13-004357F Stephen Ogles, Llc vs. Department Of Financial Services, Division Of Workers' Compensation
 Status: Closed
DOAH Final Order on Tuesday, April 22, 2014.


View Dockets  
Summary: Respondent was substantially justified in issuing Stop-Work Orders to two limited liability companies, and, therefore, Petitioners' claims for awards of attorney's fees and costs are denied.

1STATE OF FLORIDA

4DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

8STEPHEN OGLES, LLC,

11Petitioner,

12vs. Case No. 13 - 4357F

18DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL

21SERVICES, DIVISION OF WORKERS'

25COMPENSATION,

26Respondent.

27_______________________________

28RL OGLES ROOFING, LLC,

32Petition er,

34vs. Case No. 13 - 4424F

40DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL

43SERVICES, DIVISION OF WORKERS'

47COMPENSATION,

48Respondent.

49_______________________________/

50FINAL ORDER

52Pursuant to notice, a f inal hearing was held in this cas e on

66March 18, 2014 , in Tallahassee, Florida, before W. David Watkins,

76Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative

84Hearings.

85APPEARANCES

86For Petitioner: Thomas L. Dickens, Esquire

92Dickens and Dunn, P.L.

96517 East College Avenue

100Tallahassee, Florida 32301

103For Respondent: Trevor Suter , Esquire

108Elizabeth A. Miller, Esquire

112Department of Financial Services

116200 East Gaines Street

120Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 4229

125STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

129Whether Respondent, Departmen t of Financial Services ,

136Division of Workers ' Compensation (Department or Respondent),

144should pay Petitioner sÓ , Stephen Ogles, LLC , or RL Ogles Roofing,

155LLC (Petitioner s ), attorney ' s fees and costs under section

16757.111, Florida Statutes (201 3 ) , 1 / for initi ating Division of

180Administrative Hearings (DOAH) C ase N o s . 13 - 244 8 and 13 - 2517 .

198PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

200On June 12, 2013, the Department issued and served Stop - Work

212Orders (SWO) and Orders of Penalty Assessment Nos. 13 - 292 - Dl and

22613 - 291 - Dl. Respondent asses sed a penalty of $3,492.87 against

240Petitioner, Stephen Ogles, LLC, and $12,282.06 against

248Petitioner, RL Ogles Roofing, LLC, for failure to secure the

258payment of workers' compensation for its employees.

265On June 17, 2013, Petitioners filed a timely request for

275hearing. On September 10, 2013, Petitioners filed an amended

284request for formal administrative hearing, pursuant to s ection s

294120.569 and 120.57(1), Florida Statutes .

300On October 8, 2013, Respondent issued to both Petitioners a

310Notice of Revocation of Administrative Complaint and Motion for

319Entry of Order Closing File.

324On November 12, 2013, Petitioners timely filed an

332Application for Attorney's Fees and Costs , and on November 15,

3422013, Petitioners filed an Amended Application for Award of

351Attorney's Fee s and Costs. On November 20, 2013, Respondent

361moved to dismiss the Amended Application for Attorney's Fees and

371Costs on the grounds that the applications failed to include an

382affidavit specifying the nature and extent of the legal services

392rendered in the underlying action . On December 13, 2013, the

403undersigned issued an Order to Show Cause. Petitioners responded

412to the Order to Show Cause on December 23, 2014 , by submitting an

425Ð Itemized List of Services. Ñ

431By Order dated January 7, 2014, the two cases w ere

442consolidated, sua sponte.

445B oth Petitioners seek , in the instant matter , an award of

456attorney Ó s fees and costs pursuant to section 57.111 , Florida

467Statutes .

469At the final hearing Petitioner s testified on their own

479behalves and also offered the testimo ny of John David Middleton,

490Robert Ogles, Sr. , and Kathleen Petracco . Respondent offered the

500testimony of Julie Jones , Ralph Paul Douglas, Jr., and Jonas

510Hall . Petitioners Ó Exhibits 1 and 2 were admitted into evidence.

522Respondent ' s Exhibits 1 , 2 , 4, 7 , 9, 10, and 11 were also

536admitted into evidence.

