11-003428FC Robert A. Schweickert, Jr. vs. Citrus County And Department Of Community Affairs
 Status: Closed
DOAH Final Order on Thursday, November 10, 2011.


View Dockets  
Summary: On remand from the District Court of Appeal for the First District of Florida, reasonable appellate attorney's fees are determined to be $17,782.63, and there are no recoverable legal cost.

1STATE OF FLORIDA

4DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

8)

9ROBERT A. SCHWEICKERT, JR., )

14)

15Petitioner, )

17)

18vs. ) Case No. 11 - 3428FC

25)

26CITRUS COUNTY AND DEPARTMENT OF )

32COMMUNITY AFFAIRS, )

35)

36Respondents, )

38)

39and )

41)

42CITRUS MINING AND TIMBER, INC., )

48)

49Intervenor. )

51)

52FINAL ORDER

54The final hearing in this matter was held on September 7,

652011, in Inverness, Florida, before Bram D.E. Canter,

73Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrat ive

82Hearings ("DOAH").

86APPEARANCES

87For Petitioner: Marcy I. LaHart, Esquire

93Marcy I. LaHart, P.A.

974804 Southwest 45th Street

101Gainesville, Florida 32608 - 4922

106For Respondent Citrus C o unty :

113Peter Aare, Esquire

116Citrus County AttorneyÓs Office

120110 North Apopka Avenue

124Inverness, Florida 33450 - 4231

129For Department of Community Affairs :

135David L. Jordan, Esquire

139Department of Economic Opportunity

143107 East Madison Street, MSC 110

149Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 4128

154For Intervenor: Edward P. de la Parte, Jr., Esq uire

164de la Parte and Gilbert, P.A.

170Post Office Box 2350

174101 East Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 2000

180Tampa, Florida 33601 - 2350

185STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

189The issue to be deter mined is the amount of reasonable

200attorney 's fee s and costs incurred by Citrus Mining and Timber,

212Inc. ("CMT") in Robert A. Schweickert , Jr. v. Dep artment o f

226Com munity Affairs and Citrus Mining and Timber, Inc. , Case. N o.

2381D10 - 3882 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011 ) .

247STA TEMENT OF THE CASE

252On January 26, 2010, Robert Schweickert , Jr., unrepresented

260by legal counsel, filed a petition for hearing with the

270Department of Community Affairs to challenge the Department's

278determination that an amendment to the Citrus County

286Compr ehensive Plan was "in compliance" under section 163.3184,

295Florida Statutes (2010). Following a de novo hearing and a

305Recommended Order from DOAH, the Department issued a Final Order

315on June 25, 2010, which determined that the plan amendment was

326in complia nce.

329On July 22, 2010, Schweickert , still unrepresented by

337counsel, appealed to the District Court of Appeal for the First

348District. On May 4, 2011, the c ourt entered an order dismissing

360the appeal on the basis that Schweickert had not demonstrated

370his s tanding to appeal. In the same order, CMT's motion for

382attorney 's fees was granted "as appellant knew or should have

393known he lacked s tanding to bring the appeal . " On June 24,

4062011, the c ourt granted CMT's motion for clarification as to

417attorney 's fees, remanding the case to DOAH " for determination

427of the amount of attorney's fees and costs. "

435Official recognition was taken of the pleadings, orders,

443and briefs filed in the c ourt . CMT Exhibits 1 through 13 were

457admitted into evidence. CMT presented the t estimony of Daniel

467Stengle. Schweickert presented the testimony of Howard Heims,

475but offer ed no exhibits.

480The Transcript of the final hearing was filed with DOAH and

491the parties filed proposed final orders that were considered in

501the preparation of this Final Order.

