01-002496 William G. Roe &Amp; Sons, Inc. vs. Five Star Packing And Auto Owners Insurance Company
 Status: Closed
Recommended Order on Tuesday, March 5, 2002.


View Dockets  
Summary: 01-2495-Petitioner presented sufficient evidence to show Respondent owed Petitioner for citrus fruit as alleged. 01-2496-Petitioner failed to show that contract for ruby red grapefruit sold to Respondent was a valid contract.

1STATE OF FLORIDA

4DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

8FIVE STAR PACKING, )

12)

13Petitioner, )

15)

16vs. ) Case No. 01 - 2495A

23)

24WILLIAM G. ROE & SONS, INC., )

31AND UNITED STATES FIDELITY & )

37GUARANTY COMPANY, )

40)

41Respondents. )

43_______________________________ )

45)

46W ILLIAM G. ROE & SONS, INC., )

54)

55Petitioner, )

57)

58vs. ) Case No. 01 - 2496A

65)

66FIVE STAR PACKING AND AUTO )

72OWNERS INSURANCE COMPAN Y, )

77)

78Respondents. )

80)

81RECOMMENDED ORDER

83Upon due notice, William R. Cav e, an Administrative Law

93Judge for the Division of Administrative Hearings, held a formal

103hearing in these matters on November 7, 2001, in Winter Haven,

114Florida.

115APPEARANCES

116Case No. 01 - 2495A

121For Petitioner: H. Christopher Tompkins, II, Esquire

1281706 South Kings Avenue

132Brandon, Florida 33509 - 6216

137For Respondent: Douglas A. Lockwood, III, Esquire

144W. G. Roe & Peterson & Myers, P.A.

152Sons, Inc. 141 5th Street, Northwest

158Post Office Drawer 7608

162Winter Haven, Florida 33883

166For Respondent: No appearance

170United States

172Fidelity &

174Guaranty Co.

176Case No. 01 - 2496A

181For Petitioner: Douglas A. Lockwood, III, Esquire

188W. G. Roe & Peterson & Myers, P.A.

196Sons, Inc. 141 5th Street, Northwest

202Post Office Drawer 7608

206Winter Haven, Florida 33883

210For Respondent: H. Christopher Tompkins, II, Esquire

217Five Star 1706 South Kings Avenue

223Packing Brandon, Florida 33509 - 6216

229For Respondent: Jack P. James, Esquire

235Auto Owners Post Office Box 3

241Insurance Co. Lakeland, Florida 33802

246STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES

250Case No. 01 - 2495A

255Does Respondent, William. G. Roe & Sons, Inc. (Roe & Sons)

266owe Five Star Packing (Five Star) monies as alleged in the

277Complaint for citrus contracted for under various written

285contracts entered into by the parties?

291Case No. 01 - 2496A

296Does Respondent Five Star owe Roe & Sons monies as alleged

307in the Complaint for damages sustained by Roe & Sons as a result

320of the breach of alleged oral contracts between the parties by

331Five Star?

333PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

335Case No. 01 - 2495A

340By a Complaint dated August 22, 2000, and filed with the

351Office of Citrus License and Bond, Florida Department of

360Agriculture and Consumer Services (Department) on September 12,

3682000, and a First Amended Complaint dated January 5, 2001, and

379filed with the Department on January 10, 2001, Five Star seeks

390payment of an alleged balance due from Roe & Sons under various

402written contracts between the parties for the sale of

411tangerines, white grapefruit, and temple oranges. Roe & Sons

420denied the allegations within the Complaint and a lleged the

430affirmative defenses of settlement, breach of a written

438contract, and breach of oral contract. Additionally, Roe & Sons

448filed a counterclaim in the amount of $97,000.00 for breach of

460contract in Five Star's failure to purchase a certain quantit y

471of ruby red grapefruit under alleged oral contracts.

479Case No. 01 - 2496A

484By a Complaint dated November 10, 2000, and filed with the

495Department on November 15, 2000, Roe & Sons seeks payment from

506Five Star for alleged damages suffered due to the failure of

517Five Star to perform under two alleged oral contracts with Roe &

529Sons for the purchase of a certain quantity of ruby red

540grapefruit.

541By letter dated June 25, 2001, the Department referred

550these matters to the Division of Administrative Hearings

558(Division) for the assignment of an Administrative Law Judge and

568for the conduct of a formal hearing. The cases were

578consolidated for hearing on July 17, 2001.

