14-001912EC In Re: Robert Skidmore, Iii vs. *
 Status: Closed
Recommended Order on Friday, February 27, 2015.


View Dockets  
Summary: Clear and convincing evidence proved commissioner used his position to try to have zoning application denial changed by staff. Also, commissioner tried to have licensing action taken against restaurant because of personal dispute.

1STATE OF FLORIDA

4DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

8IN RE: ROBERT SKIDMORE, III,

13Respondent. Case No. 14 - 1912EC

19_______________________________/

20RECOMMENDED ORDER

22Administrative Law Judge John D. C. Newton, II, of the

32Division of Administ rative Hearings heard this case on

41September 23 and October 28, 2014, in Tallahassee and Punta

51Gorda, Florida, respectively.

54APPEARANCES

55For Advocate : Diane L. Guillemette, Esquire

62Office of the Attorney General

67The Capitol, Plaza Level 01

72Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 1050

77For Respondent: Emmett Mitchell, IV, Esquire

83Coates Law Firm

86Suite 1

88115 East Park Avenue

92Tallahassee, Florida 32301 - 7701

97STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE S

102A. Did Respondent, Robert Skidmore, III, violate section

11011 2.313(6), Florida Statutes (2011), 1/ by using his position as

121c ounty c ommissioner to ask a county staff member to approve a

134zoning application for Beach Road Boutique?

140B. Did Mr. Skidmore violate section 112.313(6) by asking a

150county employee to look for and selectively enforce code

159violati o ns against J.J. ' s Restaurant?

167PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

169On March 12, 2 014, the State of Florida, Commission on

180Ethics (Commission) , issued an Order Finding Probable Cause

188against Mr. Skidmore , raising the issues described above. The

197Commission referred the matter to the Division of Administrative

206Hearings to conduct a public hearing on the charges , as permitted

217by Florida Administrative Code Rule 34 - 5.010 . Initially , the

228hearing was scheduled for July 15, 2014. On Mr. Sk idmore ' s

241unopposed motion, due to illness in a witness ' s family , the

253hearing was continued until September 18, 2014. On the parties '

264request , the hearing was continued and bifurcated with one

273session to be held on September 23, 2014, in Tallahassee,

283Flori da, and one session to be held October 28, 2014, in Punta

296Gorda, Florida. The case was heard as scheduled.

304Commission Exhibits A through J , K (deposition of Jeff

313Ruggieri) , and L were accepted into evidence. The Commission

322also presented testimony from Joanna Colburn, Ray Desjardins,

330Maryann Franks, Shonna Jenkins, Belinda McGlamory, and Erin

338Mullen - Travis. Mr. Skidmore ' s Exhibits 1, 3 ( deposition of Scott

352Hemmes), 4 ( deposition of Jill Marie Athens Hemmes), 5, and 6

364were admitted. Mr. Skidmore testif ied in his own behalf and

375offered the testimony of Tim Krebs.

381The parties ordered a T ranscript , which was filed

390November 17, 2014. The parties ' joint motion to extend the time

402for filing proposed recommended orders was granted. The parties

411timely submi tted proposed recommended orders which have been

420considered in the preparation of this Recommended Order .

429FINDING S OF FACT

433Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the

443final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the

454following Findings of Fact are made:

4601. At all times relevant to this proceeding , Mr. Skidmore

470was a Charlotte County c ommissioner.

476Beach Road Boutique Zoning

4802. Scott and Jill Hemmes, constituents of Mr. Skidmore,

489owned a business known as Beach Road Boutiqu e in Charlotte

500County. They sought to obtain a state alcoholic beverage sales

510license. In order to obtain a license, the applicant must

520demonstrate local zoning approval. Charlotte County Commission

527employees enforce and apply zoning regulations in the county.

5363. Erin Mullen - Travis is the licensing manager for

546Charlotte County Planning and Development. During 2011 , she was

555the code compliance and licensing manager . Ms. Mullen - Travis has

567worked for Charlotte County over 26 years.

5744. One of Ms. Mulle n - Travis ' s duties as code compliance and

589licensing manager was the review and approval of the zoning

599requirements on applications of establishments wanting alcoholic

606beverage licenses.

6085. Ms. Mullen - Travis first denied the zoning application of

619Beach Road Boutique on February 17, 2011.