539A Transcript of the proceeding was filed with DOAH on

549April 3 , 201 4 . On April 14, 2014, Respondent filed its P roposed

563F inal O rder . The following day, April 15, 2014, Petitioners

575filed a P roposed R ecommended O rder. 2 / Both submittals have been

589carefully considered in the preparation of this Final Order.

598FINDING S OF FACT

6021 . Respondent is the state agency responsible for enforcing

612the statutory requirement that employers secure the payment of

621workers' compens ation for the benefit of their employees and

631officers, pursuant to s ection 440.107, Florida Statutes.

6392 . Petitioners are in the business of roofing, within the

650construction industry, as defined by s ubsection 440.02(8), and

659are Florida employers over whom Respondent has jurisdiction to

668enforce the payment of workers' compensation premiums for the

677benefit of Petitioners' employees.

6813 . Petitioners are the sole members of their respective

691limited liability companies, each with one employee.

6984 . An officer o f a corporation may elect to be exempt from

712c hapter 440, Workers' Compensation, by filing a notice of

722election with the Respondent. § 440.02( 15)(b)1., Fla. Stat.

7315 . An officer of a corporation who elects to be exempt from

744Florida's Workers' Compensation Law is not an employee. § 440.02

754(15) (b)3., Fla. Stat.

7586 . Jonas Hall is employed as an investigator for the

769Division of Workers Ó Compensation. He has been conducting

778workers Ó compensation compliance investigations for approximately

785five years, and dur ing that time has been involved in between

7972,000 and 3,000 investigations.

8037 . On June 12, 2013, Respondent issued a Stop - Work Order

816and Order of Penalty Assessment to Stephen Ogles, LLC, and RL

827Ogles Roofing, LLC, and a Stop Work Order For Specific Worksi te

839Only to Ogles Construction and Roofing, LLC. Findings of Fact 8

850through 18 below set forth the specific facts and circumstances

860known to Respondent at the time the SWO was issued. These facts

872are based upon the testimony at hearing of Jonas Hall, whic h is

885found credible, as well as documentary evidence offered by

894Respondent , which is corroborative of Mr. HallÓs testimony.

9028 . Mr. Hall began a random site investigation on June 12,

9142013 , after he noticed construction work about to be performed at

925a singl e - family dwelling located in Live Oak, Florida .

9379 . Upon investigation, four men were found to be installing

948roofing at a private residence. One of those workers, Robert

958Ogles, advised Respondent's investigator that he was working with

967his three sons , St ephen, Matt , and Robert , Jr.

97610 . Investigator Hall first spoke to the elder Robert Ogles

987who advised Investigator Hall that he wa s the general contractor

998on the job and that his sons were working as subcontractors. At

1010no time during the interview did Rob ert Ogles state that his sons

1023were employees of his company , Ogles Construction and Roofing,

1032LLC .

103411 . Investigator Hall next spoke to Stephen Ogles who

1044stated that he owned his own business and ha d a valid workers Ó

1058compensation exemption.

106012 . Investigato r Hall then spoke to the younger Robert

1071Ogles w ho also advised him that he owned his own business and ha d

1086a valid workers Ó compensation exemption.

109213 . Finally, Investigator Hall spoke to t he third son, Matt

1104Ogles, who also stated that he own ed his own bu siness and ha d a

1120valid workers Ó compensation exemption.

112514 . At no time during the interview of June 12, 2013 , did

1138any of the three sons state that they were employees of their

1150fatherÓs business.

115215 . After interviewing the four Ogles, Investigator Hall

1161left the jobsite in order to gain access to a wireless internet

1173connection for his computer. Once he obtained a connection,

1182Investigator Hall accessed the Division of Corporations website

1190to look up the correct name s of the businesses owned by the four

1204Og les. With respect to the two Petitioners, the website revealed

1215that Stephen Ogles was the sole member of Stephen Ogles, LLC , and

1227that Robert Ogles, Jr. , was the sole member of RL Ogles Roofing,

1239LLC.

124016 . Investigator Hall then accessed the Coverage and

1249C ompliance Automated System (CCAS) to ascertain the status of

1259workers compensation coverage for the four individuals. CCAS

1267revealed that while both Petitioners had at one time held

1277exemptions, both exemptions had expired at the time of

1286Investigator HallÓs site visit on June 12, 2013. Based upon this

1297information, Investigator Hall reasonably concluded that both

1304Petitioners were not in compliance with Florida workers Ó

1313compensation coverage requirements.

