response to the Agency demands, he

organized into charts. 5 The charts showed which Z tapes were

missing, to wit: September 2, 1999, beginning with Z tape

number 134 which was provided; the following sequentially number

tapes were missing, 136, 137, 139, 140, 141. For October 1,

1999, beginning with Z tape number 228 which was provided, the

following are examples of missing tapes, 229, 230, 232, 233.

Mr. Lanza's charts, using the grand total of the beginning

lower-numbered Z tape as the base, subtracted the beginning

grand total from the next sequential grand total provided, with

the resulting difference reflecting unreported sales. From this

charting sequence, Mr. Lanza concluded that Respondent's

unreported sales from missing Z tapes was $65,133.08 for the

months of September 2, 1999, through October 31, 1999.

13. Charles Dawson testified in agreement with the

testimony of his bar manager, Mr. Allen, regarding the use of Z

tapes, the training of new employees, and cash receipts having

been placed in a water bucket on the bar and later being thrown

away. Mr. Dawson's additional reasons for the missing Z tapes,

while questionable, demonstrated a persistent and recurring

pattern of a lack of diligence or a practiced disregard for

consequences. According to Mr. Dawson, he read and signed the

SRX license affidavit, but now claims he did not understand, nor

did anyone explain to him what "specific type of records" he was

required to keep. 6 As to cash bar sales receipts, Mr. Dawson

testified that they were added together with other sales,

stapled to the guest checks for a running total, compared with

the Z tapes totals and cash in register totals, and then thrown

away. Regarding the missing Z tapes, Mr. Dawson testified that

one of his registers had broken down, and was repaired and when

back in operation, the Z tape numbering system was sequentially

misaligned and returned to zero; thus, the missing Z tapes. On

another occasion, lighting struck a register causing it to jam

and render two or more Z tapes unreadable; they were thrown

away. During the few days the registers were down, either he or

Mr. Allen would go to each register drawer, at the end of the

business evening, take the cash totals, and give that

information to Mr. David Cary, bookkeeper.

14. Charles Dawson, owner, knew of the mandatory

requirement to maintain records of all gross sales of food and

non-alcoholic beverages, separate records of all gross purchases

of alcoholic purchases, and separate records of all gross retail

sales of alcoholic beverages. Charles Dawson, by his actual

participation in the wrongful destruction of records, permitted,

approved, and condoned the continuous destruction by Ray Allen

of cash sale receipts of alcoholic beverages and the destruction

of register Z tapes resulting from the sale of food and

alcoholic beverages by C. J. Oscars.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

15. The Division of Administrative Hearings has

jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of this

proceeding pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.

16. Section 561.20(2)(a)4., Florida Statutes, provide in

pertinent part as follows:

(2)(a ) No such limitation of the

number of license as herein provided

shall henceforth prohibit the issuance

of a special license to:

* * *

4. Any restaurant . . . deriving at

least 51 percent of its gross revenue

from the sale of food and nonalcoholic

beverages; however, no restaurant

granted a special license on or after

January 1, 1958, pursuant to general or

special law shall operate as a package

store. . . .

17. Rule 61A-3.0141(1),(2)(d),(3)(a)4, Florida

Administrative Code, provides in pertinent part as

follows:

(1) Special restaurant licenses in

excess of the quota limitation set

forth in subsection 561.20(1), Florida

Statutes, shall be issued to otherwise

qualified applicants for establishments

that are bona fide restaurants engaged

primarily in the service of food and

non-alcoholic beverages, if they

qualify as special restaurant licenses

as set forth in subsection (2) of this

rule. Special licensees must

continually comply with each and every

requirement of both subsections (2) and

(3) of this rule as a condition of

holding a license. Qualifying

restaurants must meet the requirements

of this rule in addition to any other

requirements of the beverage law. The

suffix "SRX" shall be made a part of

the license numbers of all such

licenses issued after January 1, 1958.

(2) Special restaurant licenses shall

be issued only to applicants for

licenses in restaurants meeting the

criteria set forth herein.

* * *

(d) An applicant for an SRX license

must either hold, or have applied for,

the appropriate restaurant license

issued by the Division of Hotels and

Restaurants prior to issuance of the

temporary SRX license. The restaurant

must hold the appropriate restaurant

license before it will be eligible for

a permanent SRX license.

* * *

(3) Qualifying restaurants receiving a

special restaurant license after

April 18, 1972, must, in addition to

continuing to comply with the

requirements set forth for initial

licensure, also maintain the required

percentage, as set forth in paragraph

(a) or (b) below, in a bi-monthly

basis. Additionally, qualifying

restaurants must meet at al times the

following operating requirements:

(a) At least 51 percent of total gross

revenues must come from retail sale on

the licensed premises of food and non-

alcoholic beverages. . . .