6266. Mr. and Ms. Hemmes sought Mr. Skidmore ' s assistance

637getting approval for their zoning application.

6437. Mr. Skidmore called Ms. Mullen - Travis about the

653application.

6548. Mr. Skidmore told Ms. Mullen - Travis that he had so me

667nice people in his office and that he needed help getting zoning

679approval for them. In her 26 years of employment with Charlotte

690County, Mr. Skidmore was the only county commissioner who had

700ever directly sought her assistance with constituent matter s .

710Other commissioners had always gone through the chain - of - command.

7229. He identified the applicant , and Ms. Mullen - Travis

732explained why the zoning had not been approved.

74010. Ms. Mullen - Travis felt intimidated by Mr. Skidmore .

751Mr. Skidmore , however, did n ot threaten Ms. Mullen - Travis or

763explicitly offer any reward available to him because of his

773position as county commissioner .

7781 1. He did, however , implicitly offer a reward , if she

789helped the Hemmes.

7921 2. It is common knowledge in Charlotte County that

802Ms. Mullen - Travis is a NASCAR fan. Among other things , she

814drives a car with Dale Earnhardt and NASCAR badges and decals .

8261 3. During the call, Mr. Skidmore asked Ms. Mullen - Travis

838about her affinity for NASCAR. He also offered to get her an

850autographed photo of Rusty Wallace (a NASCAR driver) and tickets

860to a race. He told her that he had gone to school with Rusty

874Wallace's son. This is true. And Ms. Mullen - Travis could not

886have known it without Mr. Skidmore telling her.

8941 4. Given the context, Ms. Mullen - T ravis accurately

905considered that the tickets and photo were offered in exchange

915for her approval of the application to the benefit of the Hemmes.

927Also, the call was made in Mr. Skidmore's official capacity.

93715. Charlotte County has a Home Rule Charter (Ch arter) .

948Section 2.3(A)(1) of the Charter makes the county administrator

957responsible for all administrative matters and operations.

964Section 2.3(C)(1) states: " Except for purposes of inquiry and

973information , the members of the board of county commissioner s

983shall not interfere with the performance of the duties of any

994employee of the county who is under the direct or indirect

1005supervision of the county administration. " Also, the

1012long - established practice was for commissioners to only contact

1022agency director s.

102516. Mr. Skidmore's call to Ms. Mullen - Travis was contrary

1036to the Charlotte County Charter and the practice under it.

1046T herefore, it was not an authorized act pursuant to his duties or

1059authoritie s as a county commissioner.

106517. Mr. Skidmore and Ms. Mullen - Travis were the only

1076participants in the call. He denies t he conversation.

1085Ms. Mullen - Travis ' s account is more credible. This is based upon

1099her contemporaneous communications about the call, the common

1107recollection of all witnesses of a NASCAR componen t to the

1118conversation , the fact that she could not otherwise have known

1128Mr. Skidmore went to school with Rusty Wallace's son , the

1138relative personal interests of the witnesses in the outcome of

1148the proceeding, and the demeanor of the witnesses, particularly

1157of Mr. Skidmore 's .

116218. Shonna Jenkins worked as a contractor licensing

1170investigator for Charlotte County for a little over seven year s .

1182She held that position in 2011 and reported to Ms. Mullen - Travis .

119619. Mr. Skidmore had obtained Ms. Jenkins cell phone

1205number. He had a practice of calling her directly to check on

1217contractor licensing matters. He also contacted Ms. Jenkins to

1226ask her to approve the Beach Road Boutique zoning application.

1236J.J. ' s Restaurant

12402 0. After a meeting held on March 3 , 2011, Mr . Skidmore

1253flagged Ms. Jenkins down in the parking lot. He asked her to " do

1266him a favor, " and " go shut them [J.J. ' s Restaurant] down. I want

1280them out of this f ** ing town. " Mr. Skidmore wanted Ms. Jenkins

1293to find code violations for J.J. ' s Restaurant .

13032 1 . Mr. Skidmore said that he would make sure that

1315Ms. Jenkins got a pay raise or a pay grade increase for this.

13282 2. Either the ex - boyfriend or ex - husband of Mr. Skidmore ' s

1344wife and father of her child had an interest in J.J. ' s

1357Restaurant . There was confl ict between the two families.