507FINDINGS OF FACT

510Appellate Attorney 's Fees

5141 . Sarah Lahlou - Amine of the law firm of Fowler White

527Boggs, P.A. ("Fowler") was the attorney with primary

537responsibility for research and drafting documents for the

545appeal on behalf of CMT. She pr epared and filed a notice of

558appearance, a motion to dismiss, a motion for attorney 's fees,

569an amended motion for attorney 's fees, the a nswer b rief, a

582n otice of s upplemental a uthority, a second motion for attorney 's

595fees, and a motion for clarification. M s. Lahlou - Amine was

607assisted and supervised by more senior lawyers at Fowler. The

617total number of hours charged by Fowler was 134.8. The total

628attorney 's fees charged by Fowler was $39,010.

6372 . Lawyers from two other law firms were employed by CMT

649and c harged attorney 's fees and costs for the appeal. The Law

662Office of Clark Stillwell, P.A., charged 18 hours for a total

673attorney 's fee s of $6,030. Edward de la Parte and other lawyers

687of the law firm of de la P arte & Gilbert, P.A., charged 24.9

701hours for total attorney 's fees of $5,382.50.

7103 . The gran d total of all the attorney hours expended for

723the appeal is 17 7 .7 hours and the grand total of all fees

737charged to CMT for the appeal is $50,422.50 .

7474 . It was the opinion of CMT's expert witness , Daniel

758S tengle, that all of these hours and fees are reasonable.

769Schweickert 's expert witness, Howard Heims, believes that 25 or

77930 hours was all th e effort that was reasonable for this appeal .

7935 . The h ourly rates of $225.00 to $435.00 an hour that

806were used by CMT's attorneys are not contested by Schweickert.

816The evidence established that the rates are reasonable. The

825dispute focused on the number of hours expended for the appeal .

8376 . Heims contends that it was unreasonable for CMT to file

849a motion to dismis s for lack of standing , because appellate

860courts rarely grant such a motion and the standing issue could

871have been saved for CMT's a nswer b rief. The c ourt did not

885summarily deny CMT's motion to dismiss but , instea d, ordered

895Schweickert to show cause why t he motion should not be granted.

907The issuance of the order to show cause indicates that it is not

920the c ourt 's practice to deny all motion s to dismiss that are

934filed before the brief s . Following Schweickert's response, the

944c ourt still did not deny the mot ion to dismiss , but deferred

957ruling to the panel of judges that would determine the merits of

969the appeal.

9717 . I t was not unreasonable to file a motion to dismiss in

985this case because Schweickert's lack of standing was unusually

994clear. The controlling fac tual issue was simple -- whether

1004Schweickert made timely comments to Citrus County about the

1013proposed comprehensive plan amendment . Furthermore, the

1020argument made in the motion eventually prevailed.

10278 . Heims a lso believes that it was unreasonable for CMT to

1040file three motions for attorney 's fees and costs. T he motions

1052were not identical, but filing three such motions is unusual and

1063was not shown to be necessary or important .

10729 . I t was not persuasively shown that 17 7 .7 attorney hours

1086was reasonable for t his appeal .

109310 . The evidence does not establish that the attorney 's

1104fees charged by the law firms of Clark Stillwell and de la Parte

1117& Gilbert should be included as part of the reasonable fee s for

1130the appeal. These fees were not shown to be necess ary or to

1143contribute materially to the appeal.

114811 . Rule 4 - 1.5 of the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar,

1161Code of Professional Conduct , sets forth factors to be

1170considered in determining a reasonable attorney 's fee. The

1179factors list ed in r ule 4 - 1.5(b) (1) are add ressed below, in

1194sequence :

1196(A) t he time and labor required, the

1204novelty, complexity, and difficulty of the

1210questions involved, and the skill requisite

1216to perform the legal service properly;

1222The time and labor expended on the appeal was not shown to be

1235re asonable. The questions involved were not difficult. The

1244case was not complex. No unusual skills and expertise were

1254required to perform the legal services.

1260(B) t he likelihood that the acceptance of

1268the particular employment would preclude

1273other employm ent by the lawyer;

1279CMT did not contend that this factor was applicable.