585At the hearing, Five Star presented the testimony of Larry

595Thompson. Five Star's Exhibits 1 - 4 were admitted in evidence.

606Roe & Sons presented the testimony of W. A. Alford, Morgan Roe,

618and William Roe. Roe & Sons' Exhibits 1 - 12 were admitted in

631evidence.

632A Transcript of this proceeding was filed with the Division

642on November 28, 2001. The parties fil ed their Proposed

652Recommended Orders under an extended time frame with the

661understanding that any time constraint imposed under Rule 28 - 106

672(1), Florida Administrative Code, was waived in accordance with

681Rule 28 - 106(2), Florida Administrative Code.

688FINDIN GS OF FACT

692Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence

700adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact

710are made:

7121. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Five Star

722was a citrus fruit dealer as that term is defined in Subse ction

735601.03(8), Florida Statutes, and was licensed and bonded in

744accordance with Chapter 601, Florida Statutes.

7502 . At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Roe & Sons

762was a citrus fruit dealer as that term is defined in Subsection

774601.03(8), Florida St atutes, and was licensed and bonded in

784accordance with Chapter 601, Florida Statutes.

7903. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, both Five

800Star and Roe & Sons were subject to the provisions of

811Chapter 601, Florida Statutes.

8154. Five Star bought, sold, and delivered citrus fruit to

825various citrus processing facilities and packing houses in

833Central Florida during the 1999 - 2000 citrus fruit season.

8435. During the 1999 - 2000 citrus fruit season, Roe & Sons

855operated a packing house in Winter Haven, Florida, and regularly

865purchased citrus fruit for the fresh fruit market, and sold

875citrus fruit that it had purchased to other citrus fruit dealers

886such as Five Star.

8906. The Complaint in Case No. 01 - 2495A was filed with the

903Department by Five Star on September 12, 2000, and was timely

914filed in accordance with Subsection 601.66(1), Florida Statutes.

922On January 5, 2001, before the Department referred this matter

932to the Division, Five Star filed its First Amended Complaint

942with the Department.

9457. The Complaint in Ca se No. 01 - 2496A was filed with the

959Department by Roe & Sons on November 10, 2000, and was timely

971filed in accordance with Subsection 601.66(1), Florida Statutes.

9798. On December 6, 1999, Roe & Sons and Five Star entered

991into a Participation Marketing Agr eement, Contract No. B233Q,

1000for tangerines wherein Roe & Sons was to purchase Sunburst

1010Tangerines from Five Star. Roe & Sons purchased 2,124 boxes of

1022Sunburst Tangerines from Five Star for which Roe & Sons paid

1033Five Star $23,534.84. There is no disagreem ent as to these

1045tangerines. However, Five Star contends that the tangerines

1053supported by Trip Ticket Nos. 225488, 225489, 225490, 225491,

1062and 225492 were delivered to Roe & Sons but that Five Star did

1075not receive payment. Roe & Sons has no Trip Ticket re ceipts or

1088any other record indicating that these tangerines were delivered

1097to Roe & Sons. However, Larry Thompson of Five Star testified

1108that Trip Ticket Nos. 225488, 225489, and 225490 were filled out

1119by the harvester and that he was present when the tan gerines

1131represented by those Trip Tickets were delivered to Roe & Sons.

1142Thompson also testified that he filled out Trip Ticket Nos.

1152225491 and 225492 and was present when the tangerines

1161represented by those Trip Tickets were delivered to Roe & Sons.

1172The Trip Tickets indicate that the tangerines were being

1181delivered to Roe & Sons under Contract No. B233Q. Copies of the

1193Trip Tickets along with the testimony of Larry Thompson, which

1203is credible, is sufficient to show that the tangerines

1212represented by Trip Tickets Nos. 225488, 225489, 225490, 225491,

1221and 225492 were delivered to Roe & Sons, notwithstanding that

1231Roe & Sons has no records of these tangerines being delivered to

1243Roe & Sons by Five Star. Therefore, Roe & Sons owes Five Star

1256$8,645.67 for the tan gerines represented by Trip Ticket Nos.

1267225488, 225489, 225490, 225491, and 225492. However, Five Star

1276stipulated that it owed Roe & Sons $2,667.60 for 684 boxes of

1289tangerines delivered to Five Star by Roe & Sons on January 13,

13012000. The adjusted amount owed Five Star by Roe & Sons for

1313tangerines is $5,978.07.