1367Mr. Sk idmore had also requested the Charlotte County d irector of

1379Growth Management, Jeff Ruggieri , to take code enforcement

1387actions against J.J. ' s Restaurant .

13942 3. Ms. Jenkins was intimidated and feared her job with the

1406c ounty was in jeopardy if she did not do as Mr. Skidmore asked.

14202 4. Ms. Jenkins reported the conversation to

1428Ms. Mullen - Travis and Joanna Colburn, a licensing investigator,

1438immediately afterwards. Ms. Jenkins was visibly upset and

1446shocked. She also contempora neously documented the incident.

145425. Ms. Jenkins is and has been frank about her dislike for

1466Mr. Skidmore.

146826. This hostility , as well as the mental and emotional

1478difficulties Ms. Jenkins suffered as a result of her employment

1488and dealings with Mr. Ski dmore , does not undermine her testimony.

1499In light of the witnesses' demeanor and corroborating evidence,

1508her testimony is c redible . In addition, although evidence

1518established Ms. Jenkins was taking several medications, the

1526record does not indicate that t he medications in any way affect a

1539person ' s memory or veracity.

154527. Mr. Skidmore ' s requests to Ms. Jenkins and Mr. Ruggieri

1557to act against J.J.'s Restaurant were in violation of the

1567Charlotte County Charter and , therefore , not authorized acts

1575pursuant to h is duties or responsibilities as a county

1585commissioner .

1587CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

159028. The Division of Administrative Hearings has

1597jurisdiction over the subject matter of this proceeding and of

1607the parties pursuant to s ections 120.569 and 120.57(1), Florida

1617Stat utes (2014). Section 112.322 and Florida Administrative Code

1626Rule 34 - 5.0015 authorize the Commission to conduct investigations

1636and to make public reports on complaints concerning violations of

1646c hapter 112 , part II , Florida Statutes (Code of Ethics for Pub lic

1659Officers and Employees).

166229. The Commission charges Mr. Skidmore with two violations

1671of the prohibitions of section 112.313(6). That law states:

1680Misuse of public position. -- No public

1687officer, employee of an agency, or local

1694government attorney shall corruptly use or

1700attempt to use his or her official position

1708or any property or resource which may be

1716within his or her trust, or perform his or

1725her official duties, to secure a special

1732privilege, benefit, or exemption for himself,

1738herself, or others. Th is section shall not

1746be construed to conflict with s. 104.31.

1753Elements of the Charged Offenses

17583 0. T o prove the alleged violations , the Commission must

1769prove each of the elements of the violation. The elements, in

1780the context of this case are: (1) Mr. S kidmore is a public

1793officer; (2) he corruptly used or attempted to use his official

1804position; (3) to secure a special privilege or benefit; and

1814(4) for himself or others. Section 112.312(9) defines corruptly

1823like this:

" 1825Corruptly " means done with a wrongf ul

1832intent and for the purpose of obtaining, or

1840compensating or receiving compensation for,

1845any benefit resulting from some act or

1852omission of a public servant which is

1859inconsistent with the proper performance of

1865his or her public duties.

18703 1. To satisfy t he statutory element of corrupt intent, the

1882Commission must demonstrate with clear and convincing evidence

1890that Respondent acted " with reasonable notice that [his] conduct

1899was inconsistent with the proper performance of [his] public

1908duties and would be a v iolation of the law or the code of

1922ethics. " Blackburn v. State, Comm ' n on Ethics , 589 So. 2d 431,

1935434 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). " [ D ] irect evidence of [wrongful] intent

1948is often unavailable. " Shealy v. City of Albany, Ga. , 89 F.3d

1959804 , 806 (11th Cir. 1996); see also State v. West , 262 So. 2d

1972457, 458 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972) ( " [Intent ] is not usually the

1985subject of direct proof. " ).

19903 2. Circumstantial evidence may prove the wrongful intent

1999which must be shown to establish a violation of section

2009112.313(6) . See U.S . v. Britton , 289 F.3d 976, 981 (7th Cir.