131617 . With respect to the third son, Matt, Mr. HallÓs

1327i nvestigation revealed that his company, Matt Ogles, LLC, held a

1338valid exemption, and was therefore compliant with the workers

1347compensation coverage requirements. As such, Investigator Hall

1354did not issue a n SWO to Matt Ogles, LLC.

136418 . After accessing info rmation about PetitionersÓ status

1373on his computer, Investigator Hall returned to the jobsite. Upon

1383his return , he observed all four of the Ogles working at the

1395jobsite, with two actively working on the roof of the home.

1406Investigator Hall then called thos e on the roof down, and served

1418the SWOs on Petitioners.

14221 9 . The facts uncovered in Investigator Hall ' s

1433investigation on June 12, 2013, provided the Department with a

1443reasonable ba sis to issue the SWOs to Petitioner s .

145420 . On June 1 7, 2013, Petitioners ti mely filed a Request

1467for Hearing alleging the affirmative defense that Petitioners had

1476valid workers' compensation exemptions. The Request for Hearing

1484filed on behalf of Stephen Ogles, LLC, specifically stated:

14933. The Respondent disputes the SWO, to wit:

1501a. The OwnerÓs exemption was not expired.

1508And although worded somewhat differently, the Request for Hearing

1517filed on behalf of RL Ogles Roofing, LLC, stated:

15263. The Respondent disputes the SWO, to wit:

1534a. The WC Exemption was current.

15402 1 . The Requests for Hearing filed by Petitioners on

1551June 17 , 2013, are consistent with the representations made to

1561Investigator Hall on June 12, 2013, to wit , both Petitioners were

1572subcontractors on the job, and held valid exemptions.

15802 2 . On September 1 0, 2013, Petitioners filed an Amended

1592Request for Hearing disputing the penalty assessment, and

1600contending that Petitioners were employees of Ogles Construction

1608and Roofing, LLC. The Amended Request for Hearing stated in

1618pertinent part:

16203. The Respondent s disputes the SWO, to wit:

1629a. Ogles Construction and Roofing LLC

1635disputes the penalty assessment.

1639b. RL Ogles, LLC contends that he was

1647an employee of Ogles Construction and

1653Roofing, LLC.

1655c. Stephen Ogles, LLC contends that he

1662was an employee of Ogl es Construction and

1670Roofing, LLC.

16722 3 . On October 8, 2013, Respondent issued an Order

1683Releasing Stop - Work Order (Revocation) to Stephen Ogles, LLC , and

1694RL Ogles Roofing, LLC.

16982 4 . Two witnesses testified as to the reasonableness of the

1710attorneyÓs fees be ing sought by Petitioners. PetitionersÓ

1718witness on the subject, John Middleton, is a Jacksonville

1727attorney with eight yearsÓ experience in handling workers Ó

1736compensation defense matters. Mr. Middleton opined that the

1744$5,000 in fees being claimed by each Petitioner was not

1755excessive, particularly in view of the successful outcomes for

1764Petitioners in the underlying cases.

17692 5 . RespondentÓs witness, Ralph Paul Douglas, Jr., is a

1780Tallahassee attorney who has concentrated his practice on

1788workers Ó compensa tion matters for twenty years. Mr. Douglas

1798testified that PetitionersÓ attorney in the underlying cases

1806claimed 13.3 hours per case for legal services. However,

1815according to Mr. Douglas, at least 1.3 hours of the total hours

1827should be deducted as not awa rdable due to those hours relating

1839to the preparation of a motion in response to an order to compel.

1852Such fees Ð cannot be related to any delay, any confusion caused

1864by that party claiming the fees, . . . obfuscation, . . .

1877anything that does not move the case along in the docket. Ñ

18892 6 . It was Mr. Douglas Ós opin ion that 12 hours of legal

1904services is a reasonable number for the underlying cases.

1913However, since the same itemized list of services was submitted

1923for both cases, Mr. Douglas concluded that the second itemized

1933list was duplicative and mostly amounted to only ministerial

1942work. The second itemized list should be, therefore,

1950apportioned.