13179. On February 11, 2000, Roe & Sons and Five Star entered

1329into a Fresh Cash Purchase Agreement, Contract No. B333S,

1338wherein Roe & Sons agreed to purchase an estimated 25,000 boxes

1350of Marsh whi te grapefruit from Five Star for an agreed price of

1363$1.35 Per Pound Solids (PPS) Gross. Contract No. B333S

1372contained the following Special Clauses: "FRUIT MUST BE A

1381MINIMUM 10.00 BRIX AND 9.00 RATIO. PRICE FOR FRUIT NOT MEETING

1392THIS MINIMUM SCORE WILL BE NEGOTIATED AS THE LOADS ARE

1402RECEIVED." The "Movement Date" under Contract No. B333S was to

1412be "SEASONAL," which the parties stipulated meant that there was

1422no specified date for delivery, only that the grapefruit was to

1433be delivered during the 1999/2000 season. Contract No. B333S

1442also contained the following clause: "Fruit not meeting

1450contract ratio or brix requirements but otherwise suitable to

1459BUYER will be discounted by .10 per unit measure P/S or returned

1471to SELLER at BUYER's sole discretion."

147710. On March 31, 2000, Roe & Sons entered into a second

1489Agreement, Contract No. B376B, wherein Roe & Sons agreed to

1499purchase an estimated 7,000 boxes of Marsh white grapefruit from

1510Five Star for an agreed price of $1.50 PPS Gross. Contract No.

1522B376B contained the following special clause: "Must be 10 Brix

1532and 9 Ratio minimum or $0.15 PPS Penalty." Although Contract

1542No. B376B contained no Movement Date, the parties agreed that

1552the grapefruit was to be delivered during the 1999/2000 season.

156211. Morgan Roe tes tified that when Roe & Sons entered into

1574multiple contracts with the same party to furnish citrus fruit

1584during same season, Roe & Sons had an unwritten internal policy,

1595which required the other party to the multiple contracts with

1605Roe & Sons to fulfill the requirements of the first contract

1616before Roe & Sons would accept citrus fruit under any subsequent

1627contract. Roe & Sons did not make Five Star aware of this

1639unwritten internal policy at the time that either the first or

1650second contract was executed by F ive Star. Likewise, neither

1660the first nor the second contract contained any language which

1670would require Five Star to fulfill the first contract before Roe

1681& Sons would be required to accept grapefruit under the second

1692contract.

169312. Between March 28, 200 0 and May 9, 2000, Five Star

1705delivered 7,649 boxes of white grapefruit to Roe & Sons. Five

1717Star contends that Roe & Sons owes Five Star $43,614.77 after

1729adjustments for unloading charges and research and advertising

1737taxes for the grapefruit delivered. Ro e & Sons contends that it

1749owes Five Star $40,106.96 after adjustments for unloading

1758charges and research and advertising taxes for the grapefruit

1767Five Star delivered. Five Star contends that the majority of

1777the grapefruit was delivered under Contract No. B376B and that

1787Five Star should have been paid $1.50 PPS for the grapefruit

1798delivered under Contract No. B376B. However, only Trip Ticket

1807Nos. 48433, 48434, 77569, 77570, 77571, 77572, and 77573 were

1817specifically marked as being delivered under Contract N o. B376B,

1827which Five Star contends it should have been paid $1.50 per

1838pound solids since this grapefruit met all the specifications of

1848the contract. However, Roe & Sons contends that since Five

1858Star's commitment under Contract No. B333S had not been total ly

1869fulfilled, Roe & Sons was only required to pay Five Star $1.35

1881per pound solids for all of the grapefruit delivered between

1891March 28, 2000 and May 9, 2000, notwithstanding that some of the

1903Trip Tickets indicated that the grapefruit was being delivered

1912u nder Contract B376B. Roe & Sons' contention was based on its

1924internal policy that the first contract, Contract No. B333S, had

1934to be fulfilled before Roe & Sons was required to honor the

1946second contract, Contract No. B376B. There is insufficient

1954evidence to support Roe & Sons' contention that its internal

1964policy is an industry standard, notwithstanding the testimony of

1973W. A. Alford to the contrary, which lacks credibility. Roe &

1984Sons has failed to show that Five Star was required to fulfill

1996Contract No. B 333S before Roe & Sons was required to accept

2008fruit under Contract No. B376B. Roe & Sons should have allowed

2019Five Star $1.50 PPS for the grapefruit delivered under Contract

2029No. B376B. Five Star conceded that none of the other Trip

2040Tickets indicated that the grapefruit was being delivered under

2049Contract No. B376B. Therefore, Roe & Sons' Net Return amount

2059should be adjusted upwards to account for the difference ($0.15)