20222002) ( " As direct evidence of a defendant ' s fraudulent intent is

2035typically unavailable, specific intent to defraud may be

2043established by circumstantial evidence and by inferences drawn

2051from examining the scheme its elf that demonstrate that the scheme

2062was reasonably calculated to deceive persons of ordinary prudence

2071and comprehension. " (internal quotation marks omitted) ) . For

2080instance, such intent may be inferred from the public servant ' s

2092actions. See Swanson v. S tate , 713 So . 2d 1097, 1101 (Fla 4th

2106DCA 1998) (Actions manifest intent.); and G.K.D. v. State ,

2115391 So. 2d 327, 328 - 29 (Fla. lst DCA 1980) ( " Appellant testified

2129that he did not intend to break the window, but the record

2141indicates that he did willfully kick the window, and he may be

2153presumed to have intended the probable consequences of his

2162actions. " ) .

21653 3. Skidmore was a public officer at the relevant time.

2176The remaining elements will be examined separately for each

2185charge.

2186Burden and Standard of Proof

21913 4 . The Commission seeks a fine of $10,000 for each alleged

2205violation , as well as public censure and reprimand. The

2214complainant in an administrative proceeding bears the burden of

2223proving its allegations by a preponderance of the evidence. See

2233Dep ' t of Ban king & Fin., Div. of Sec. & Investor Prot. v. Osborne

2249Stern & Co. , 670 So. 2d 932, 935 (Fla. 1996) ( " The general rule

2263is that a party asserting the affirmative of an issue has the

2275burden of presenting evidence as to that issue . " ); Fla. Dep ' t of

2290Transp. v. J.W.C. Co., Inc . , 396 So. 2d 778, 788 (Fla. 1st DCA

23041981); Vero Beach Land Co., LLC v. IMG Citrus, Inc. , Case

2315No. 08 - 5435 (Fla. DOAH March 4, 2009 ; Fla D ep't of Agric.

2329& Consumer Servs. July 20, 2009), aff ' d IMG Citrus, Inc. v. Vero

2343Beach Land Co . , LL C , 4 6 So. 3d 1014 (Fla. 4 th DCA 2010).

2359Consequently, t he Commission bears the burden of proof.

2368Commission proceedings that seek recommended penalties against a

2376public officer or employee require proof of the alleged

2385violation(s) by clear and convincing evide nce. See Latham v.

2395Fla . Comm ' n on Ethics , 694 So. 2d 83 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997).

2410Therefore, the Commission must prove the elements of the alleged

2420violations by clear and convincing evidence.

242635. Clear and convincing evidence is an " intermediate

2434standard, " " r equir[ing] more proof than a ' preponderance of the

2445evidence ' but less than ' beyond and to the exclusion of a

2458reasonable doubt. '" In re Graziano , 696 So. 2d 744, 753 (Fla.

24701997). For proof to be considered " clear and convincing , . . .

2482the evidence must be found to be credible; the facts to which the

2495witnesses testify must be distinctly remembered; the testimony

2503must be precise and explicit ; and the witnesses must be lacking in

2515confusion as to the facts in issue. The evidence must be of such

2528weight that it produces in the mind of the trier of fact a firm

2542belief or conviction, without hesitancy, as to the truth of the

2553allegations sought to be established. " In re Davey , 645 So. 2d

2564398, 404 (Fla. 1994), quoting with approval, Slomowitz v. Walker ,

2574429 So. 2d 7 97, 800 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); see also In re Adoption

2589of Baby E.A.W. , 658 So. 2d 961, 967 (Fla. 1995) ( " The evidence [in

2603order to be clear and convincing] must be sufficient to convince

2614the trier of fact without hesitancy. " ). " Although this standard

2624of pro of may be met where the evidence is in conflict, . . . it

2640seems to preclude evidence that is ambiguous. " Westinghouse

2648Electric Corp. v. Shuler Bros., Inc. , 590 So. 2d 986, 989 (Fla.

26601st DCA 1991).

2663Beach Road Boutique Zoning

266736. Clear and convincing eviden ce proves that Mr. Skidmore

2677sought to obtain a benefit for Mr. and Ms. Hemmes. He sought to

2690do it using his direct access to county employees , even though the

2702Charlotte County Charter prohibited him from doing so. This

2711establishes his wrongful intent. M r. Skidmore's offer of an

2721inducement also demonstrates wrongful intent.

2726J.J. ' s Restaurant

273037. Clear and convincing evidence proves that Mr. Skidmore

2739sought to obtain a personal benefit, harm to the father of his

2751w ife 's child , using his direct access to cou nty employees , even

2764though the Charlotte County Charter prohibited him from doing so.

