15-004359RP North Florida Horsemen&Apos;S Association, Inc. vs. Department Of Business And Professional Regulation, Division Of Pari-Mutuel Wagering
 Status: Closed
DOAH Final Order on Thursday, December 17, 2015.


View Dockets  
Summary: Proposed rules 61D-2.024 & 2.025 (the "track" rules) are not invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority. Proposed rules 61D-2.028 (the "jockey" rules) & 61D-2.029 (the "publication" rule) are invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority.

1STATE OF FLORIDA

4DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

8NORTH FLORIDA HORSEMEN ÓS

12ASSOCIATION, INC. ,

14Petitioner ,

15vs. Case No. 1 5 - 4359RP

22DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND

26PROFESSIONAL REGULATION ,

28DIVISION OF PARI - MUTUEL

33WAGERING ,

34Respondent ,

35and

36FLORIDA QUARTER HORSE RACING

40ASSOCIATION, INC. ,

42Intervenor.

43/

44FINAL ORDER

46A final hearing was conducted in this case on December 17,

572015 , in Tallahassee, Flo rida, before E. Gary Early, an

67administrative law j udge with the Division of Administrative

76Hearings.

77APPEARANCES

78For Petitioner: Donna E. Blanton , Esquire

84Angela D. Miles , Esquire

88Radey Law Firm , P.A.

92301 South Bronough Street , Suite 200

98Tallahassee, Florida 32301

101For Respondent: W i lliam D. Hall , Esquire

109Caitlin R. Mawn , Esquire

113Department of B usiness and

118P rofessional Regulation

121Division of Pari - Mutuel Wagering

1271940 North Monroe Stree t , Suite 40

134Tallahassee, Florida 32399

137For Intervenor: Michael John Barry, E squire

144J. Stephen Menton , Esquire

148Rutledge Ecenia, P.A.

151119 South Monroe Street , Suite 202

157Tallahassee, Florida 32301

160STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES

164The issue s for disposition in this case are whet her

175proposed rules 61D - 2.024(5); 61D - 2.025(1), (2), (4), (7), and

187(8)(a ); 61D - 2.028(2)(a) - (d), (6), (7), and (8) ; and 61D - 2.029

202are invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority as

210defined in section 120.52(8), Florida Statutes.

216PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

218On July 30, 2015, Petitioner , North Florida Ho rsemenÓs

227Association, Inc. ( Petitioner or NFHA) , filed a Petition to

237Determine Invalidity of Proposed Rules. On August 24, 2015,

246Petitioner filed an Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Amended

256Petition. PetitionerÓs Unoppos ed Motion was granted on

264August 26, 2014.

267On September 18, 2015, the Florida Quarter Horse Racing

276Association, Inc. ( Intervenor or FQHRA), filed a Motion to

286Intervene. The Motion to Intervene was granted on September 22,

2962015.

297The case was scheduled to be heard on December 17 and 18,

3092015. On December 8, 2015, the parties filed a Joint Motion for

321Oral Argument In Lieu of Evidentiary Hearing and Joint

330Prehearing Stipulation, by which the parties agreed that

338disputed issues of fact no longer exist ed in the case and that

351only legal issu es remain ed to be litigated. Accordingly, the

362parties advised that an evidentiary hearing was no longer

371necessary and requested that the final hearing be limited to

381oral argument on the legal issues framed by the partiesÓ j oint

393p rehearing s tipulation.

397I n the Joint Prehearing Stipulation, the parties identified

406the Stipulated Facts, Stipulated Exhibits, and legal issues

414remaining in the case. The legal issues remaining were

423identified as: (i) whet her proposed rules 61D - 2.024(5); 61D -

4352.025(1), (2), (4), (7), and (8)(a); 61D - 2.028(2)(a) - (d), (6),

447(7), and (8); and 61D - 2.029 exceed the agencyÓs grant of

459rulemaking authority in violation of section 120.52(8)(b); (ii)

467whet her proposed rules 61D - 2.024(5); 61D - 2.025(1), (2), (4),

479(7), and (8)(a) ; 61D - 2.028(2)(a ) - (d), (6), (7), and (8); and

49361D - 2.029 enlarge, modify, or contravene the specific provisions

503of law implemented in violation of section 120.52(8)(c); (iii)

512whet her proposed rules 61D - 2.024(5); 61D - 2.025(1), (2), (4),

524(7), and (8)(a); 61D - 2.028(2)(a) - (d), (6), (7), and (8); and

53761D - 2.029 violate the Ðflush leftÑ language in section

547120.52(8); and (iv) whether proposed rules 61D - 2.028(2)(a) - (d),

558(6), (7), and (8); and 61D - 2.029 are vague in violation of

571section 120.52(8)(d).

573The Joint Motion for Oral Argu ment In Lieu of Evidentiary

584Hearing was granted on December 8, 2015. The f inal h earing was

597held on December 17, 2015. At the final hearing, the parties

608presented legal argument. The parties did not order a

617transcript. At the close of the final h earing, the ALJ directed

629that PFOs be filed by January 12, 2016 , to address the legal

641issues identified in the joint prehearing stipulation or the

650stipulated record.

652The stipulated facts have been accepted and considered in

661the preparation of this Final Order.

667Petitioner has requested an award of attorneyÓs fees

675pursuant to section 120.595(2), Florida Statutes.

681References to statutes are to Florida Statutes (201 5 ) ,

691unless otherwise noted.

694FINDINGS OF FACT

6971. Petitioner is the horsemenÓs association that

704r epresents the majority of the quarter horse owners and trainers

715at Gretna Racing, LLC (ÐGretna RacingÑ). Gretna Racing holds a

725pari - mutuel permit and annual operating license that authorizes

735Gretna Racing to conduct pari - mutuel wagering on q uarter horse

747r aces pursuant to c hapter 550, Florida Statutes. The HorsemenÓs

758Agreement between Petitioner and Gretna Racing has been filed

767with the Division in accordance with sections 550.002(11) and

776849.086(13)(d)3 . As the organization representing the majority

784of t he horsemen participating in horse racing events conducted

794at Gretna Racing, NFHA is the statutorily - entitled recipient to

805the purses paid for the performances at Gretna Racing.

8142 . Petitioner has approximately 200 members, the majority

823of whom are owners , trainers , and jockeys of American Quarter

833Horses and other breeds that are authorized to participate in

843pari - mutuel quarter horse races. The Division has issued

853occupational licenses to the majority of PetitionerÓs members.

8613 . Respondent , Department o f Business and Professional

870Regulation, Division of Pari - Mutuel Wagering (Respondent or

879Division) , is the state agency charged with regulating pari -

889mutuel wagering activities in Florida pursuant to c hapter 550.