2069in the price PPS for the above listed Trip Tickets. After

2080adjustment (13,497.78 PS x $0 .15 PPS = $2,024.67), Roe & Sons

2094owes Five Star the sum of $42,131.63 ($40,106.96 $2,024.67)

2106for the grapefruit delivered under Contract Nos. B333S and

2115B376B. Other than the adjustment for the difference in PPS, Roe

2126& Sons Net Return amount is correct. Five Star's Net Return

2137amount incorrectly takes credit for grapefruit at $1.50 PPS that

2147was not delivered under Contract B376B and fails to take credit

2158for grapefruit delivered to Roe & Sons on May 9, 2000, under

2170Trip Ticket Nos. 4134 and 212720.

217613. Fiv e Star contends that Roe & Sons' cull adjustment

2187was excessive and that Roe & Sons owed Five Star $1,688.52 for

2200excessive cull adjustment. Five Star's contracts with Roe &

2209Sons provides that Roe & Sons has the right to reject unsuitable

2221fruit. Although Five Star presented testimony as to what might

2231constitute "excessive cull adjustment," it failed to present

2239sufficient evidence to show that the "culled fruit" was suitable

2249and that Roe & Sons' "cull adjustment" was excessive.

2258Therefore, Five Star is not entitled to any adjustment for cull

2269adjustment.

227014. Roe & Sons contends that sometime around April 11,

22802000, Larry Thompson for Five Star and William Roe for Roe &

2292Sons entered into an oral contract wherein Five Star was to

2303purchase 30,000 boxes of field run ruby red grapefruit with a

23159.00 ratio at a price of $1.20 PPS. Roe & Sons reduced these

2328terms to writing and designated it as Contract S2057. Roe &

2339Sons also contends that sometime around April 14, 2000, Larry

2349Thompson for Five Star and William Roe f or Roe & Sons entered

2362into an oral contract wherein Five Star was to purchase 15,000

2374boxes of elimination red grapefruit at a price of $1.10 PPS.

2385Roe & Sons reduced these terms to writing and designated it as

2397Contract S2060. Larry Thompson testified that he refused to

2406agree to, or to sign, either of these alleged contracts on the

2418basis that he did not agree to handle any specific quantity

2429(number of boxes) of red grapefruit for Roe & Sons. Larry

2440Thompson testified that he agreed to handle some (no specif ic

2451quantity) of red grapefruit for Roe & Sons at the price and

2463specifications stated. Based on Larry Thompson's testimony,

2470which is credible, there was never any valid contract, oral or

2481otherwise, wherein Five Star agreed to purchase a specific

2490quantity ( boxes) of red grapefruit from Roe & Sons,

2500notwithstanding William Roe's testimony to the contrary, which

2508lacks credibility in this regard, or the fact that Five Star did

2520purchase a number of boxes of red grapefruit from Roe & Sons,

2532for which Five Star agre es that it owes Roe & Sons.

254415. Between April 12, 2000 and April 20, 2000, Five Star

2555purchased some 2,760 boxes of red grapefruit at a price of $1.10

2568PPS, represented by ticket nos. 71146, 71149, 64019, 64024, and

257864585. The total PPS of the boxes was 13 ,094.44 for a gross

2591price of $14,403.88 (13,094.44 PS x $1.10 PPS = $14,403.88).

2604After adjusting the gross price for hauling and unloading

2613charges and advertising tax, the total amount owed Roe & Sons by

2625Five Star was $10,972.86.

263016. Between April 12, 20 00 and April 20, 2000, Five Star

2642purchased some 4,355 boxes of red grapefruit at a price of $1.20

2655PPS, represented by ticket nos. 214720, 214721, 71147, 71148,

266471150, 214722, 214723, 214724, and 214725. The total PPS of the

2675boxes was 21,387.92 for a gros s price of $25,665.50 (21,387.92

2689PS x $1.20 PPS = $25,665.50). After adjusting the gross price

2701for hauling and unloading charges and research and advertising

2710tax, the total amount owed Roe & Sons by Five Star was

2722$21,621.11.