1288(C) t he fee, or rate of fee, customarily

1297charged in the locality for legal services

1304of a comparable or similar nature;

1310Reasonable hourly rates were charged , but p ersuasive evidence

1319was not presented to show that the total amount of the fee s

1332charged to CMT are customary for the services that were

1342performed .

1344(D) t he significance of, or amount involved

1352in, the subject matter of the

1358representation, the responsibility involved

1362in the re presentation, and the results

1369obtained;

1370Although a reversal of the D epartment 's Final Order would have

1382had adverse consequences for CMT, it was not shown that the

1393situation was of an unusual nature . Furthermore, a reversal on

1404the merits (to find the comp rehensive plan amendment not in

1415compliance) was almost impossible because no factual findings

1423were made that supported Schweickert's claims . CMT points to

1433the unusual result -- attorney's fees awarded against a pro se

1444litigant -- as justifying the attorney's fee, but this unusual

1454result is due to Schweickert's unusually weak case . The issues

1465and the law applied were not unusual.

1472(E) t he time limitations imposed by the

1480client or by the circumstances and, as

1487between attorney and client, any additional

1493or speci al time demands or requests of the

1502attorney by the client ;

1506CMT's argument that time limitations of an usual nature existed

1516in this matter was not persuasive.

1522(F) t he nature and length of the

1530professional relationship with the client ;

1535The applicability o f this factor was not argued by CMT and was

1548not demonstrated by the evidence.

1553(G) t he experience, reputation, diligence,

1559and ability of the lawyer or lawyers

1566performing the service and the skill,

1572expertise, or efficiency of effort reflected

1578in the actual providing of such services;

1585and

1586The lawyers involved have good reputations and experience, but

1595those attributes were not likely to have materially affected the

1605outcome. Performing the legal service s did not require u nusual

1616skills. The services were not efficiently provided.

1623(H) w hether the fee is fixed or contingent,

1632and if fixed as to amount and rate, then

1641whether the client's ability to pay rested

1648to any significant degree on the outcome of

1656the representation.

1658This factor was not shown to be a basis to support a larger fee.

167212 . It was He ims ' opin ion that 25 to 30 hours was a

1688reasonable number of attorney hours to prepare the a nswer b rief

1700and one motion for attorney 's fees. Thirty hours was a

1711sufficient number of hours for the research and drafting work

1721done by Ms. Lahlou - Anime . However, because it has been

1733determined that the filing of the motion to dismiss was

1743reasonable , some additional time should be added .

175113 . CMT Exhibit 1 indicates that Ms. Lahlou - Anime charged

1763about 23 hours for her work o n the motion to dismiss. However,

1776in determining a reasonable number of hours for the work on the

1788motion to dismiss , consideration must be given to the fact that

1799the standing arguments made in the motion were repeated in CMT's

1810a nswer b rief, which has alre ady been accounted for in the 30

1824hours. The parties did not address this specific issue .

1834However, the evidence supports the addition of 10 hours for

1844Ms. Lahlou - Anime, for a total of 40 hours .

185514 . Forty hours for Ms. Lahlou - Anime at her rate of $260

1869pe r hour equals $10,400 .

187615 . Heims also failed to fairly account for the

1886reasonableness of the attorney hours expended by Karen Brodeen,

1895a senior attorney at Fowler who represented CMT in the lower

1906administrative proceedings and who assist ed Ms. Lahlou - Ani me in

1918the preparation of the motion to dismiss and a nswer b rief . CMT

1932Exhibit 1 s hows th at Ms. Brodeen charged 0.9 hours at $375 per

1946hour and 16.9 hours at $385 per hour, for a total fee of $ 6 , 844 .

196316 . T he grand total of reasonable attorney time is 5 7.8

1976hours and the total reasonable attorney 's fee is $1 7 , 2 44 .

1990Appellate Costs

199217 . CMT is seeking $3,250.95 in costs for the appellate

2004proceeding , comprised of $3,156.41 in costs charged by Fowler

2014a nd $94.54 charged by de la Parte & Gilbert. However, as

2026disc ussed in the Conclusions of Law, the costs which CMT seeks

2038to recover -- routine office expenses -- are not recoverable legal

2049costs under the applicable statute s .