8994 . Intervenor is tasked by statute with ce rtain functions

910concerning the conduct and promotion of pari - mutuel quarter

920horse racing at racetracks throughout Florida. Intervenor is

928the Florida affiliate of the American Quarter Horse Association

937(AQHA), which is the national quarter horse membership

945organization responsible for maintaining uniform standards for

952A merican quarter horse racing worldwide.

9585 . NFHAÓs members engage in non - traditional quarter horse

969racing, including Ðbarrel matchÑ and Ðflag dropÑ racing. Barrel

978match racing involves two adjacent rectangular tracks on which

987the horses and riders complete a cloverleaf pattern around

996preset barrels. Flag drop racing involves two or more horses

1006racing simultaneously on a common, straight course of

1014approximately 100 yards in length that is st arted by a flag

1026drop, rather than a starting box or gate. Gretna RacingÓs

1036existing track configuration supports these forms of quarter

1044horse racing. NFHAÓs members and their horses are specifically

1053trained for barrel match and flag drop racing and most w ould

1065require extensive additional training to participate in other

1073racing formats.

10756 . Barrel match racing and flag drop racing , as they have

1087been conducted at Gretna Racing , will not be capable of being

1098run on quarter horse tracks that meet the standards to be

1109adopted by proposed rules 61D - 2.024 and 61D - 2.025. Many of

1122PetitionerÓs mem b ers will not meet the jockey requirements to be

1134adopted by proposed rule 61D - 2.028 without additional training,

1144and would be required to purchase racing uniforms under the

1154proposed rule.

11567 . On October 19, 2011, the Division issued an annual

1167operating license to Gretna Racing, which authorized it to

1176conduct racing pe rformances under its previously - issued quarter

1186horse racing permit during the 2011/2012 season. For reasons

1195best explained by Administrative Law Judge John Van Laningham in

1205Fl orida Quarter Horse Racing Ass ociatio n , Inc. v. Department of

1217Business & Professiona l Reg ulation , Case No. 11 - 5796RU (Fla.

1229DOAH May 6, 2013), the annual operating license had the effect

1240of approving the conduct of barrel races at Gretna Racing.

12508 . Following the DivisionÓs issuance of the annual

1259operating license to Gretna Racing, FQHRA challenged the

1267DivisionÓs approval of pari - mutuel barrel match racing as an

1278unadopted rule . After an evi dentiary hearing, a Final Order was

1290issued on May 6, 2013, determining that Ðthe policy of the

1301Division pursuant to which "Gretna - style" barrel match racing is

1312treated as the legal equivalent of traditional quarter horse

1321racing, so that a quarter horse rac ing permitholder is able to

1333obtain an annual license authorizing pari - mutuel wagering

1342operations on barrel match racing, is an unadopted rule which

1352violates section 120.54(1)(a), Florida Statutes.Ñ F lorida

1359Quarter Horse Racing AssÓn , Inc. v. Dep Ót of Bus . & ProfÓl Reg . ,

1374DOAH Case No. 11 - 5796RU at 78 .

13839. The Final Order was affirmed by the First District

1393Court of Appeal , quoting Judge Van Laningham with approval ,

1402that:

1403To be legal and enforceable, a policy which

1411operates as law must be formally adopted in

1419public, through the transparent process of

1425the rulemaking procedure set forth in

1431section 120.54 . In sum, the Division's

1438policy of licensing the conduct of pari -

1446mutuel wagering on [barrel match racing], on

1453the ground that [barrel match racing] is

1460legall y equivalent to quarter horse racing,

1467constitutes an unadopted rule . As such, it

1475violates section 120.54(1)(a).

1478Fl a . Quarter Horse Track AssÓn , Inc. v. DepÓt of Bus. & ProfÓl

1492Reg. , 133 So. 3d 1118 , 1119 - 1120 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014).

150410 . Following the entry of that Final Order, NFHA entered

1515into a Consent Order with the Division that allows match races

1526started by a flag drop as a pari - mutuel event pending the

1539adoption of rules establishing standards for quarter horse

1547racing.

154811 . As a result of the Final O rder, the Division began its

1562rule development process for the proposed rules at issue in this

1573proceeding when a Notice of Development of Rulemaking was

1582published on September 6, 2013 , in Volume 39, Number 174 of the

1594Florida Administrative Register. A rule development workshop

1601was held on October 16, 2013, in Fort Lauderdale , Florida . A

1613second Notice of Development of Rulemaking was published on

1622August 6, 2014 , in Volume 40, Number 152 of the Florida

1633Administrative Register. Another rule development works hop was

1641held on August 27, 2014, in Orlando , Florida . T he Division

1653published a third Notice of Development of Rulemaking on

1662December 24, 2014 , in Volume 40, Number 248 of the Florida

1673Administrative Register. A final rule development workshop was

1681held on January 14, 2015, in Tallahassee , Florida .

1690R epresentatives of numerous entities, including NFHA and FQHRA,

1699participated in the workshops.

170312 . On June 30, 2015, the Division published Notice of

1714Proposed Rules 61D - 2.024 through 61D - 2.029 in Volume 41, Num ber

1728126 of the Florida Administrative Register. A public hearing

1737was held on July 20, 2015, where representatives of numerous

1747interested entities spoke and submitted written comments.

175413 . On July 28, 2015, the Division published a Notice of

1766Change to th e proposed rules in Volume 41, Number 145 of the

1779Florida Administrative Register.

178214 . NFHA filed a petition challenging several of the

1792proposed rules on July 30, 2015. On August 21, 2015, NFHA filed

1804an Amended Petition to Determine Invalidity of Propos ed Rules,

1814which was accepted by the ALJ.

182015 . FQHRA filed a Motion to Intervene in the case on

1832September 18, 2015 . That motion was granted on September 22,

18432015.

184416 . NFHAÓs Amended Petition challenge d the following rules

1854propose d by the Division: 61D - 2 .024(5); 61D - 2.025(1), (2), (4),

1868(7) and (8)(a); 61D - 2.028(2)( a) - (d), (6), (7), and (8); and 61D -

18842.029.

188517 . T he challenged rules purp ort to implement provisions

1896of c hapter 550, which governs pari - mutuel wagering.