2774This establishes his wrongful intent.

2779Conclusion

278038. The Florida Commission on Ethics proved by clear and

2790convincing evidence that Mr. Skidmore twice v iolated section

279911 2.313(6).

280139. Mr. Skidmore presented a defense theory that the

2810testimony against him was part of a conspiracy by the witnesses ,

2821who were county employees opposed to his support for reducing

2831county expenditures, support for staff reductions, and advocacy

2839of privatization. The evidence for the theory and the theory are

2850not persuasive. They do not account for the basic consistency of

2861testimony from several witnesses, basic consistency of the

2869testimony with contemporaneous documents, Ms. Mullen - TravisÓs

2877knowl edge of Mr. Skidmore attending school with Rusty WallaceÓs

2887son, and the knowledge of Ms. Jenkins and Mr. Ruggieri that there

2899was a contentious relationship between Mr. Skidmore and his wife

2909with someone affiliated with J.J.Ós Restaurant.

291540 . The Commission seeks the maximum penalties provided by

2925law -- $10,000 for each charge .

29334 1 . Neither chapter 112, p art II, Florida Statutes, n or

2946Florida Administrative Code Chapter 34 - 5 identifies mitigating or

2956aggravating circumstances.

29584 2 . The Commission does not identify facts or rationale

2969supporting its proposed maximum penalty.

29744 3 . The penalties of public censure and reprimand are

2985severe. By any measure, absent evidence to the contrary, $ 1 0,000

2998per offense is a very significant fine. It is the same as the

3011maximum fine for first and second - degree felonies. § 775.083,

3022Fla. Stat. (2014).

3025RECOMMENDATION

3026Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of

3036Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order and public report be

3048entered finding that Respondent, Robert Skidmore , III, twice

3056violated s ection 112.313(6 ) and that he be fined $ 5,000 for each

3071violation for a total of $ 10 ,0 0 0 , together with public censure and

3086reprimand.

3087DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of February , 2015 , in

3097Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

3101S

3102JOHN D. C. NEWTON, II

3107Administrative Law Judge

3110Division of Administrative Hearings

3114The DeSoto Building

31171230 Apalachee Parkway

3120Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3060

3125(850) 488 - 9675

3129Fax Filing (850) 921 - 6847

3135www.doah.state.fl.us

3136Filed wit h the Clerk of the

3143Division of Administrative Hearings

3147this 27th day of February , 2015 .

3154ENDNOTE

31551/ All references to the Florida Statutes are to the 2011

3166compilation unless indicated otherwise.

3170COPIES FURNISHED:

3172Virlindia Doss, Executive Director

3176Fl orida Commission on Ethics

3181Post Office Box 15709

3185Tallahassee, Florida 32317 - 5709

3190(eServed)

3191C. Christopher Anderson, III, General Counsel

3197Florida Commission on Ethics

3201Post Office Box 15709

3205Tallahassee, Florida 32317 - 5709

3210(eServed)

3211Millie Wells Fulfo rd, Agency Clerk

3217Florida Commission on Ethics

3221Post Office Box 15709

3225Tallahassee, Florida 32317 - 5709

3230(eServed)

3231Diane L. Guillemette, Esquire

3235Office of the Attorney General

3240The Capitol, Plaza Level 01

3245Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 1050

3250(eServed)

3251Emmett Mitc hell, IV, Esquire

3256Coates Law Firm

3259Suite 1

3261115 East Park Avenue

3265Tallahassee, Florida 32301 - 7701

3270(eServed)

3271N OTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

3278All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within

328815 days from the date of this Recommended Orde r. Any exceptions

3300to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that

3311will issue the Final Order in this c ase.

