21-000801F Michael Grasso vs. St. Marks Stone Crab Festival, Inc. Status: Closed Recommended Order on Tuesday, March 16, 2021.

Summary: Petitioner should not be awarded any costs related to the underlying proceeding.

S TATE OF F LORIDA

D IVISION OF A DMINISTRATIVE H EARINGS

M ICHAEL G RASSO ,

Petitioner ,

vs. Case No. 21 - 0801F

S T . M ARKS S TONE C RAB F ESTIVAL , I NC . ,

Respondent .

/

R ECOMMENDED O RDER R EGARDING A MOUNT OF C OSTS O WED P ETITIONER

Pursuant to notice, telephonic status conferences were conducted in this

case on March 8 and 9, 2021, before Administrative Judge Garnett W.

Chisenhall of the Division of Administrative Hearings (ÑDOAHÒ).

A PP EARANCES

For Petitioner: Michael Grasso , pro se

2017 Gardenbrook Lane

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

For Respondent: Ronald A. Mowrey, Esquire

Mowrey Law Firm, P.A.

515 North Adams Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

S TATEMENT O F T HE I SSUE

Whether Petitione r , Michael Grasso ( ÑMr. GrassoÒ) , should recover any

costs after successfully demonstrating that Respondent , St. Marks Stone

Crab Festival ( Ñthe FestivalÒ) , violated the Florida Civil Rights Act by

conditioning Mr. GrassoÔs entry on the production of docum entation

substantiating that his dog was a Ñservice animal.Ò

P RELIMINARY S TATEMENT

On November 10, 2020, the undersigned issued a Recommended Order

in DOAH Case No. 20 - 3036 (Ñthe underlying caseÒ) finding that the greater

weight of the evidence demonstr ated that the Festival violated

section 413.08(2)(b), Florida Statutes (2019) , 1 by conditioning Mr. GrassoÔs

entry on the production of documentation substantiating that his dog Zuco is

a Ñservice animalÒ within the meaning of section 413.08(1)(d).

On Fe bruary 25, 2021, the Florida Commission on Human Relations (Ñthe

CommissionÒ) issued an ÑInterlocutory Order Awarding Affirmative Relief

from an Unlawful Public Accommodation Practice and Remanding Case to

Administrative Law Judge for Issuance of Recommend ed Order Regarding

Amounts of Costs Owed PetitionerÒ (Ñthe Interlocutory OrderÒ). Via the

Interlocutory Order, the Commission: (a) adopted the findings of fact and

conclusions of law set forth in the undersignedÔs Recommended Order;

(b) rejected exception s filed by Mr. Grasso and the Festival; (c) ordered the

Festival to cease and desist from discriminating further in the manner it had

been found to have unlawfully discriminated against Mr. Grasso; and

(d) required the Festival to pay Mr. Grasso the costs that he had reasonably

incurred in this matter. Accordingly, the Commission remanded this matter

to DOAH for Ñfurther proceedings to determine the amount of costs owed to

[Mr. Grasso] and the issuance of a Recommended Order as to those amounts. Ò

The unde rsigned convened telephonic status conferences to ascertain what

costs, if any, Mr. Grasso was seeking to recover.

1 Unless stated otherwise, all statutory references shall be to the 2019 v ersion of the Florida

Statutes.

F INDINGS O F F ACT

1. Mr. Grasso represented himself during the underlying proceeding and

did not incur any attorneyÔs fees. 2

2. Mr. Grasso asserted during the March 8, 2021, telephonic status

conference that he was seeking to recover no costs other than the cost of

traveling to and from Tallahassee for the final hearing on August 27 and

September 17, 2020, in the underlying case.

3. During t he March 9, 2021, status conference, the undersigned inquired

about any costs Mr. Grasso incurred in copying documents filed with DOAH.

Mr. Grasso responded that he was not seeking to recover the costs associated

with making copies of the exhibits he moved into evidence during the

underlying proceeding.

4. The undersigned also inquired during the March 9, 2021, status

conference about any costs Mr. Grasso incurred with regard to presenting the

testimony of Deputy Robert Standeford and Sergeant Jeffrey Yarbr ough.