190618 . NFHA contends that the challenged rules are an invalid

1917exercise of the DivisionÓs delegated legislative authority

1924because, in violation of section 120.52(8)(b), the Division is

1933exceeding its grant of rulemaking authority in adopting the

1942rules and, in violation of section 120.52(8)(c), the challenged

1951rules enlarge, modify , or contravene the law implemented . NFHA

1961further contends that each of the challenged rules violates the

1971Ðflush leftÑ language in section 120.52(8) . Finally, NFHA

1980asserts that proposed rules 61D - 2.028(2)(a) - (d), (6), (7) , and

1992(8) ; and 61D - 2.029 are vague in violation of section

2003120.52(8)(d).

2004CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

200719 . The Division of Administrative Hearings has

2015jurisdiction of the subject matter and the parties to this

2025proceeding. §§ 120.569 and 120.57(1), Fla. Stat . (2015 ) .

203620 . Section 120.56(1)(a) provides that Ð any person

2045substantially affected by . . . a proposed rule may seek an

2057administrative determination of the invalidity of the rule on

2066the ground that the rule is an invalid exercise of delegated

2077legislative auth ority.Ñ

2080Standing

208121 . The parties have stipulated that all parties have

2091standing to participate in this proceeding. If allowed to

2100become effective, NFHA and FQHRA and their respective members

2109would be governed by the proposed rules and therefore each is

2120substantially affected in a manner and degree sufficient to

2129confer administrative standing in this case. See , e . g . , Abbott

2141Labs. v. Mylan Pharms . , 15 So . 3d 642, 651 n. 2 (Fla. 1st DCA

21572009); Dep't of Prof'1 Reg., Bd. o f Dentistry v. Fla. Dental

2169Hygienist Ass'n , 612 So. 2d 646, 651 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); see

2181also Cole Vision Corp. v. Dep't of Bus. & Prof'l Reg. , 688

2193So. 2d 404, 407 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997) (recognizing that Ð a less

2206demanding standard applies in a rule challenge proceeding than

2215in an action at law, and that the standard differs from the

2227Ò substantial interest Ó standard of a licensure proceeding. Ñ ).

223822 . Associations have standing to bring a rule challenge

2248when:

2249a substantial number of [the associationÓs]

2255members, although not necessarily a

2260majority , are Ðsubstantially affectedÑ by

2265the challenged rule . Further, the subject

2272matter of the rule must be within the

2280associationÓs general scope of interest and

2286activity, and the relief requested must be

2293the type appropriate for a trade association

2300to receiv e on behalf of its members.

2308Florida Home Builders AssnÓ v . DepÓ t of Labor and Emp. Sec. , 412

2322So. 2d 351, 353 - 54 (Fla. 1982) ; see also NAACP, Inc. v. Bd. of

2337Regents , 863 So. 2d 294, 298 (Fla. 2003) .

234623 . Although t he parties have stipulated to Petitione rÓs

2357and IntervenorÓs standing, it is concluded that, based on the

2367stipulated facts and the affidavits filed by representatives of

2376each, that Petitioner and Intervenor , NFHA and FQHRA , meet the

2386standards for associational standing.

2390Burden of Proof

239324 . In a challenge to a proposed agency rule , t he

2405petitioner has the burden of Ðgoing forward,Ñ and the agency

2416then has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the

2427evidence that the proposed rule is not an invalid exercise of

2438delegated legislative authority as to the objections raised.

2446§ 120.56(2)(a), Fla. Stat. Petitioner met its burden of Ðgoing

2456forwardÑ in this case.

246025 . When a substantially affected person seeks a

2469determination of the invalidity of a proposed rule pursuant to

2479section 120.56(2), the proposed rule is not presumed to be valid

2490or invalid . § 120.56(2)( c ), Fla. Stat.

2499Rulemaking Standards

250126 . Section 120.52(8) defines an Ðinvalid exercise of

2510delegated legislative authority . Ñ By stipulation of the

2519parties, only sections 120.52(8)(b), (8 )(c), and (8)(d), and the

"2529flush left" paragraph at the end of subsection (8), are at

2540issue in this proceeding. Those provisions establish that a

2549rule is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority

2558under the following circumstances:

2562(8) ÐInva lid exercise of delegated

2568legislative authorityÑ means action that

2573goes beyond the powers, functions, and

2579duties delegated by the Legislature . A

2586proposed or existing rule is an invalid

2593exercise of delegated legislative authority

2598if any one of the followin g applies:

2606* * *

2609(b) The agency has exceeded its grant of

2617rulemaking authority, citation to which is

2623required by s. 120.54(3)(a)1.;

2627(c) The rule enlarges, modifies, or

2633contravenes the specific provisions of law

2639implemented, citation to which is req uired

2646by s. 120.54(3)(a)1.;

2649(d) The rule is vague, fails to establish

2657adequate standards for agency decisions, or

2663vests unbridled discretion in the agency;

2669A grant of rulemaking authority is necessary

2676but not sufficient to allow an agency to

2684adopt a r ule; a specific law to be

2693implemented is also required . An agency may

2701adopt only rules that implement or interpret

2708the specific powers and duties granted by

2715the enabling statute . No agency shall have

2723authority to adopt a rule only because it is

2732reasonabl y related to the purpose of the

2740enabling legislation and is not arbitrary

2746and capricious or is within the agencyÓs

2753class of powers and duties, nor shall an

2761agency have the authority to implement

2767statutory provisions setting forth general

2772legislative intent or policy . Statutory

2778language granting rulemaking authority or

2783generally describing the powers and

2788functions of an agency shall be construed to

2796extend no further than implementing or

2802interpreting the specific powers and duties

2808conferred by the enabling s tatute.

281427 . The extensively cited cases of Southwest Florida Water

2824Management District v. Save the Manatee Club, Inc. , 773 So. 2d

2835594 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) , and Board of Trustees of the

2846Internal Improvement Trust Fund v. Day Cruise Ass ociatio n , Inc. ,

2857794 So. 2d 696 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001), recognize that the flush -

2870left paragraph of section 120.52(8) was intended to restrict and

2880narrow the scope of agency rulemaking. As established in Day

2890Cruise :

2892It is now clear, agencies have rulemaking

2899authority only where the Legislature has

2905enacted a specific statute, and authorized

2911the agency to implement, and then only if

2919the (proposed) rule implements or interprets

2925specific powers or duties, as opposed to

2932improvising in an area that can be said to

2941fall only generally wi thin some class or

2949powers or duties the Legislature has

2955conferred on the agency.

2959794 So. 2d at 700. Nonetheless, Ð[i]t follows that the

2969authority for an administrative rule is not a matter of degree .

2981The question is whether the statute contains a speci fic grant of

2993legislative authority for the rule, not whether the grant of

3003authority is specific enough .Ñ S w. Fla. Water Mgmt. Dist. v.

3015Save the Manatee Club, Inc. , 773 So. 2d at 600.