19512 7 . Mr. Douglas testified that a $10,000 fee for the work

1965done on the underlying cases would not be appropriate or

1975reasonable based on the pleadings, the deposition testimony of

1984the attorney performing the work , and th e itemization of

1994services. Rather, a reasonable fee would be 12 hours at $200 per

2006hour for one case ($2,400) and $1,200 on the second ca se. Thus,

2021the total fees that should be awardable for both cases would be

2033$3,600.

20352 8 . While the testimony of both Mr. Middleton and

2046Mr. Douglas is credible, the undersigned gives greater weight to

2056the testimony of Mr. Douglas due to his greater expe rience in the

2069field of workers Ó compensation law, and his more detailed

2079analysis of the legal services performed in the underlying cases.

20892 9 . The unrebutted testimony presented by Stephen Ogles and

2100Robert Ogles, Jr. , established that their respective LLCÓs employ

2109fewer than 25 full - time employees and have a net worth of less

2123than $2 million each.

2127CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

213030 . DOAH has jurisdiction in this proceeding pursuant to

2140sections 57.111(4), 120.569, and 120.57(1), Fl orida Stat utes

2149(2013).

21503 1 . Sectio n 57.111, the Florida Equal Access to Justice

2162Act, authorizes the award of attorney ' s fees and costs to a small

2176business party that prevails in an administrative proceeding

2184seeking review of or defending against unreasonable government

2192action by a state ag ency, i.e., when the state agency ' s actions

2206are not substantially justified and no special circumstances

2214exist that would make the award unjust. Section 57.111(3)(e)

2223defines substantial justification as a reasonable basis in fact

2232and law.

22343 2 . The agency has the burden to prove substantial

2245justification. AHCA v. MVP Health, Inc. , 74 So. 3d 1141, 1143

2256(Fla. 1st DCA 2011); Helmy v. Dep ' t of Bus. and Prof ' l Reg. ,

2272707 So. 2d 366, 368 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998).

22813 3 . It was held in AHCA v. MVP Health, Inc. , supra , a t

22961143 - 44:

2299[A]n agency cannot satisfy the Ð substantial

2306justification Ñ standard simply by showing an

2313action was Ð not frivolous. Ñ This is because

2322Ð while governmental action may not be so

2330unfounded as to be frivolous, it may

2337nonetheless be based on such an u nsteady

2345foundation factually and legally as not to

2352be substantially justified. Ñ Dep ' t of HRS

2361v. S.G. , 613 So. 2d 1380, 1386 (Fla. 1st DCA

23711993). On the other hand, the standard is

2379not so strict as to require the agency to

2388demonstrate that its action was correct.

2394Id. , quoting McDonald v. Schweiker , 726 F.2d

2401311, 316 (7th Cir. 1983) (stating the

2408government need not have a Ð necessarily

2415correct basis [] for the position that it

2423took Ñ ). The Ð substantial justification Ñ

2431standard lies between these two extremes .

2438The closest approximation is that if a state

2446agency can present an argument for its

2453action ÐÒ that could satisfy a reasonable

2460person[ , ] Ó Ñ then that action should be

2469considered Ð substantially justified. Ñ

2474Helmy , 707 So. 2d at 368, quoting Pierce v.

2483Underw ood , 487 U.S. 552, 565, 108 S. Ct.

24922541, 101 L. Ed. 2d 490 (1998).

2499An additional consideration when evaluating

2504an agency Ó s action under section 57.111 is

2513that the inquiry is limited only to whether

2521the agency had a Ð reasonable basis in law

2530and fact at the time Ñ it took the action.

2540§ 57.111(3)(e), Fla. Stat. (2010) . . . .

2549(emphasis [in original] ). The reviewing

2555body -- whether DOAH or a court -- may not

2565consider any new evidence which arose at a

2573fees hearing, but must focus exclusively

2579upon the information av ailable to the agency

2587at the time that it acted. See Dep ' t of

2598Health, Bd. of Physical Therapy Practice v.

2605Cralle , 852 So. 2d 930, 932 (Fla. 1st DCA

26142003) (criticizing an ALJ for being

2620Ð influenced by consideration of evidence

2626which was presented at [a fees ] hearing

2634rather than being focused solely on whether

2641the [agency ' s underlying] decision had a

2649reasonable basis in law and fact Ñ ).