2056Prejudgment Interest

205818 . CMT seeks daily p rejudgment interest at the rate of

20700.01644 percent .

2073Requested Sanctions in the DOAH Remand Proceeding

208019 . CMT also seeks to recover its attorney's fees and

2091costs incurred following the remand from the Court of Appeal to

2102DOAH to determine the amount of appellate attorney 's fees and

2113costs , as a sanction fo r alleged misconduct by Schweickert.

212320 . CMT seeks a sanction against Schweickert for his

2133failure to appear at a scheduled deposition for which

2142Schwei c kert had been subpoenaed. Schweickert was not

2151represented by an attorney at the time. Schweickert tol d CMT's

2162attorney s that he was not going to appear at the deposition, but

2175CMT's attorneys went forward as planned. Schweickert did not

2184appear for his deposition. CMT seeks to recover its a ttorney 's

2196fees charged by de la Parte & Gilbert that are related to

2208Schweickert's failure to appear for his deposition, which are

2217$17,975.00 , and costs of $818.63.

222321 . CMT also sought a sanction against Schweickert for

2233having to respond to Schweickert's Motion for Cause of Contempt

2243for Citrus Mining and TimberÓs Violati on of Court Order , which

2254demanded s anctions against CMT for CMT's scheduling of

2263Schweickert's deposition without attempting to contact him to

2271arrange a mutually agreeable date and time. The motion was

2281denied . Schweickert was not represented by an attorne y at the

2293time. CMT seeks to recover its a ttorney 's fees charged by de la

2307Parte & Gilbert to respond to the motion, which are $2,357.50 ,

2319and costs of $21.52.

232322 . The day before the final hearing, CMT filed a motion

2335for sanctions for Schweickert's failure to provide complete

2343answers to some of CMT's discovery requests.

235023 . At the time of the final hearing on September 7, 2011,

2363CMT showed a total of $35,570 in attorney ' s fees associated with

2377the DOAH remand proceeding , and costs of $1,69 3 . 7 3. CMT seeks

2392r ecovery of those fees and costs as well as subsequent fees and

2405costs through issuance of the F inal O rder in this remand

2417proceeding , which are estimated to be $22,000 and $10,870,

2428respectively. In summary , CMT seeks to recover $70,133.73 in

2438fees and costs that it was charged by its attorneys for their

2450effort to show that CMT's appellate fees and costs of $53, 673 .45

2463were reasonable.

2465CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

246824 . CMT has the burden to prove the reasonableness of the

2480attorney 's fees . See City of Miami v. Harris , 4 90 So. 2d 69

2495(Fla. 3d DCA 1985).

249925 . Attorney 's fees generally cannot be recovered when the

2510evidence is insufficient to show what services were performed .

2520See Warner v. Warner , 692 So. 2d 266, 268 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997) ;

2533Tucker v. Tucker, 513 So. 2d 733, 7 35 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987) .

254726 . T he number of hours reasonabl y expended on the

2559litigation , multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate , produces the

"2568lod e star ," which is an objective basis for the award of

2580attorney 's fees. Fl a. Patient's Comp . Fund v. Row e , 472 S o. 2d

25961145 , 1150 (Fla. 1985). T he lod e star may be adjusted up or down

2611to account for a "contingency risk" factor or the " results

2621obtained." The former factor is inapplicable and the latter

2630does not warrant an adjustment in this case.

263827 . In Rowe , t he S upreme Court of Florida stated that, in

2652determining reasonable attorney 's fees, the courts should use

2661the criteria set forth in Disciplinary Rule 2 - 106(b) of The

2673Florida Bar Code of Professional Responsibility. Id . These

2682criteria are now found in r ule 4 - 1.5 (b) , Rules Regulating the

2696Florida Bar, Rules of Professional Conduct.