302528 . The D ivision 's interpretation of chapter 550 , a

3036statute it is cha rged with administering, is entitled to Ð great

3048deference unless there is clear error or conflict with the

3058intent of the statute . Ñ Lakeland Reg'l Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Ag.

3071for Health Care Admin. , 917 So. 2d 1024, 1029 (Fla. 1st DCA

30832006); see also Level 3 CommcÓns, LLC v. Jacobs , 841 So. 2d 447,

3096450 (Fla. 2003) ; Verizon Fla., Inc. v. Jacobs , 810 So. 2d 906,

31081 4

3110908 (Fla. 2002); Fla. Ho sp. (Adventist Health) v. Ag. for Health

3122Care Admin. , 823 So. 2d 844, 847 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002).

3133The basis for such deference has been described as follows:

3143Agencies generally have more expertise in a

3150specific area they are charged with

3156overseeing . Thus, in deferring to an

3163agency's interpretation, courts benefit from

3168the agency's technical and/or practical

3173experience in its fiel d.

3178Rizov v. Bd. of ProfÓl EngÓrs , 979 So. 2d 979 (Fla. 3d DCA

31912008) , see also Avatar Dev. Corp. v. State , 723 So. 2d 199, 207

3204(Fla. 1998) (ÐUnder the complexities of our modern system of

3214government, the Legislature has recognized that [the Department

3222of E nvironmental Protection], as a specialized administrative

3230body, is in the best position to establish appropriate standards

3240and conditions . . . .Ñ).

324629 . Ð[I]t is well established that the legislature has

3256broad discretion in regulating and controlling p ari - mutuel

3266wagering and gambling under its police powers.Ñ Div. of Pari -

3277Mutuel Wagering , Dep't of Bus. Reg. v. Fl a . Horse Council, Inc. ,

3290464 So. 2d 128, 130 (Fla. 1985). Thus, the authority of the

3302legislature to empower the Division to adopt pari - mutuel rules

3313to establish standards for Ð holding, conducting, and operating

3322of all racetracks, race meets, and races held in this stateÑ is

3334recognized by the undersigned.

3338Statutory Authority for the Proposed Rules

334430 . Among the statutory provisions cited by t he division

3355as authority for some or all of its rules are s ection s 550.2415,

3369550.235, and 550.0425. Those sections, both by stipulation of

3378the parties and by review thereof by the undersigned, are

3388determined to provide no authority for the challenged prov isions

3398of the proposed rules, and are not implemented by the challenged

3409provisions of the proposed rules. Therefore, they do not merit

3419further discussion.

342131 . By consensus of the parties, s ection 550.0251 (3) ,

3432entitled Ð[t]he powers and duties of the Di vision of Pari - mutuel

3445Wagering of the Department of Business and Professional

3453Regulation,Ñ provides the primary rulemaking authority and law

3462implemented for each of the challenged rules. That section

3471provides that :

3474The division shall administer this chap ter

3481and regulate the pari - mutuel industry under

3489this chapter and the rules adopted pursuant

3496thereto, and:

3498* * *

3501(3) The division shall adopt reasonable

3507rules for the control, supervision, and

3513direction of all applicants, permittees, and

3519licensees and fo r the holding, conducting,

3526and operating of all racetracks, race meets,

3533and races held in this state . Such rules

3542must be uniform in their application and

3549effect, and the duty of exercising this

3556control and power is made mandatory upon the

3564division.

356532 . In addition to the foregoing, s ection 550.105 ,

3575entitled Ð[o] ccupational licenses of racetrack employees; fees;

3583denial, suspension, and revocation of license; penalties and

3591fines , Ñ is cited as the law implemented by proposed rule 61D -

36042. 028, Jockey Requireme nts, with s ections 550.105(3) and (10 ) (a)

3617cited as the rulemaking authority. Having reviewed the statute

3626in its entirety, the undersigned concludes that those sections

3635of the statute that could in any way be construed as be ing

3648implemented by the proposed rules are the following:

3656(1) Each person connected with a racetrack

3663or jai alai fronton, as specified in

3670paragraph (2)(a), shall purchase from the

3676division an occupational license . All

3682moneys collected pursuant to this section

3688each fiscal year shall be deposited into the

3696Pari - mutuel Wagering Trust Fund. Pursuant

3703to the rules adopted by the division, an

3711occupational license may be valid for a

3718period of up to 3 years for a fee that does

3729not exceed the full occupational license fee

3736for each of the years for which the license

3745is purchas ed. The occupational license

3751shall be valid during its specified term at

3759any pari - mutuel facility.

3764(2)(a) The following licenses shall be

3770issued to persons or entities with access to

3778the backside, racing animals, jai alai

3784playersÓ room, jockeysÓ room, driversÓ room,

3790totalisator room, the mutuels, or money

3796room, or to persons who, by virtue of the

3805position the y hold, might be granted access

3813to these areas or to any other person or

3822entity in one of the following categories

3829and with fees not to exceed the following

3837amounts for any 12 - month period:

3844* * *

38472. Professional occupational licenses:

3851professional person s with access to the

3858backside of a racetrack or playersÓ quarters

3865in jai alai such as . . . jockeys and

3875apprentices, . . . who might have access to

3884the jockeysÓ room, the driversÓ room, the

3891backside, racing animals, kennel compound,

3896or managers or supervis ors requiring access

3903to mutuels machines, the money room, or

3910totalisator equipment: $40.

3913* * *

3916The individuals and entities that are

3922licensed under this paragraph require

3927heightened state scrutiny, including the

3932submission by the individual licensees or

3938persons associated with the entities

3943described in this chapter of fingerprints

3949for a Federal Bureau of Investigation

3955criminal records check.

3958(b) The division shall adopt rules

3964pertaining to pari - mutuel occupational

3970licenses, licensing periods, and renew al

3976cycles.

3977(3) Certified public accountants and

3982attorneys licensed to practice in this state

3989shall not be required to hold an

3996occupational license under this section

4001while providing accounting or legal services

4007to a permitholder if the certified public

4014a ccountantÓs or attorneyÓs primary place of

4021employment is not on the permitholder

4027premises.