272417. Five Star alleged that it owed Roe & Sons the sum of

2737$32,593.97. However, Five Star stipulated that Roe & Sons

2747should be given credit for $4,336.37 in hauling charges paid by

2759Roe & Sons, which brings the total owed to Roe & Sons for red

2773grapefruit by Five Star to $36,930.34.

278018. Subsequent to the purchase of the above red grapefruit

2790by Five Star from Roe & Sons, Five Star advised Roe & Sons that

2804Five Star would not be purchasing any more red grapefruit from

2815Roe & Sons. As a result of this decision by Five Star, Roe &

2829Sons advised Five Star that Five Star could continue to deliver

2840white grapefruit under Contract Nos. B333S and B376B, but that

2850any monies due Five Star for grapefruit delivered on theses

2860contracts would be applied against any damages suffered by Roe &

2871Sons for Five St ar's failure to honor the alleged oral contracts

2883to purchase red grapefruit from Roe & Sons.

289119. As a result of Roe & Sons' position concerning the

2902alleged oral contracts, Five Star made no further deliveries of

2912white grapefruit to Roe & Sons under Contra ct Nos. B333S and

2924B376B. Instead, Five Star sold the white grapefruit that was to

2935be delivered to Roe & Sons under Contract Nos. B333S and B376B

2947to Silver Springs Citrus at a much reduced rate PPS due to the

2960decline in the grapefruit market in what Five S tar described as

2972an attempt to mitigate damages under Contract Nos. B333S and

2982B376B.

298320. Five Star alleged that Roe & Sons owed Five Star

2994$4,822.31 for 840 boxes of temple oranges purchased by Roe &

3006Sons. However, Five Star stipulated that Roe & Sons was

3016entitled to a credit of $355.58 due to an accounting error by

3028Five Star. The adjusted amount owed to Five Star for temple

3039oranges by Roe & Sons is $4,466,73.

304821. Roe & Sons alleged in its First Affirmative Defense to

3059Five Star's Complaint that the parti es had reached a settlement

3070of their respective claims. However, based on the testimony of

3080Larry Thompson denying that a settlement had been reached, which

3090is credible in this regard, and the fact that the check for the

3103amount of the alleged settlement wa s never received or

3113negotiated by Five Star, supports Five Star's position that the

3123parties had not reached a settlement.

312922. In its Second Affirmative Defense, Roe & Sons alleged

3139that Five Star breached Contract No. B333S by failing to deliver

3150white gra pefruit in accordance with the specifications set forth

3160in the contract. Roe & Sons failed to present sufficient

3170evidence to support this affirmative defense.

317623. Roe & Sons' Third Affirmative Defense, Setoff, and

3185Counterclaim to Five Star's Complaint is based on Five Star's

3195breach of the alleged oral red grapefruit contracts. Roe & Sons

3206failed to present sufficient evidence to show that the alleged

3216oral red grapefruit contracts were in fact valid contracts.

322524. Roe & Sons alleges in its Complaint filed in

3235Case No. 01 - 2496A that Five Star breached the alleged oral

3247contracts for red grapefruit. Roe & Sons failed to present

3257sufficient evidence to show that the alleged oral red grapefruit

3267contracts were in fact valid contracts.

3273CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

327625. The Division has jurisdiction over the parties and the

3286subject matter of this proceeding pursuant to Section 120.57(1),

3295Florida Statutes.

329726. The burden of proof is on the party asserting the

3308affirmative of an issue before an administrative tribunal.

3316Florida Department of Transportation v. J.W.C. Company, Inc. ,

3324396 So. 2d 778 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981). Therefore, Five Star must

3336prove by a preponderance of the evidence the allegations

3345contained in its First Amended Complaint. Likewise, Roe & Sons

3355must prove by a p reponderance of the evidence the allegations

3366contained in its Complaint. Department of Banking and Finance,

3375Division of Securities and Investor Protection v. Osborne Stern

3384and Company , 670 So. 2d 932 (Fla. 1996), and Subsection

3394120.57(1)(j), Florida Statu tes.