270228 . After c onsidering the evidence presented and all the

2713guidelines contained in r ule 4 - 1.5(b) , it is concluded that a

2726reasonable attorney 's fee for the appeal is $1 7 , 2 44.

273829 . Sect ion 57.105(1), Florida Statutes, provides that

2747prejudgment interest shall be included in the award of a

2757reasonable attorney's fee under this section. The date of a

2767court's determination that a party is entitled to fees fixes the

2778date for computing prejudg ment interest. Mason v. Reiter , 5 64

2789So. 2d 142 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990 ) . In this case , the operative date

2804is May 4, 2011.

280830 . The total reasonable attorney 's fees , including

2817prejudgment interest , is $17 , 782. 63 . 1

282531 . The costs which CMT seeks to recover are office

2836expenses , such as for postage, telephone, on - line legal

2846research, and facsimile s . CMT did not cite any legal authority

2858to support its claim for these costs. These are not recoverable

2869legal costs. See Robbins v. McGrath , 9 5 5 So. 2d 633, 635 (Fla.

28831st DCA 2007).

288632. C opying expenses are not recoverable unless a showing

2896is made that the copies were for documents filed in court and

2908r easonably necessary . Ocean Club Cmty. Ass'n, Inc. v. Curtis ,

2919935 So. 2d 513, 518 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) . No such showin g was

2934made.

29353 3 . Although Schweickert 's expert witness was not

2945permitted to offer an opinion as to the reasonableness of CMT's

2956costs, an expert opinion is unnecessary to determine that CMT's

2966costs are not recoverable.

29703 4 . A party may recover additional attorney 's fees for

2982litigating the issue of entitlement to fees, but generally a

2992party may not recover attorney 's fees for time spent litigating

3003the amount of the fees. See State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v.

3016Palma , 629 So. 2d 83 (Fla. 1993). However, the same kinds of

3028misconduct that would justify imposing a sanction against a

3037party in the original case can justify a s anction if the

3049misconduct occurs in a subsequent proceeding to determine a

3058reasonable attorney 's fee. See Condren v. Bell , 853 So. 2d 609

3070(Fla. 4th DCA 2003 ).

30753 5 . Because it was determined by the Administrative Law

3086Judge that there was no basis for deposing Schweickert, and CMT

3097was ultimately prohibited from deposing him, no sanction is

3106imposed on Schweickert for his failure to appear for his

3116d eposition.

31183 6 . No evidence was presented by CMT at the final hearing

3131to prove the allegations made in support of the requested

3141sanction against Schweickert for filing his Motion for Cause of

3151Contempt for Citrus Mining and TimberÓs Violation of Court

3160Orde r . The fact that Schweickert's motion was denied is not ,

3172standing alone, sufficient cause to impose a sanction against

3181him.

31823 7 . As to CMT's requested sanction against Schweickert for

3193failing to provide complete responses to certain discovery

3201requests , S chweickert was prohibited at the final hearing,

3210because of that failing, from presenting an expert opinion on

3220the reasonableness of the appellate costs or any evidence on the

3231reasonableness of the fees charged by CMT's attorneys for

3240litigating the amount o f the fees to be awarded. No additional

3252sanction is imposed .

32563 8 . I n summary , CMT's motions for further sanctions

3267a gainst Schweickert for matters arising during the remand

3276proceeding are denied.

3279DISPOSITION

3280Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusion s of Law,

3291it is

3293ORDERED that the amount of reasonable attorney 's fee s for

3304the appeal, including prejudgment interest, is $ 1 7 , 782 . 63 , and

3317there are no legal costs that are recoverable.

3325DONE AND ORDERED this 10th day of November, 2011, in

3335Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

3339S

3340BRAM D. E. CANTER

3344Administrative Law Judge

3347Division of Administrative Hearings

3351The DeSoto Building

33541230 Apalachee Parkway

3357Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3060

3362(850) 488 - 9675

3366Fax Filing (850) 921 - 6847

3372www.do ah.state.fl.us

3374Filed with the Clerk of the

3380Division of Administrative Hearings

3384this 10th day of November , 2011.