4028* * *

4031(10)(a) Upon application for an

4036occupational license, the division may

4041require the applicantÓs full legal name; any

4048nickname, alias, or maiden name for the

4055applicant; name of the applicantÓs spouse;

4061the applicantÓs date of birth, residence

4067address, mailing address, residence address

4072and business phone number, and social

4078security number; disclosure of any felony or

4085any conviction involving bookmaking, illegal

4090gambling, or cruelty to animals; disclosure

4096of any past or present enforcement or

4103actions by any racing or gaming agency

4110against the applicant; and any information

4116the division determines is necessary to

4122establish the identity of the applicant or

4129to establ ish that the applicant is of good

4138moral character. Fingerprints shall be

4143taken in a manner approved by the division

4151and then shall be submitted to the Federal

4159Bureau of Investigation, or to the

4165association of state officials regulating

4170pari - mutuel wagerin g pursuant to the Federal

4179Pari - mutuel Licensing Simplification Act of

41861988 . The cost of processing fingerprints

4193shall be borne by the applicant and paid to

4202the association of state officials

4207regulating pari - mutuel wagering from the

4214trust fund to which the processing fees are

4222deposited . The division, by rule, may

4229require additional information from

4233licensees which is reasonably necessary to

4239regulate the industry . The division may, by

4247rule, exempt certain occupations or groups

4253of persons from the fingerpri nting

4259requirements.

4260The ÐTrackÑ Rules - Proposed Rule 61D - 2.024(5) and Proposed Rule

427261D - 025(1), (2), (4), (7) and (8)(a)

428033 . Petitioner has challenged proposed rule 61D - 2.024(5) ,

4290which provides that:

4293A race course shall not require the racing

4301animal t o change its course in response to

4310any obstacles on the racing surface during

4317the race.

431934 . Petitioner has challenged proposed rule s 61D - 025(1),

4330(2), (4), (7) and (8)(a), which provide that:

4338(1) Each race must have at least five

4346entrants with a minimu m of two contestants.

4354(2) Each race, with the exception of a

4362harness race and a steeplechase race, must

4369start by use of a box or gate.

4377* * *

4380(4) Each quarter horse or any statutorily

4387authorized substitute breed race other than

4393thoroughbred conducted u nder a quarter horse

4400permit:

4401a. Must be conducted on a track that is at

4411least 50 feet in width; and

4417b. Must not be shorter than 330 feet in

4426length.

4427* * *

4430(7) For each race, all racing contestants

4437must compete simultaneously on a common

4443track with a common start and finish line.

4451(8) Horse races must be recorded by at

4459least three video cameras if the race

4466includes turns or two video cameras if the

4474race is on a straight track.

4480(a) Cameras must be located to provide

4487clear panoramic and head - on vi ews of each

4497race. Separate monitors, which

4501simultaneously display the images received

4506from each camera and are capable of

4513simultaneously displaying a synchronized

4517view of the recordings of each race for

4525review, shall be provided in the stewardsÓ

4532stand.

453335 . The rulemaking authority for both rules is cited as

4544sections 550.0251(3) and 550.2415(12). The law implemented by

4552proposed rule 61D - 2.024 i s cited as sections 550.0251 and

4564550.2415. The law implemented by proposed rule 61D - 2.025 is

4575cited as section s 550.235, 550.0251, and 550.2415. As set forth

4586above, the relevant authority for the challenged provisions of

4595the proposed rules is limited to section 550.0251.

460336 . Petitioner cites to Department of Business &

4612Professional Regulation v. Calder , 724 So. 2d 100 (Fla. 1st DCA

46231998) , as authority for its argument that the Division lacks

4633specific rulemaking authority for the proposed rules. The

4641courtÓs opinion in Calder must b e read in light of the proposed

4654rules at issue, which authorized warrantless searc hes of persons

4664and places within a permitted pari - mutuel wagering facility. In

4675that case, the Court correctly determined that

4682It is clear, however, that the statutory

4689provisions fail to convey the requisite power

4696to the agency to conduct searches .

4703Subse ction 550.0251(3) merely empowers the

4709Division to "adopt reasonable rules for the

4716control, supervision, and direction of all

4722applicants, permittees, and licensees and for

4728the holding, conducting, and operating of all

4735racetracks, race meets, and races held in

4742this state. Ñ This general grant of

4749rulemaking authority, while necessary, is not

4755sufficient to validate rule 61D - 2.002 under

4763the 1996 amendment to section 120.52(8) . A

4771specific law to be implemented was also

4778required, and nothing in this subsection

4784id entifies the power that the rule attempts

4792to implement, i.e., to search.

4797D ept. of Bus. & ProfÓl Reg. v. Calder , 724 So. 2d at 102.

481137 . In further explaining its opinion , and the extent to

4822which Constitutional liberties may have played a role, the

4831Calder court concluded by ruling that:

4837In St. Johns we interpreted the above

4844language to mean that the rule or proposed

4852rule could be considered "a valid exercise

4859of delegated legislative authority [only] if

4865it regulates a matter directly within the

4872class of pow ers and duties identified in the

4881statute to be implemented. Ñ 1998 Fla. App.

4889LEXIS 9592, *22 - 23 (emphasis added) .

4897Obviously, there is nothing in the class of

4905powers and duties identified in section

4911550.0251 that delegates to the Division the

4918right to sear ch persons or places within

4926pari - mutuel wagering facilities, or any

4933provision in the statute deeming a licensee

4940of same to have waived the protections of

4948the Fourth Amendment by consenting to such

4955searches.

4956Id. at 105 - 106.

496138 . Unlike the warrantless sea rch rules at issue in

4972Calder , the second clause of section 550.0251(3) provides a

4981grant of authority specifically tailored to the adoption of

4990standards for racetracks, race meets, and races. Section

4998550.0251(3) further provides an expression of the scope of the

5008legislative grant of authority, providing that Ð[s]uch rules

5016must be uniform in their application and effect, and the duty of

5028exercising this control and power is made mandatory upon the

5038division.Ñ

503939 . T he challenged sections of propose d rules 61 D - 2.024

5053and 61D - 2.025, establishing racetrack and race standards, do not

5064enlarge, modify, or contravene the DivisionÓs ÐmandatoryÑ

5071authority to adopt rules for Ðholding, conducting, and operating

5080of all racetracks, race meets, and races held in this state. Ñ

509240 . The second clause of section 550.0251(3), combined

5101with the legislative mandate of exercising that rulemaking power

5110and control, establishes the Ðspecific powers and dutiesÑ to be

5120implemented and interpreted by the Division.