26573 4 . Using this legal standard, there was, on June 12, 2013,

2670substantial justification for the decision by Respondent to iss ue

2680Stop - Work Order s to Petitioner s . T herefore, an award of

2694attorneyÓs fees in this instance is not warranted . 3 / At the time

2708that Respondent issued its SWO s and the resultant penalty

2718assessment s, I nvestigator Hall relied on his observation of

2728roofing ma terials at the scene , along with four men who were

2740actively installing a roof. Statements made by Petitioners, the

2749elder Robert Ogles, and Matt Ogles that they own ed their own

2761businesses and held workers' compensation exemptions serve d only

2770to support the conclusion that Petitioners were subcontractors

2778for their father's business.

278235 . On June 17, 2013, five days after issuance of the SWOs,

2795Petitioners Ó counsel filed Requests for Hearing with Responde nt

2805stating that Petitioners held valid workers' compensa tion

2813exemptions. Th is affirmative defense indicated that Petitioners

2821were working as subcontractors; otherwise, there would be no

2830significance to the possession of valid workers' compensation

2838exemptions. The information provided by Petitioners in their

2846R equests for Hearing substantiates and corroborates Investigator

2854Hall's determination at the work site that the Petitioners were

2864working as subcontractors of Ogles Construction and Roofing, LLC.

287336 . When Petitioners filed their Amended Requests for

2882Hearing o n September 4, 2013, they changed their ÐsubcontractorÑ

2892defense to that of an alleged ÐemployeeÑ status working for Ogles

2903Constructi on and Roofing, LLC .

290937 . It was the changed defense from that of subcontractors

2920to employees that precipitated Respondent 's revocation of the two

2930SWOs in the underlying cases.

2935DISPOSITION

2936Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of

2946Law, it is ORDERED that the petition s for attorney ' s fees and

2960costs are denied.

2963DONE AND ORDERED this 2 2nd day of April , 201 4 , in

2975Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

2979S

2980W. David Watkins

2983Administrative Law Judge

2986Division of Administrative Hearings

2990The DeSoto Building

29931230 Apalachee Parkway

2996Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3060

3001(850) 488 - 9675

3005Fax Filing (850 ) 921 - 6847

3012www.doah.state.fl.us

3013Filed with the Clerk of the

3019Division of Administrative Hearings

3023this 2 2nd day of April , 201 4 .

3032ENDNOTE S

30341 / All refere nces to Florida Statutes are to the 2013 versio n,

3048unless otherwise indicated.

30512 / Although denominated a Proposed Recommended Order,

3059PetitionersÓ submittal has been considered by the above - signed to

3070be PetitionersÓ Proposed Final Order.

30753 / In its Proposed Final Order, Respondent argues that

3085Petition ers lack standing to seek relief pursuant to section

309557.111, since, as limited liability companies, they do not meet

3105the statutory definition of a small business party. Section

311457.111(3)(d), provides in relevant part:

3119(d) The term Ðsmall business partyÑ means:

31261.a. A sole proprietor of an unincorporated

3133business, including a professional practice,

3138whose principal office is in this state, who

3146is domiciled in this state, and whose

3153business or professional practice has, at the

3160time the action is initiated by a state

3168agency, not more than 25 full - time employees

3177or a net worth of not more than $2 million,

3187including both personal and business

3192investments;

3193b. A partnership or corporation, including a

3200professional practice, whi ch has its

3206principal office in this state and has at the

3215time the action is initiated by a state

3223agency not more than 25 full - time employees

3232or a net worth of not more than $2 million;

3242or

3243c. An individual whose net worth did not

3251exceed $2 million at the time the action is

3260initiated by a state agency when the action

3268is brought against that individualÓs license

3274to engage in the practice or operation of a

3283business, profession, or trade; or

32882. Any small business party as defined in

3296subparagraph 1., without regard to the number

3303of its employees or its net worth, in any

3312action under section 72.011 or in any

3319administrat ive proceeding under that section

3325to contest the legality of any assessment of

3333tax imposed for the sale or use of services

3342as provided in chapter 212, or interest

3349thereon, or penalty therefor.