339827. There was no mutual agreement as to the material terms

3409of the alleged red grapefruit contracts between Five Star and

3419Roe & Sons. Particularly, there was no agreement as to the

3430quantity of red grapefruit that Five Star was to purchase under

3441the alleged contract. Therefore, there was no valid enforceable

3450contract as to the red grapefruit. See Winter Haven Citrus

3460Growers Association v. Campbell & Sons Fruit Company , 773 So. 2d

347196 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). Without a valid contract, Roe & Sons'

3483request for a Setoff or Counterclaim claimed in its answer to

3494Five Star's First Amended Complaint fails. Likewise, Roe &

3503Sons' Complaint alleging damages due to Five Star's breach of

3513the red grapefruit contact for its failure to purchase a certain

3524quantity of red grapefruit fails.

352928. Five Star has met its burden to show that it is

3541entitled to payment from Roe & Sons as follows:

3550Tangerines $ 5,978.07

3554White Grapefruit $42,131.63

3558Temple Oranges $ 4,466,73

3564Total $52,576.43

3567Minus Amount Owed Roe

3571& Sons for red

3575grapefruit $36,930.34

3578Net owed to Five Star

3583by Roe & Sons $15,646.09

358929. Five Star claims that it is entitled to damages due to

3601the breach of Contract Nos. B333S and B376B for the purchase of

3613a certain number of boxes of white grapefruit by Roe & Sons.

3625However, assuming arguendo that Roe & Sons breached the above

3635referenced contracts, Five Star's attempt to mitigate damages

3643was inappropriate . Since Roe & Sons agreed to continue

3653accepting the white grapefruit from Five Star under Contract

3662Nos. B333S and B376B with the account showing a credit to Five

3674Star for damages under the alleged red grapefruit contracts, the

3684more appropriate approach wo uld have been to continue delivery

3694of the white grapefruit and receive a credit for the full price

3706under the contracts, and negotiate or litigate the validity of

3716the alleged red grapefruit contracts and Roe & Sons alleged

3726breach of the white grapefruit con tracts. Due to a declining

3737red grapefruit market, Five Star's approach to mitigation of

3746damages resulted in damages being created rather than mitigated.

3755RECOMMENDATION

3756Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of

3766Law, it is recommended that the Department of Agriculture and

3776Consumer Services enter a final order requiring Roe & Sons to

3787pay Five Star the sum of $15,646.09 and denying Five Star any

3800damages in regard to Contract Nos. B333S and B376B. It is

3811further recommended that Roe & Sons be denied any relief in

3822regards to the alleged red grapefruit contracts.

3829DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of March, 2002, in

3839Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

3843____________________________________

3844WILLIAM R . CAVE

3848Administrative Law Judge

3851Division of Administrative Hearings

3855The DeSoto Building

38581230 Apalachee Parkway

3861Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3060

3866(850) 488 - 9675 SUNCOM 278 - 9675

3874Fax Filing (850) 921 - 6947

3880www.doah.state.fl.us

3881Filed with the Clerk of the

3887Division of Administrative Hearings

3891this 5th day of March, 2002.

3897COPIES FURNISHED :

3900Hank B. Campbell, Esquire

3904Gray, Harris, Robinson, Lane, Trohn

3909Post Office Box 3

3913Lakeland, Florida 33802

3916United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company

39224311 West Waters Avenue, Suite 401

3928Tampa, Florida 33614

3931Brenda D. Hyatt, Bureau Chief

3936Bureau of License and Bond

3941Department of Agriculture

3944and Consumer Services

3947541 East Tennessee Street

3951India Building

3953Tallahassee, Florida 32308

3956Richard Ditschler, Gen eral Counsel

3961Department of Agriculture

3964and Consumer Services

3967The Capitol, Plaza Level 10

3972Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0810

3977Douglas A. Lockwood, III, Esquire

3982Peterson & Myers, P.A.

3986141 5th Street, Northwest

3990Post Office Drawer 7608

3994Winter Haven, Florida 33883

3998H. Christopher Thompkins, II, Esquire

40031706 South Kings Avenue

4007Brandon, Florida 33509 - 6216

4012Jack P. James, Esquire

4016Post Office Box 3

4020Lakeland, Florida 33802

4023Honorable Charles H. Bronson

4027Commissioner of Agriculture

4030Department of Agriculture

4033an d Consumer Services

4037The Capitol, Plaza Level 10

4042Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0810

4047NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

4053All parties have the right to submit exceptions within 15 days

4064from the date of this Recommended Order. Any exceptions to this

4075Recomme nded Order should be filed with the agency that will

4086issue the Final Order in this case.