512641 . As with Calder , the restriction on agency rulemaking

5136as described in Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement

5146Trust Fund v. Day Cruise Associatio n , supra, should be read in

5158light of the fact that the proposed rule in that case had,

5170essentially, no support in the rule making authority of the

5180Trustees. The Day Cruise opinion took into account the nature

5190of the proposed rule at issue as establishing Ða selective

5200prohibition based not on the use vessels make of sovereignty

5210lands but on the use to which certain vessels are put once they

5223have steamed offshore. Ñ Id. at 697 - 698. The court recognized

5235that the L egislature limited Ðthe TrusteesÓ submerged lands

5244rulemaking authority to rules governing physical changes to or

5253other effects on sovereignty lands and proximate waters and

5262provides that any such rules the Trustees may adopt Òmust not

5273interfere with commerce or the transitory operation of vessels

5282through navigable water.ÓÑ Id. at 702. Thus, the agencyÓs

5291effort to restrict offshore gambling by restricting otherwise

5299lawf ul mooring under the standards applicable to the use of

5310sovereignty lands exceeded the TrusteesÓ grant of rulemaking

5318authority . With regard to section 120.52(8)(c), the court

5327conclude d that Ð[t]he provisions purportedly to be implemented

5336here are complete ly silent about day cruises and about gambling,

5347and confer no authority to bar day cruise vessels -- or any other

5360vessels -- from sovereignty submerged lands based on lawful

5369activities occurring outside Florida's territorial

5374jurisdiction.Ñ

537542 . Contrary to the situation confronted by the court in

5386Day Cruise , the Legislature in this case empowered the Division

5396to adopt rules establishing standards for racetracks, race

5404meets, and races, under a specific statute authorizing the same,

5414and furthermore made the du ty of exercising that power mandatory

5425on the Division. Thus, the proposed ÐtrackÑ rules Ð implement[]

5435or interpret[] specific powers or duties, as opposed to

5444improvising in an area that can be said to fall only generally

5456within some class of powers or duti es the Legislature has

5467conferred on the agency.Ñ Bd. of Trs. of the Int. Impust

5478Fund v. Day Cruise AssÓn , 794 So. 2d at 700.

548843. The sufficiency of the rulemaking authority in this

5497case, and the validity of the challenged rules regarding

5506racetracks, race meets, and races , also finds support in United

5516Faculty of Florida v. Florida State Board of Educ ators , 157 So.

55283d 514 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015), in which the court held that:

5540it is not necessary under Save the Manatee

5548Club and its progeny for the statutes to

5556delineate every aspect of tenure that the

5563Board is authorized to address by rule;

5570instead, all that is necessary is for the

5578statutes to specifically authorize the Board

5584to adopt rules for college faculty contracts

5591and tenure, which the statutes clearly do.

5598Id. at 517 - 518.

560344 . Without the ability to set track and race standards,

5614the legislative authority in section 550. 0 251(3) would have

5624little purpose or meaning. Thus, with regard to proposed rules

563461D - 2.024 and 61 - 2.025, the undersigned concludes, a s did the

5648court in United Faculty of Fla. , that Ðthe Legislature has

5658clearly delegated the agency authority to adopt rules on the

5668issue and the agency complie [d] with the rulemaking process. Of

5679course, if the Legislature believes that the new standa rds and

5690criteria for [ holding, conducting, and operating of all

5699racetracks, race meets, and races] that are embodied in the

5709challenged rule are too onerous or do not comport with its

5720intent, it is free to legislate accordingly.Ñ Id. at 519.

5730The ÐJockeyÑ Rules - Proposed Rule 61D - 2.028(2)(a) - (d), (6),

5742(7), and (8)

574545 . Petitioner has challenged p roposed rule s 61D -

57562.028 (2)(a) - (d), (6), (7), and (8), which p rovide that:

5768(2) The horserace permitholder shall

5773maintain documentation confirming all

5777jockeys a llowed to ride at its race track

5786have demonstrated riding ability. The

5791demonstration of riding ability is defined

5797at a minimum as:

5801a. Breaking with a horse in company from

5809the starting gate;

5812b. Working a horse in company around the

5820turn and down the stretch ;

5825c. Switching the riding crop from one hand

5833to the other while maintaining control of

5840the horse in a stretch drive; and

5847d. Causing a horse to switch leads coming

5855out of the turn.

5859* * *

5862(6) During the conduct of a pari - mutuel

5871race, each j ockey shall wear white pants and

5880unique racing colors registered with the

5886horserace permitholder.

5888(7) The racing colors to be worn by each

5897jockey in a race shall be described in the

5906program, and any temporary substitution of

5912racing colors shall be annou nced prior to

5920the start of the race.

5925(8) Jockeys and exercise riders must wear a

5933properly secured protective helmet, vest,

5938and boots which have been specifically

5944designed for horse racing when riding in

5951races or when exercising horses.

595646 . Rulemakin g authority for proposed rule 61D - 2.028 is

5968cited as sections 550.0251(3), 550.105(3) and (10)(a), and

5976550.2415(12) . The law implemented by proposed rule 61D - 2.028 is

5988cited as sections 550.0251, 550.0425, 550.105, and 550.2415 . As

5998set forth above, the rele vant authority for the challenged

6008provisions of the proposed rules is limited to sections 550.0251

6018and 550.105.

602047 . There is nothing in the rules cited as authority by

6032the Division that specifically applies to jockeys, or authorizes

6041the development of ru les regulating the qualifications or

6050uniforms of jockeys.

605348 . Applying the rulemaking standards, and the case law

6063set forth herein, the undersigned concludes that the proposed

6072ÐjockeyÑ rule s do not find specific authority in section

6082550. 0 251(3) regardi ng the adopt ion of rules related to Ðholding,

6095conducting, and operating of all racetracks, race meets, and

6104races held in this state.Ñ

610949 . The proposed ÐjockeyÑ rules do not find specific

6119authority in section 550.105(3), which applies to occupational

6127lic enses for certified public accountants and attorneys, and

6136section 550.105(10)(a) , which identifies the information

6142necessary to establish the identity and good moral character of

6152an applicant for an occupational license.

615850 . P roposed rules 61D - 2.028(2)(a ) - (d), (6), (7), and (8)

6173exceed the DivisionÓs grant of rulemaking authority, enlarge and

6182modif y the specific provisions of law implemented, and fail to

6193implement or interpret the specifi c powers and duties granted by

6204s ection s 550.0251 and 550.105 , and are therefore invalid

6214exercises of delegated legislative authority as defined in

6222sections 120.52(8)(b) and (c), and the flush left paragraph.

623151 . The proposed ÐjockeyÑ rules are straight - forward and

6242understandable . No evidence was offered as to any

6251misund erstanding of their terms. Thus, the p roposed ÐjockeyÑ

6261rule s are not Ðso vague that persons of common intelligence must

6273guess at its meaning and differ as to [their] application.Ñ

6283DepÓt of Fin. Servs. v. Peter R. Brown Constr., Inc. , 108 So. 3d

6296723, 728 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013); see also S w. Fla. Wa ter Mgmt.