3353Respondent asserts that a limited liability company is no t a

3364Ðcorporation,Ñ and, consequently, is not entitled to reap the

3374benefits of section 57.111. While the undersigned is unaware of

3384any appellate case law directly on point, at least one DOAH

3395administrative law judge has addressed the issue. In John

3404Gerrit y Wade, A.R.N.P., R.N. v. Department of Health, Board of

3415Nursing , Case No. 02 - 3027F (Fla. DOAH Feb. 3, 2003),

3426Administrative Law Judge Michael Parrish held:

3432In this regard, it should also be noted that

3441the definition of a Ðsmall business partyÑ in

3449section 57.111, Florida Statutes, does not

3455mention a Ðlimited liability company,Ñ nor

3462does it mention a ÐmemberÑ of such a company.

3471And there does not appear to be any logical

3480way to stretch the language of section

348757.111, Florida Statutes, far enough to

3493encompas s a Ðlimited liability companyÑ or a

3501ÐmemberÑ of such a company.

3506( id . at 6 . )

3513Conversely, other DOAH administrative law judges have had no

3522qualms about entertaining attorneyÓs fees cases brought pursuant

3530to section 57.111 by limited liability compa nies. See, e.g. ,

3540Charles DeMoss Enterprises, LLC v. DepÓt of Fin. Svcs., Div. of

3551WorkersÓ Comp. , Case No. 08 - 4865F (Fla. DOAH May 21, 2009).

3563Finally, the undersigned notes that chapter 440, the

3571authority by which the Division of WorkersÓ Compensatio n brings

3581enforcement actions, takes a broader view of the term

3590Ðcorporation.Ñ Section 440.02(15)(b)(1) provides that any

3596officer of a ÐcorporationÑ may elect to be exempt from chapter

3607440 by filing notice of the election with the Department, and

3618that sect ion 440.02(9) expressly encompasses a member of a

3628limited liability company within the meaning of Ðcorporate

3636officerÑ:

3637(9) ÐCorporate officerÑ or Ðofficer of a

3644corporationÑ means any person who fills an

3651office provided for in the corporate charter

3658or articles of incorporation filed with the

3665Division of Corporations of the Department of

3672State or as permitted or required by cha pter

3681607. The term Ðofficer of a corporationÑ

3688includes a member owning at least 10 percent

3696of a limited liability company created and

3703approved under chapter 608.

3707(emphasis add ed)

3710COPIES FURNISHED :

3713Trevor S. Suter, Esquire

3717Department of Financial Servic es

3722200 East Gaines Street

3726Tallahassee, Florida 32399

3729Elizabeth A. Miller, Esquire

3733Department of Financial Services

3737Division of Legal Services

3741200 East Gaines Street

3745Tallahassee, Florida 32399

3748Thomas L. Dickens, Esquire

3752Dickens and Dunn, P.L.

3756517 East College Avenue

3760Tallahassee, Florida 32301

3763Julie Jones, CP, FRP, Agency Clerk

3769Department of Financial Services

3773Division of Legal Services

3777200 East Gaines Street

3781Tallahassee, Florida 32399

3784NOTICE OF RIGHT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW

3790A party who is adversely affected by this Final Order is entitled

3802to judicial review pursuant to s ection 120.68, Florida Statutes.

3812Review proceedings are governed by the Florida Rules of Appellate

3822Procedure. Such proceedings are commenced by filing one copy of

3832a Notice of Appeal with the agency clerk of the Division of

3844Administrative Hearings and a s econd copy, accompanied by filing

3854fees prescribed by law, with the District Court of Appeal, First

3865District, or with the District Court of Appeal in the appellate

3876district where the party resides. The Notice of Appeal must be

3887filed within 30 days of rendi tion of the order to be reviewed.