Select the PDF icon to view the document.
PDF
Date
Proceedings
PDF:
Date: 12/03/2004
Proceedings: Final Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/24/2002
Proceedings: Agency Final Order
PDF:
Date: 03/05/2002
Proceedings: Recommended Order
PDF:
Date: 03/05/2002
Proceedings: Recommended Order issued (hearing held November 7, 2001) CASE CLOSED.
PDF:
Date: 03/05/2002
Proceedings: Recommended Order cover letter identifying hearing record referred to the Agency sent out.
PDF:
Date: 02/25/2002
Proceedings: Amended Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and Counterclaim of Respondent, Wm. G. Roe & Sons, Inc. filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/25/2002
Proceedings: Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and Counterclaim of Respondent, Wm. G. Roe & Sons, Inc. filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/25/2002
Proceedings: First Amended Complaint filed by Petitioner.
PDF:
Date: 02/07/2002
Proceedings: Respondent`s, WM. G. Roe & Sons, Inc., Proposed Recommended Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (filed via facsimile).
PDF:
Date: 01/14/2002
Proceedings: Motion for Extension of Time to File Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (filed by Respondent via facsimile).
PDF:
Date: 01/07/2002
Proceedings: Petitioner`s Proposed Recommended Order (filed via facsimile).
Date: 11/28/2001
Proceedings: Transcript of Proceedings filed.
Date: 11/07/2001
Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Hearing Held; see case file for applicable time frames.
PDF:
Date: 11/06/2001
Proceedings: Exhibit List (filed by Petitioner via facsimile).
PDF:
Date: 11/06/2001
Proceedings: Witness List (filed by Petitioner via facsimile).
PDF:
Date: 10/31/2001
Proceedings: Exhibit List (filed by Respondent via facsimile).
PDF:
Date: 10/04/2001
Proceedings: Letter to Bay Park Reporting from S. Carver confirming the request for court reporter services for hearing on November 7, 2001 filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/20/2001
Proceedings: Notice of Appearance as Counsel for Respondent.
PDF:
Date: 09/11/2001
Proceedings: Letter to Judge Cave from H. C. Tompkins, II in reply to Initial Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/10/2001
Proceedings: Notice of Hearing issued (hearing set for November 7, 2001; 9:00 a.m.; Winter Haven, FL).
PDF:
Date: 09/10/2001
Proceedings: Order of Pre-hearing Instructions issued.
PDF:
Date: 09/07/2001
Proceedings: Letter to Judge Cave from d. Lockwood, III in reply to Initial Order (filed via facsimile).
PDF:
Date: 09/05/2001
Proceedings: Letter to Judge Cave from D. Lockwood, III in reply to Order Granting Continuance (filed via facsimile).
PDF:
Date: 08/17/2001
Proceedings: Order Granting Continuance and Placing Case in Abeyance issued (parties to advise status by September 5, 2001).
PDF:
Date: 08/15/2001
Proceedings: Motion for Continuance of Final Hearing (filed by W. G. Roe & Sons, Inc. via facsimile).
PDF:
Date: 08/06/2001
Proceedings: Letter to C. Wentworth from S. Carver regarding address change filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/06/2001
Proceedings: Letter to C. Bowman from S. Carver confirmation for services of a court reporter filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/17/2001
Proceedings: Order of Consolidation issued. (consolidated cases are: 01-002495A, 01-002496A)
PDF:
Date: 06/27/2001
Proceedings: Initial Order issued.
PDF:
Date: 06/27/2001
Proceedings: Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and Counterclaim of Respondent, WM. G. Roe &Sons, Inc. filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/27/2001
Proceedings: Request for Production of Documents filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/27/2001
Proceedings: Motion to Consolidate filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/27/2001
Proceedings: Amended Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and Counterclaim of Respondent, WM. G. Roe &Sons, Inc. filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/27/2001
Proceedings: Complaint filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/27/2001
Proceedings: Respondent`s Answer, Affirmative Defenses, Counterclaim, and Motion to Consolidate filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/27/2001
Proceedings: Agency referral filed.

Case Information

Judge:
WILLIAM R. CAVE
Date Filed:
06/27/2001
Date Assignment:
06/27/2001
Last Docket Entry:
12/03/2004
Location:
Winter Haven, Florida
District:
Middle
Agency:
ADOPTED IN TOTO
 

Related Florida Statute(s) (5):