Mr. Grasso responded that he incurred no appearance fees and no costs for

serving subpoenas.

5. After consulting Appendix II to the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure

containing the Statewide Uniform Guidelines for Taxation of Costs in Civil

Actions (Ñthe GuidelinesÒ), the undersigned finds that Mr. Grasso should not

be awarded any costs related to the underlying proceeding.

C ONCLUSIONS O F L AW

6. DOAH has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to the Interlocutory

Order.

2 As a pro se party, Mr. Grasso is not entitled to attorneyÔs fees in this matter. See generally

Adelman v. Acme Mkts. Corp. , 1996 WL 156412, N 5 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 3, 1986)(noting that Ñ[a]

pro se party, even one who is a lawy er, may not recover attorney fees.Ò).

7. Section 760.11(6), Flori da Statutes, provides that Ñ[i]n any action or

proceeding under this subsection, the commission, in its discretion, may allow

the prevailing party a reasonable attorneyÔs fee as part of the costs.Ò

8. The Guidelines state that they are Ñadvisory onlyÒ and that Ñ [t]he

taxation of costs in any particular proceeding is within the broad discretion of

the trial court. Ò

9. As for the burden of proof, the Guidelines provide that Ñit is the burden

of the moving party to show that all requested costs were reasonabl y

necessary either to defend or prosecute the case at the time the action

precipitating the cost was taken. Ò

10. The Guidelines specify that certain litigation costs should be taxed.

For example, the Guidelines specify the following costs pertaining t o

ÑDocuments and ExhibitsÒ as litigation costs that should be taxed: (a) Ñ[t]he

costs of copies of documents filed (in lieu of Óactually citedÔ) with the court,

which are reasonably necessary to assist the court in reaching a conclusionÒ ;

and (b) Ñ[t]he co sts of copies obtained in discovery, even if the copies were not

used at trial.Ò As noted above, Mr. Grasso is not seeking to recover the costs

associated with making copies of the exhibits he moved into evidence during

the underlying proceeding.

11. The Guidelines also specify that the following costs associated with

ÑWitnessesÒ should be taxed: Ñ[c]osts of subpoena, witness fee, and service of

witnesses for deposition and/or trial.Ò Mr. Grasso did not incur any

recoverable costs in having Deputy Standefo rd and Sergeant Yarbrough

testify during the final hearing for the underlying proceeding.

12. The Guidelines identify the following as ÑReasonable Travel ExpensesÒ

that Ñmay be taxedÒ as costs: (a) Ñ[r]easonable travel expenses of expert when

traveling in excess of 100 miles from the expertÔs principal place of business

(not to include the expertÔs time) Ò ; and (b) Ñ[r]easonable travel expenses of

witnesses.Ò

13. Because the Guidelines do not identify a partyÔs travel expenses as

recoverable costs, Mr. Grasso cannot recover the costs he incurred in

traveling to and from Tallahassee for the final hearing on August 27 and

September 17, 2020, in the underlying case.

R ECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is

R ECOMM ENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a

f inal o rder declining to award Michael Grasso any costs in this matter.

D ONE A ND E NTERED this 1 6 th day of March, 2021 , in Tallahassee, Leon

County, Florida.

S

G. W. C HISENHALL

Administrative Law Judge

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3060

(850) 488 - 9675

www.doah.state.fl.us

Filed with the Clerk of the

Division of Administrative Hearings

this 1 6 th day of March, 2021 .

C OPIES F URNISHED :

Tammy S. Barton, Agency Clerk Michael Grasso

Florida Commission on Human Relations 2017 Gardenbrook L ane

Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32301

4075 Esplanade Way

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 7020 Cheyanne Costilla, General Counsel

Florida Commission on Human Relations

Ronald A. Mowrey, Esquire Room 110

Mowrey Law Firm, P.A. 4075 Esplanade Way

515 North Adams Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 7020

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

N OTICE OF R IGHT T O S UBMIT E XCEPTIONS

All parties have the right to submit written excep tions within 15 days from

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

Order should be filed with the agency that will issue the Final Order in this

case.