Select the PDF icon to view the document.
PDF
Date
Proceedings
PDF:
Date: 10/29/2014
Proceedings: Transmittal letter from Claudia Llado forwarding one-volume Transcript, along with Hearing Notebook Exhibits numbered 1-17, and For In Camera Inspection documents in to the agency.
PDF:
Date: 04/22/2014
Proceedings: DOAH Final Order
PDF:
Date: 04/22/2014
Proceedings: Final Order (hearing held March 18, 2014). CASE CLOSED.
PDF:
Date: 04/15/2014
Proceedings: Petitioners' Proposed Recommended Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/14/2014
Proceedings: (Respondent's) Proposed Final Order filed.
Date: 04/03/2014
Proceedings: Transcript (not available for viewing) filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/26/2014
Proceedings: Order Denying Motion for Attorney`s Fee.
PDF:
Date: 03/25/2014
Proceedings: Departments Response to Petitioners Motion for Attorneys Fees filed.
Date: 03/18/2014
Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Hearing Held.
PDF:
Date: 03/17/2014
Proceedings: Motion for Attorney's Fee filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/17/2014
Proceedings: Petitioner's Response to Order for Pre-hearing Instructions filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/17/2014
Proceedings: Department's Unilateral Pre-hearing Statement filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/12/2014
Proceedings: Motion for Expert Witness Fee filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/04/2014
Proceedings: Notice of Compliance with Order to Compel (filed in Case No. 13-004424F).
PDF:
Date: 03/04/2014
Proceedings: Notice of Compliance with Order to Compel filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/28/2014
Proceedings: Order (on Petitioners' amended motion to terminate and motion for protective order; and Department's motion to compel).
PDF:
Date: 02/24/2014
Proceedings: In Camera Inspection documents filed (documents not available for viewing).
PDF:
Date: 02/18/2014
Proceedings: Order Reserving Ruling on Amended Motion to Terminate and Motion for Protective Order.
PDF:
Date: 02/14/2014
Proceedings: (Department's) Response to Amended Motion to Terminate Pursuant to R.Civ.P. 1310(d) and Motion for Protective Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/14/2014
Proceedings: Department's Motion to Compel filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/07/2014
Proceedings: Notice of Continuation of Deposition Duces Tecum (of R.L. Ogles, II and Stephen Ogles) filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/07/2014
Proceedings: Amended Motion to Terminate Pursuant to Fl. R. CIV. P. 1310 (d) and Motion for Protective Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/05/2014
Proceedings: Motion to Terminate Pursuant to Fl., R. CIV. P. 1310 (d) and Motion for Protective Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 01/29/2014
Proceedings: Order of Pre-hearing Instructions.
PDF:
Date: 01/29/2014
Proceedings: Notice of Hearing (hearing set for March 18, 2014; 9:30 a.m.; Tallahassee, FL).
PDF:
Date: 01/28/2014
Proceedings: Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum (of R.L. Ogles Roofing LLC) filed.
PDF:
Date: 01/28/2014
Proceedings: Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum (of Stephen Olges) filed.
PDF:
Date: 01/28/2014
Proceedings: Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum (of Kristian Dunn, Esq.) filed.
PDF:
Date: 01/17/2014
Proceedings: Notice of Substitution of Counsel (filed by Thomas Dickens, III).
PDF:
Date: 01/14/2014
Proceedings: Department's Response to Order of January 7, 2014 filed.
PDF:
Date: 01/07/2014
Proceedings: Order (on Petitioners' responses to the Orders to Show Cause and the Department's responses and counter-affidavit to Petitioner's responses).
PDF:
Date: 01/07/2014
Proceedings: Order of Consolidation (DOAH Case Nos. 13-4357F and 13-4424F).
PDF:
Date: 12/31/2013
Proceedings: Department's Response to Petitioner's Response to Order to Show Cause and Counter-Affidavit filed.
PDF:
Date: 12/23/2013
Proceedings: Response to Order to Show Cause filed.
PDF:
Date: 12/13/2013
Proceedings: Order to Show Cause.
PDF:
Date: 12/04/2013
Proceedings: Department's Response to Initial Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/25/2013
Proceedings: Petitioner's Response to Motion to Dismiss filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/20/2013
Proceedings: Department's Motion to Dismiss Amended Application for Attorney's Fees and Costs filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/20/2013
Proceedings: Department's Motion to Dismiss Amended Application for Attorney's Fees and Costs filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/15/2013
Proceedings: Respondent's Amended Application for Award of Attorney's Fees and Costs filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/13/2013
Proceedings: Notice of Appearance (Trevor Suter) filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/13/2013
Proceedings: Initial Order.
PDF:
Date: 11/12/2013
Proceedings: Respondent's Application for Award of Attorney's Fees and Costs filed. (FORMERLY DOAH CASE NO. 13-2448)

Case Information

Judge:
W. DAVID WATKINS
Date Filed:
11/13/2013
Date Assignment:
11/13/2013
Last Docket Entry:
10/29/2014
Location:
Tallahassee, Florida
District:
Northern
Agency:
Department of Financial Services
Suffix:
F
 

Related Florida Statute(s) (7):