6310Dist. v. Charlotte C nty . , 774 So. 2d 903, 915 (Fla 2d DCA 2001).

6325Based thereon, proposed rules 61D - 2.028(2)(a) - (d), (6), (7), and

6337(8) are not invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority

6346as define d in section 120.52(8)(d).

6352The ÐPublicationÑ Rule - Proposed Rule 61D - 2.029

636152 . Proposed rule 61D - 2.029 provides that:

6370B efore a horse is allowed to start, the

6379horserace permitholder shall ensure that at

6385least the three most recent published past

6392runnin gs, whether in races or workouts, are

6400available to the public for review. At

6407least one published running must be from

6414within 45 days of that race.

642053 . Rulemaking authority for proposed rule 61D - 2.029 is

6431cited as section 550.0251(3). The law implemente d by proposed

6441rule 61D - 2.029 is cited as section 550.0251.

645054 . Proposed rule 61D - 2.029 is challenged as being in

6462violation of section 120.52(8) (b), (c), and (d), and the flush -

6474left paragraph.

647655 . As established by testimony taken at the July 20,

64872015 , public hearing, i nformation regarding past performance of

6496horses is designed to aid the betting public as to the

6507qualifications of race entrants .

651256 . Applying the rulemaking standards, and the case law

6522set forth herein, the undersigned concludes that t he proposed

6532Ð publication Ñ rule does not find specific authority in the

6543requirement to adopt rules related to Ð holding, conducting, and

6553operating of all racetracks, race meets, and races held in this

6564state . Ñ Thus, proposed rule 61D - 2.029 exceeds the Divi sionÓs

6577grant of rulemaking authority, enlarges and modifies the

6585specific provisions of law implemented , and fails to implement

6594or interpret the specifi c powers and duties granted by s ection

6606550.0251 , and is therefore an invalid exercise of delegated

6615legisl ative authority as defined in sections 120.52(8)(b) and

6624(c), and the flush left paragraph.

663057 . Petitioner argued convincingly that proposed rule 61D -

66402.029 is impermissibly vague. The proposed rule does not define

6650what is meant by Ðpast performances,Ñ o r the means or location

6663of publication. The comments provided at the public hearing

6672expressed confusion as to what was meant by the term Ðat least

6684three published past performances,Ñ and whether publication

6692meant publication in a track program, or publica tion to a

6703national database , with a witness testifying that Ðif we leave

6713this as written, itÓs extremely vague, and itÓs not reliable

6723information.Ñ The Division has not explained what is meant by

6733the rule, offering at oral argument only that interpretive

6742guidance could be distributed to quell any confusion. G iven the

6753requirement that the terms in a proposed rule be given Ðtheir

6764common and ordinary meaning,Ñ proposed rule 61D - 2.029 is Ðso

6776vague that persons of common intelligence must guess at its

6786meaning and differ as to its application.Ñ Dep Ó t of Fin. Servs .

6800v. Peter R. Brown Constr., Inc. , 108 So. 3d at 723 ; see also

6813S w. Fla. Water Mgmt. Dist. v. Charlotte County , 774 So. 2d at

6826915 . Based thereon, proposed rule 61D - 2.029 is an invalid

6838exercise of deleg ated legislative authority as defined in

6847section 120.52(8)(d).

6849ORDER

6850Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions

6859of Law, it is ORDERED that:

68651. Proposed rule 61D - 2.024(5) and proposed rule s 61D -

6877025(1), (2), (4), (7) and (8)(a) are not inva lid exercises of

6889delegated legislative authority. Accordingly, North Florida

6895HorsemenÓs Association, Inc.Ó Amended Petition to Determine

6902Invalidity of Proposed Rules as to those proposed rules is

6912dismissed.

69132. Proposed r ule s 61D - 2.028(2)(a) - (d), (6), ( 7), and (8) ;

6928and proposed rule 61D - 2.029 are invalid exercise s of delegated

6940legislative authority .

69433. Jurisdiction is retained for the purpose of determining

6952reasonable attorneyÓs fees and costs pursuant to section

6960120.595(2). Any motion to determine fe es and costs shall be

6971filed within 60 days of the issuance of this Final Order.

6982D ONE AND ORD ERED this 29th day of January , 201 6 , in

6995Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

6999S

7000E. GARY EARLY

7003Administrative Law Judge

7006Division of Administrative Hearings

7010The DeSoto Building

70131230 Apalachee Parkway

7016Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3060

7021(850) 488 - 9675

7025Fax Filing (850) 921 - 6847

7031www.doah.state.fl.us

7032Filed with the Clerk of the

7038Division of Administrative Hearings

7042this 29th day of January , 201 6 .

7050COPIES FURNISHED :

7053William N. Spicola, General Counsel

7058Department of Business and

7062Professional Regulation

7064Northwood Centre

70661940 North Monroe Avenue

7070Tallahassee, Florida 32399

7073(eServed)

7074William D. Hall, Esquire

7078Caitlin R. Mawn, Esquire

7082Department of Business and

7086Profes sional Regulation

7089Suite 40

70911940 North Monroe Street

7095Tallahassee, Florida 32399

7098(eServed)

7099Donna E. Blanton, Esquire

7103Angela D. Miles, Esquire

7107Radey Law Firm, P.A.

7111Suite 200

7113301 South Bronough Street

7117Tallahassee, Florida 32301

7120(eServed)

7121Michael John Barry , Esquire

7125J. Stephen Menton, Esquire

7129Rutledge Ecenia, P.A.

7132Suite 202

7134119 South Monroe Street

7138Tallahassee, Florida 32301

7141(eServed)

7142Jonathan Zachem, Director

7145Division of Pari - Mutuel Wagering

7151Department of Business and

7155Professional Regulation

7157Northwood Ce ntre

71601940 North Monroe Street

7164Tallahassee, Florida 32399

7167(eServed)

7168Ken Lawson, Secretary

7171Department of Business and

7175Professional Regulation

7177Northwood Centre

71791940 North Monroe Street

7183Tallahassee, Florida 32399

7186(eServed)

7187Ken Plante, Coordinator

7190Joint Admin istrative Proced ures Committee

7196Room 680, Pepper Building

7200111 West Madison Street

7204Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 1400

7209(eServed)

7210Ernest Reddick, Chief

7213Alexandra Nam

7215Department of State

7218R. A. Gray Building

7222500 South Bronough Street

7226Tallahassee, Flo rida 32399 - 0250

7232(eServed)

7233NOTICE OF RIGHT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW

7239A party who is adversely affected by this Final Order is

7250entitled to judicial review pursuant to Section 120.68, Florida

7259Statutes. Review proceedings are governed by the Florida Rules

7268of App ellate Procedure. Such proceedings are commenced by

7277filing one copy of a Notice of Administrative Appeal with the

7288agency clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings and a

7298second copy, accompanied by filing fees prescribed by law, with

7308the District Co urt of Appeal, First District, or with the

7319District Court of Appeal in the appellate district where the

7329party resides. The Notice of Administrative Appeal must be

7338filed within 30 days of rendition of the order to be reviewed.