Select the PDF icon to view the document.
PDF
Date
Proceedings
PDF:
Date: 04/27/2015
Proceedings: Agency Final Order and Public Report filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/22/2015
Proceedings: Agency Final Order
PDF:
Date: 02/27/2015
Proceedings: Recommended Order
PDF:
Date: 02/27/2015
Proceedings: Recommended Order (hearing held September 23 and October 28, 2014). CASE CLOSED.
PDF:
Date: 02/27/2015
Proceedings: Report cover letter identifying the hearing record referred to the Agency.
PDF:
Date: 01/05/2015
Proceedings: Advocate's Proposed Recommended Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 01/05/2015
Proceedings: Respondent's Proposed Recommended Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 01/05/2015
Proceedings: Post-hearing Submission filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/24/2014
Proceedings: Order Granting Extension of Time.
PDF:
Date: 11/19/2014
Proceedings: Joint Motion to Extend Time for Filing of Proposed Recommended Orders filed.
Date: 11/17/2014
Proceedings: Transcript of Proceedings Volume I and II (not available for viewing) filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/13/2014
Proceedings: Post-hearing Order.
Date: 10/28/2014
Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Hearing Held.
Date: 10/07/2014
Proceedings: Transcript of Proceedings (not available for viewing) filed.
Date: 09/23/2014
Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Hearing Partially Held; continued to October 28, 2014; 9:00 a.m.; Punta Gorda, FL.
PDF:
Date: 09/08/2014
Proceedings: Joint Pre-hearing Stipulation filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/15/2014
Proceedings: Amended Notice of Hearing (hearing set for September 23 and October 28, 2014; 9:00 a.m.; Punta Gorda, FL; amended to correct hearing dates).
PDF:
Date: 08/07/2014
Proceedings: Amended Notice of Hearing (hearing set for September 18 and October 28, 2014; 9:00 a.m.; Punta Gorda, FL; amended as to dates of hearing).
PDF:
Date: 06/30/2014
Proceedings: Amended Notice of Hearing (hearing set for September 18 and 23, 2014; 9:00 a.m.; Punta Gorda, FL; amended as to dates and location of hearing).
PDF:
Date: 06/25/2014
Proceedings: (Respondent's Corrected) Motion for Continuance filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/25/2014
Proceedings: Order Granting Continuance and Re-scheduling Hearing (hearing set for September 18 and 19, 2014; 9:00 a.m.; Punta Gorda, FL).
PDF:
Date: 06/24/2014
Proceedings: (Respondent's) Motion for Continuance filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/18/2014
Proceedings: Notice of Cancellation of Telephonic Motion Hearing.
PDF:
Date: 06/17/2014
Proceedings: Notice of Telephonic Motion Hearing (motion hearing set for July 9, 2014; 10:30 a.m.).
PDF:
Date: 05/27/2014
Proceedings: Advocate's Notice of Service of Response to Respondent's Request for Admissions filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/23/2014
Proceedings: Respondent's Notice of Service of Supplemental Response to Advocate's Interrogatories filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/23/2014
Proceedings: Motion for Additional Hearing Time and Location filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/21/2014
Proceedings: Advocate's Notice of Service of Supplemental Responses to Respondent's Discovery Requests filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/21/2014
Proceedings: Advocate's Notice of Service of Response to Respondent's Request for Admissions filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/20/2014
Proceedings: Order Authorizing Use of Previous Discovery.
PDF:
Date: 05/20/2014
Proceedings: Order of Pre-hearing Instructions.
PDF:
Date: 05/20/2014
Proceedings: Notice of Hearing (hearing set for July 15, 2014; 9:00 a.m.; Punta Gorda, FL).
PDF:
Date: 05/01/2014
Proceedings: (Joint) Response to Initial Order and Motion to Consolidate filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/30/2014
Proceedings: Respondent's Notice of Service of Request for Admissions filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/24/2014
Proceedings: Initial Order.
PDF:
Date: 04/23/2014
Proceedings: Order Finding Probable Cause filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/23/2014
Proceedings: Advocate's Amended Recommendation filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/23/2014
Proceedings: Supplemental Report of Investigation filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/23/2014
Proceedings: Advocate's Recommendation filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/23/2014
Proceedings: Report of Investigation filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/23/2014
Proceedings: Determination of Invesigative Jurisdiction and Order to Investigate filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/23/2014
Proceedings: Agency referral filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/12/2013
Proceedings: Respondent's Notice of Service of Request for Admissions filed.

Case Information

Judge:
JOHN D. C. NEWTON, II
Date Filed:
04/23/2014
Date Assignment:
04/23/2014
Last Docket Entry:
04/27/2015
Location:
Punta Gorda, Florida
District:
Middle
Agency:
ADOPTED IN PART OR MODIFIED
Suffix:
EC
 

Counsels

Related Florida Statute(s) (9):