3390ENDNOTE

33911/ The interest rate on judgments is 6.0 percent per annum,

3402which produces a daily interest rate of 0.01644 percent. There

3412are 19 0 days between May 4 , 2011, and the date of this Final

3426Order. Multiplying 0.01644 by 190 produces a total interest

3435rate of 3.1236 percent. Applying this rate to $17,244 results

3446in prejudgment interest of $538.63.

3451COPIES FURNISHED :

3454Peter Aare, Esquire

3457Citrus County Attorney Ó s Office

3463110 North Apopka Avenue

3467Inverness, Florida 33450 - 4231

3472Karen A. Brodeen, Esquire

3476Fowler, White, Boggs, Banker, P.A.

3481101 North Monroe Street, Suite 1090

3487Post Office Box 11240

3491Tallahassee, Florida 32302 - 1240

3496Edward P. de la Parte, Jr., Esquire

3503de la Parte and Gilbert, P.A.

3509Post Office Box 2350

3513101 East Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 2000

3519Tampa, Florida 33601 - 2350

3524David L. Jordan, Esquire

3528Department of Economic Opportunity

3532107 East Madison Street, MSC 110

3538Tallahassee, Florida 32 399 - 4128

3544Marcy I. LaHart, Esquire

3548Marcy I. LaHart, P.A.

35524804 Southwest 45th Street

3556Gainesville, Florida 32608 - 4922

3561Doug Darling, Executive Director

3565Department of Economic Opportunity

3569107 East Madison Street

3573Caldwell Building

3575Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 4128

3580Deborah Kearney, General Counsel

3584Department of Economic Opportunity

3588107 East Madison Street

3592Caldwell Building, MSC 110

3596Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 4128

3601NOTICE OF RIGHT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW

3607A party who is adversely affected by this Final Order is

3618en titled to judicial review pursuant to Section 120.68, Florida

3628Statutes. Review proceedings are governed by the Florida Rules

3637of Appellate Procedure. Such proceedings are commenced by

3645filing one copy of a Notice of Administrative Appeal with the

3656agency cl erk of the Division of Administrative Hearings and a

3667second copy, accompanied by filing fees prescribed by law, with

3677the District Court of Appeal, First District, or with the

3687District Court of Appeal in the appellate district where the

3697party resides. The Notice of Administrative Appeal must be

3706filed within 30 days of rendition of the order to be reviewed.