1. Qualifying restaurants must

maintain separate records of all

purchases and gross retail sales of

food and non-alcoholic beverages and

all purchases and gross retail sales of

alcoholic beverages.

2. The records required in

subparagraph (3)(a)1. of this rule must

be maintained on the premises . . . for

a period of 3 years. . . .

3. Since the burden is on the holder

of the special restaurant license to

demonstrate compliance with the

requirements for the license, the

records required to be kept shall be

legible, clear, and in the English

language.

(4) The required percentage shall be

computed by adding all gross sales of

food, non-alcoholic beverages, and

alcoholic beverages and thereafter

dividing that sum into the total of

gross sales of food plus non-alcoholic

beverages.

18. DABT is statutorily empowered to suspend or revoke an

alcoholic beverage license, such as the one held by Respondent,

based upon any of the grounds enumerated in Section 561.29(1)(a)

and (g), Florida Statutes, which in pertinent part provides:

(1) The Division is given full power

and authority to revoke or suspend the

license of any person holding a license

under the Beverage Law, when it is

determined or found by the division

upon sufficient cause appearing of:

(a) Violation by the licensee or his

or its agents, officers, servants, or

employees, on the licensed premises, or

elsewhere while in the scope of

employment, of any of the laws of this

state . . . .

* * *

(g) A determination that any person

required to be qualified by the

division as condition for the issuance

of the license is not qualified.

19. A literal reading of Section 561.29(1), Florida

Statutes, could suggest an interpretation that a licensee may

have its license suspended or revoked based on a violation of

state law committed by its agents, officers, servants, or

employees on the licensed premises, regardless of the licensee's

own personal fault or misconduct in connection with the unlawful

activity.

20. Under well established case law, Florida courts have

consistently held that a licensee's license may be suspended or

revoked pursuant to Section 561.29(1)(a), Florida Statutes, only

if it is determined that the licensee is culpably responsible

for the violation as a result of his own negligence, his

intentional wrongdoing, or his lack of diligence. See Pic N'

Save v. Department of Business Regulation , 601 So. 2d 245 (Fla.

1st DCA 1992) and the cases cited therein. In Pic N' Save ,

employees of the licensee sold alcoholic beverages to underage

patrons on several different occasions, notwithstanding owner's

training and repeated reminders to check I.D.'s. In that

situation the Court found the licensee engaged in conduct, which

was, in retrospect, reasonable under the circumstances.

21. In this case, however, the evidence has shown, in

retrospect, that the licensee's entire conduct demonstrated a

want of care that raises the presumption of indifference to the

possible consequences. Respondent's various excuses for the

missing Z tapes, "lightening struck his cash register, "; "after

the night manager's pencil tally of the bar register, those

[Z]tapes were no longer needed"; and "the manager's pencil tally

[s] from the bar registers and a separate tally from the dining

room register[s] recorded sales are all the records "[we have],

evidence Respondent's "want of care" to comply with those

responsibilities imposed by the rule and under the statute.

Respondent's claim of not fully understanding what type of

"records" where required to be kept, further evidence "a clear

example of Respondent's indifference to the consequences

[suspension or revocation]."

22. In a disciplinary proceeding, the burden is upon the

agency to establish facts upon which its allegations of

misconduct are based, Balino v. Department of Health and

Rehabilitative Services , 348 So. 2d 349 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977).

Not only must the proof at the hearing be that conduct charged

in the accusatorial document, but also that conduct must legally

fall within the statute or rule the Agency claimed to have been

violated. It is a basic tenet of common law pleading that "the

allegta and probata must correspond and agree." See Rose v.

State , 507 So. 2d 630, 632 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987).

23. It is now settled in Florida that a business license

is subject to suspension or revocation only upon proof by clear

and convincing evidence of the alleged violations. DABT must

prove the material allegations found in its Administrative

Compliant by clear and convincing evidence. Department of

Banking and Finance, Division of Securities and Investor

Protection v. Osborne Stern and Company et al. , 670 So. 2d 932

(Fla. 1996); Ferris v. Turlington , 510 So. 2d 292 (Fla. 1987);

Evans Packing Co. v. Department of Agriculture , 550 So. 2d 112

(Fla. 1st DCA 1989)

24. As to Count I of the Administrative Complaint, DABT

has shown by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent was

culpably responsible for the failure of the business, C.J.