Select the PDF icon to view the document.
PDF
Date
Proceedings
PDF:
Date: 12/01/2016
Proceedings: Transmittal letter from Claudia Llado forwarding Exhibits to the agency.
PDF:
Date: 03/31/2016
Proceedings: BY ORDER OF THE COURT: Appeal and cross appeal dismissed.
PDF:
Date: 03/11/2016
Proceedings: Notice of Cross-Appeal filed and Certified copy sent to the First District Court of Appeal this date.
PDF:
Date: 03/10/2016
Proceedings: Notice of Appearance (Marisa Button) filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/09/2016
Proceedings: Invoice for the record on appeal mailed.
PDF:
Date: 03/09/2016
Proceedings: Index (of the Record) sent to the parties of record.
PDF:
Date: 02/29/2016
Proceedings: Notice of Appeal filed and Certified copy sent to the First District Court of Appeal this date.
PDF:
Date: 02/29/2016
Proceedings: Acknowledgment of New Case, First DCA Case No. 1D16-0870 filed.
PDF:
Date: 01/29/2016
Proceedings: DOAH Final Order
PDF:
Date: 01/29/2016
Proceedings: Final Order (hearing held December 17, 2015). CASE CLOSED.
PDF:
Date: 01/12/2016
Proceedings: Notice of Filing Proposed Final Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 01/12/2016
Proceedings: Respondent's Proposed Final Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 01/12/2016
Proceedings: Proposed Final Order of Petitioner North Florida Horsemen's Association, Inc filed.
Date: 12/17/2015
Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Hearing Held.
PDF:
Date: 12/08/2015
Proceedings: Order Granting Joint Motion for Oral Argument.
PDF:
Date: 12/08/2015
Proceedings: Joint Motion for Oral Argument in Lieu of Evidentiary Hearing filed.
PDF:
Date: 12/08/2015
Proceedings: Joint Pre-hearing Stipulation filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/17/2015
Proceedings: Respondent's Response to Petitioner North Florida Horsemens Association, Inc.'s Second Request for Production filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/05/2015
Proceedings: Petitioner North Florida Horsemens Association, Inc.s Notice of Service of First Set of Interrogatories to Intervenor filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/05/2015
Proceedings: Petitioner North Florida Horsemens Association, Inc.s First Request for Production filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/05/2015
Proceedings: Petitioner North Florida Horsemens Association, Inc.s Second Request for Production filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/04/2015
Proceedings: Notice of Substitution of Counsel for Respondent (William Hall and Caitlin R. Mawn) filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/09/2015
Proceedings: Petitioner's Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum of Respondents Agency Representative(s) filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/07/2015
Proceedings: Order Re-scheduling Hearing (hearing set for December 17 and 18, 2015; 9:30 a.m.; Tallahassee, FL).
PDF:
Date: 10/06/2015
Proceedings: Petitioner's Notice of Cancellation of Deposition Duces Tecum of Respondent's Agency Representative(s) filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/06/2015
Proceedings: (Petitioner's) Unopposed Motion to Reschedule Final Hearing filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/06/2015
Proceedings: Respondent's Answer to Petitioner North Florida Horsemen's Association, Inc.'s First Set of Interrogatories filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/05/2015
Proceedings: Petitioner's Corrected Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum of Respondents Agency Representative(s) filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/05/2015
Proceedings: Order Denying Motion to Deem First Request for Admissions Admitted.
PDF:
Date: 10/02/2015
Proceedings: Respondents Response to Petitioner North Florida Horsemens Association, Inc.s First Request for Production filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/02/2015
Proceedings: Respondents Response in Opposition to Petitioners Motion to Deem First Request for Admissions Admitted filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/30/2015
Proceedings: Petitioner's Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum of Respondent's Agency Representative(s) filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/30/2015
Proceedings: Petitioner North Florida Horsemen's Association, Inc.s Motion to Deem First Request for Admissions Admitted filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/30/2015
Proceedings: Notice and Certificate of Service of Respondent's Response to North Florida Horsemen's Association, Inc.'s First Request for Admissions filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/22/2015
Proceedings: Petitioner North Florida Horsemen's Association, Inc.'s First Request for Production filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/22/2015
Proceedings: Petitioner North Florida Horsemen's Association, Inc.'s First Request for Admissions filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/22/2015
Proceedings: Petitioner North Florida Horsemen's Association, Inc.'s Notice of Service of First Set of Interrogatories to Respondent filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/22/2015
Proceedings: Order Granting Motion to Intervene.
PDF:
Date: 09/18/2015
Proceedings: Petition to Intervene (filed by .) filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/26/2015
Proceedings: Order Granting Leave to Amend.
PDF:
Date: 08/24/2015
Proceedings: (Petitioner's) Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Amended Petition filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/17/2015
Proceedings: Order of Pre-hearing Instructions.
PDF:
Date: 08/17/2015
Proceedings: Notice of Hearing (hearing set for October 27 and 28, 2015; 9:30 a.m.; Tallahassee, FL).
PDF:
Date: 08/10/2015
Proceedings: Parties Available Hearing Dates filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/10/2015
Proceedings: Notice of Appearance (Caitlin Mawn) filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/03/2015
Proceedings: Notice of Appearance (Donna Blanton) filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/03/2015
Proceedings: Notice of Appearance (Marisa Button) filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/31/2015
Proceedings: Notice of Appearance (Jason Maine) filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/31/2015
Proceedings: Order of Assignment.
PDF:
Date: 07/31/2015
Proceedings: Rule Challenge transmittal letter to Ernest Reddick from Claudia Llado copying Ken Plante and the Agency General Counsel.
PDF:
Date: 07/30/2015
Proceedings: Petition to Determine Invalidity of Proposed Rules filed.

Case Information

Judge:
E. GARY EARLY
Date Filed:
07/30/2015
Date Assignment:
07/31/2015
Last Docket Entry:
12/01/2016
Location:
Tallahassee, Florida
District:
Northern
Agency:
Department of Business and Professional Regulation
Suffix:
RP
 

Counsels

Related Florida Statute(s) (13):