Select the PDF icon to view the document.
PDF
Date
Proceedings
PDF:
Date: 06/12/2012
Proceedings: Transmittal letter from Claudia Llado forwarding the one-volume Trancript, along with Respondent's Exhibits numbered 1-14,and the Deposition Transcripts (which were not entered into the record) of Howard Heims, Sarah Lahlou-Amine, and Edward de la Parte to the agency.
PDF:
Date: 11/14/2011
Proceedings: Undeliverable envelope returned from the Post Office.
PDF:
Date: 11/10/2011
Proceedings: DOAH Final Order
PDF:
Date: 11/10/2011
Proceedings: Final Order (hearing held September 7, 2011). CASE CLOSED.
PDF:
Date: 11/08/2011
Proceedings: Intervenor's Notice of Supplemental Authority filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/26/2011
Proceedings: Petitioner's Proposed Final Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/26/2011
Proceedings: Citrus Mining and Timber, Inc.'s Proposed Final Order filed.
Date: 09/15/2011
Proceedings: Transcript of Proceedings (not available for viewing) filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/12/2011
Proceedings: Intervenor's Exhibit 14 (exhibits not available for viewing) filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/08/2011
Proceedings: Intervenor's Notice of Filing of E-Filing Confirmation Sheet from DOAH Acknowledging E-Filing of Request for Official Recognition and Notice of Filing Attachments to August 26, 2011 Request for Official Recognition filed.
Date: 09/07/2011
Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Hearing Held.
PDF:
Date: 09/06/2011
Proceedings: Petitioner's Response to CMT's Motion for Sanctions Against Petitioner for Failure to Provide Sufficient Responses to Discovery Requests filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/02/2011
Proceedings: Amended Notice of Hearing (hearing set for September 7, 2011; 10:30 a.m.; Inverness, FL; amended as to location).
PDF:
Date: 09/01/2011
Proceedings: CMT's Motion for Sanctions Against Petitioner for Failure to Provide Sufficient Responses to Discovery Requests filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/31/2011
Proceedings: Petitioner Robert A. Schweickert's Notice of Serving Answers and Objections to Citrus Mining & Timber's Interrogatories filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/31/2011
Proceedings: Citrus Mining and Timber, Inc.'s Corrected Amended Notice of Taking Telephonic Deposition Duces Tecum of Howard Heims, Esquire filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/31/2011
Proceedings: Citrus Mining and Timber, Inc.'s Amended Notice of Taking Deposition of Edward P. de la Parte, Jr filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/31/2011
Proceedings: Citrus Mining and Timber, Inc.'s Notice of Cancellation of Deposition of Clark A. Stillwell filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/31/2011
Proceedings: Citrus Mining and Timber, Inc.'s Amended Notice of Taking Telephonic Deposition Duces Tecum of Howard Heims, Esq filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/31/2011
Proceedings: Order (denying motion for continuance; granting motion for extension of discovery deadline; discovery due on or before September 5, 2011).
PDF:
Date: 08/29/2011
Proceedings: Citrus Mining and Timber's Response to Petitioner's Motion for Continuance or in the Alternative Extension of Discovery Deadline filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/29/2011
Proceedings: Citrus Mining and Timber, Inc.'s Notice of Cancellation of Video Deposition Duces Tecum of Robert A. Schweickert, Jr filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/29/2011
Proceedings: Petitioner's Motion for Continuance or in the Alternative Extension of Discovery Deadline filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/26/2011
Proceedings: Citrus Mining and Timber, Inc.'s Notice of Taking Deposition of Edward P. de la Parte, Jr filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/26/2011
Proceedings: Citrus Mining and Timber, Inc.'s Notice of Taking Telephonic Deposition of Clark A. Stillwell filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/26/2011
Proceedings: Citrus Mining and Timber, Inc.'s Notice of Taking Telephonic Deposition Duces Tecum of Howard Heims, Esquire filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/26/2011
Proceedings: Citrus Mining and Timber's Request for Official Recognition filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/26/2011
Proceedings: Citrus Mining and Timber, Inc.'s Notice of Taking Deposition of Sarah Lahlou-Amine filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/26/2011
Proceedings: Notice of Service of Citrus Mining and Timber's First Interrogatories to Robert A. Schweickert, Jr filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/26/2011
Proceedings: Citrus Mining and Timber's Third Request for Production to Robert Schweickert, Jr. filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/26/2011
Proceedings: Protective Order.
PDF:
Date: 08/26/2011
Proceedings: Intervenor's Correction to Notice of Filing filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/25/2011
Proceedings: Intervenor's Notice of Filing (affidavits in support of attorney's fees) filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/25/2011