Oscars Restaurant, to maintain food and non-alcoholic beverages

sales at 51 percent of the total revenues derived from food and

non-alcoholic beverages during the period of April 1, 1999,

through May 31, 1999.

25. With regard to Count II of the Administrative

Complaint, DABT has shown by clear and convincing evidence that

Respondent's negligence and careless disregard was the primary

cause for the failure of the business to maintain and produce

separate records of all purchases and gross retail sales of food

and non-alcoholic beverages and all purchases and gross retail

sales of alcoholic beverages during the period of April 1, 1999,

through May 31, 1999.

26. As to Count III of the administrative complaint, DABT

has shown by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent has

failed to maintain and to produce separate records of all

purchases and gross retail sales of food and non-alcoholic

beverages. Respondent has failed to maintain and to produce

separate records of all purchases of gross retail purchases and

gross retail sales of alcoholic beverages during the period of

September 1, 1999, through October 31, 1999, was due to the

careless disregard of the consequences by Respondent.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of

Law, and a review of the penalty guidelines in Rule 61A-2.022,

Florida Administrative Code, it is recommended that the

Department of Business and Professional Regulation enter a final

order revoking Respondent's Alcohol Beverage License

SRX4COP Number 46-04601.

DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of April 2001, in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

___________________________________

FRED L. BUCKINE

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings

The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060

[phone] SUNCOM 278-9675

Fax F iling [phone]

www.doah.state.fl.us

Filed with the Clerk of the

Division of Administrative Hearings

this 13th day of April, 2001.

ENDNOTES

1. Petitioner Exhibit number 3, Special Restaurant Affidavit,

page 1, (7)(a), (b), (c), (d) and (e), signed by Charles Dawson

on March 21, 1999, details the required records to be kept by

the licensee.

2. The licensee in this case is an incorporated business

entity, Dawson, Fabrizzi and Fletcher, Incorporated, with one of

the owners, Charles Dawson, managing the operation of C.J.

Oscars Restaurant. Allegations by DBAT are made against the

licensee. Statutory compliance as a condition of licensee's

ownership is the legal responsibility of the incorporated entity

licensee. In this case the corporate entity licensee, Dawson,

Fabrizzi, and Fletcher, is responsible and accountable for the

conduct of Charles Dawson, its president. Section 561.01(14),

Florida Statutes.

3. Under Rule 61A-3.0141(3)(b)& (c), Florida Administrative

Code, it is permissible for an SRX licensee to maintain the

required records of total gross purchases and gross revenues

from retail sale on the licensed premises off premises in the

office of an accountant or other specified persons with prior

written approval by DABT. This permissive option does not

change, alter nor negate to obligation to keep nor the type of

records to be kept by the licensee.

4. C.J. Oscar's Income Statement(s), (Exhibit 5, 5 page

composite) consisting of total sales of beer, wines, etc. and

total sales of food, are not the records required by statute to

be kept. An Income Statement reflects totals of the

accountant's compilation derived from other source documents of

individual purchases and individual sales of alcoholic beverages

and individual purchases and individual sales of non-alcoholic

beverages and foods. The latter, records of individual

purchases and of individual sales, are required by the cited

statute to be kept and provided by a SRX licensee upon demand.

5. Charts, Petitioner's Exhibit number 7.

6. Rule 61A-4.063(8), Florida Administrative Code, clearly

defines the keeper of records and the records to be kept.

Subsection (8) states clearly that "Each vendor licensed ...

shall maintain complete and accurate records ... Records include

purchase invoices, inventory records, receiving records, cash

register tapes (Z tapes) computer records ... and any other

records used in determining sales."

COPIES FURNISHED:

John Charles Coleman, Esquire

Coleman & Coleman

2300 McGregor Boulevard

Post Office Box 2089

Fort Myers, Florida 33902-2089

Mr. Charles Dawson, Vice President

Dawson, Fabrizzi & Fletcher, Inc.

C/O C. J. Oscars

1502 Miramar Street

Cape Coral, Florida 33904

Michael Martinez, Esquire

Department of Business and

Professional Regulation

1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007

Richard Turner, Director

Division of Alcoholic Beverages

and Tobacco

Department of Business and

Professional Regulation

1940 North Monroe Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792

Hardy L. Roberts, III, General Counsel

Department of Business and

Professional Regulation

1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007

Captain Al Nienhuis

Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco

4100 Center Point Drive, Suite 104

Fort Myers, Florida 33916

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within

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

to this Recommended Order must be filed with the agency that

will issue the Final Order in this case.