Proceedings: Intervenor's Notice of Filing filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/24/2011
Proceedings: CMT's Response to Petitioner's Renewed Motion for Protective Order and Request for Modification of Supplemental Order of Pre-hearing Instructions filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/24/2011
Proceedings: CMT's Notice of Compliance with Supplemental Order of Pre-hearing Instructions filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/24/2011
Proceedings: Petitioner's Renewed Motion for Protective Order and Request for Modification of Supplemental Order of Pre-hearing Instructions filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/23/2011
Proceedings: Citrus Mining and Timber's Amended Notice of Taking Video Deposition Duces Tecum of Robert A. Schweickert, Jr filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/23/2011
Proceedings: Citrus Mining and Timber's Second Request for Production at Video Deposition to Robert Schweickert, Jr filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/23/2011
Proceedings: Order (Petitioner shall appear for deposition scheduled for August 29, 2011).
PDF:
Date: 08/23/2011
Proceedings: CMT's Motion for Clarification as to Supplemental Order on Pre-hearing Instructions filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/23/2011
Proceedings: Order (denying motion to dismiss).
PDF:
Date: 08/22/2011
Proceedings: CMT's Response to Order to Show Cause filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/22/2011
Proceedings: Citrus County's Response Re Petitioner's Motion for Dismissal of Citrus County as a Party to this Action filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/22/2011
Proceedings: Amended Notice of Hearing (hearing set for September 7, 2011; 10:30 a.m.; Inverness, FL; amended as to date and location).
PDF:
Date: 08/22/2011
Proceedings: Supplemental Order of Pre-hearing Instructions.
Date: 08/22/2011
Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Motion Hearing Held.
PDF:
Date: 08/19/2011
Proceedings: Amended Notice of Telephonic Hearing (Case Management Conference) filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/19/2011
Proceedings: Petitioner's Motion for Protective Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/19/2011
Proceedings: Notice of Appearance (Marcy LaHart) filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/18/2011
Proceedings: Notice of Telephonic Hearing (on Motion to Compel) filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/18/2011
Proceedings: Motion to Compel Enforcement of Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum of Robert A. Schweickert, Jr. filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/17/2011
Proceedings: Citrus Mining and Timber, Inc.'s Notice of Filing Certificate of Non-appearance filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/16/2011
Proceedings: Order to Show Cause.
PDF:
Date: 08/15/2011
Proceedings: Order.
PDF:
Date: 08/15/2011
Proceedings: Citrus Mining and Timber's Request for Production at Video Deposition to Robert A. Schweickert, Jr filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/15/2011
Proceedings: Citrus Mining and Timber, Inc.'s Notice of Taking Video Deposition Duces Tecum of Robert A. Schweickert, Jr. filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/15/2011
Proceedings: Citrus Mining and Timber, Inc.'s Response to Schweickert's Motion for Cause of Contempt for Violation of Court Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/12/2011
Proceedings: Motion for Cause of Contempt for Citrus Mining and Timber's Violation of Court Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/09/2011
Proceedings: Petitioner's Motion for Dismissal of Citrus County as a Party in this Action filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/01/2011
Proceedings: Order of Pre-hearing Instructions.
PDF:
Date: 08/01/2011
Proceedings: Notice of Hearing (hearing set for August 30, 2011; 10:30 a.m.; Inverness, FL).
Date: 08/01/2011
Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Pre-Hearing Conference Held.
PDF:
Date: 07/28/2011
Proceedings: Notice of Telephone Hearing filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/28/2011
Proceedings: Intervenor's Notice of Filing Affidavits in Support of Motion for Assessment of Attorneys Fees and Costs filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/25/2011
Proceedings: Intervenor Citrus Mining and Timber, Inc.'s Memorandum of Law in Support of its Motion for Assessment of Appellate Attorney Fees and Costs filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/25/2011
Proceedings: Intervenor's Motion for Assessment of Attorney's Fees and Costs filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/13/2011
Proceedings: Notice of Appearance (filed by E. de la Parte).
PDF:
Date: 06/27/2011
Proceedings: BY ORDER OF THE COURT: Appelle Citrus Mining motion for clarification as to attorney's fees is granted. We direct the case be remanded to DOAH for determination of the amount of attorney's fees and costs filed. (FORMERLY DOAH CASE NO. 10-1136GM)

Case Information

Judge:
BRAM D. E. CANTER
Date Filed:
07/15/2011
Date Assignment:
07/15/2011
Last Docket Entry:
06/12/2012
Location:
Inverness, Florida
District:
Northern
Agency:
Department of Community Affairs
Suffix:
FC
 

Counsels

Related Florida Statute(s) (3):