21-001180 Our Santa Fe River, Inc., Florida Springs Council, Inc., And Michael Roth vs. Seven Springs Water Company And Suwannee River Water Management District
 Status: Closed
Settled and/or Dismissed prior to entry of RO/FO on Wednesday, April 14, 2021.


View Dockets  

13. On March 25, 2021, the DISTRICT appealed Final Order No. 21-003 to the First

16District Court of Appeals where it was assigned Case No. lD21-0888.

274. On March 30,2021, the DISTRICT referred the PETITION to DOAH where it

41was assigned to ALJ FFOLKES.

465. On March 31,2021, ALJ FFOLKES issued an Order to Show Cause directing the

61parties to show cause why the PETITION should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction under

77Fla. R. App. P. 9 .600, which provides that lower tribunals are divested of jurisdiction over

93matters which are on appeal unless the appeals court allows the lower tribunal to proceed.

1086. On Aprilll, 2021, the DISTRICT filed in the First District Court of Appeal its

123MOTION TO STAY APPEAL AND RELINQUISH JURISDICTION TO CONSIDER AND

133RULE ON PENDING PETITIONS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING in which the

143DISTRICT requested the appeals court to stay the appeal and relinquish jurisdiction to allow

157ALJ FFLOKES to proceed with the proceedings before DOAH.

1667. On April 12, 2021, the DISTRICT filed with DOAH a response to the Order to

182Show Cause which requested ALJ FFOLKES to take no action on the Order to Show Cause until

199after the First District Court of Appeal ruled on the MOTION TO STAY APPEAL AND

214RELINQUISH JURISDICTION TO CONSIDER AND RULE ON PENDING PETITIONS FOR

224ADMINISTRATNE HEARING, a copy of which was attached.

2328. On April14, 2021, ALJ FFOLKES entered the ORDER OF DISMISSAL. 1n the

245ORDER OF DISMISSAL, ALJ FFOLKES dismissed the PETITION for "lack of subject matter

258jurisdiction", closed DOAH's file and relinquished jurisdiction to the DISTRICT "for entry of an

272appropriate final order of dismissal." (ORDER OF DISMISSAL at page 3)

2839. On April28, 2021, COUNCIL filed its PETITIONERS' EXCEPTIONS TO

293DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS' ORDER DISMISSING PETITION AND

301CLOSING FILE setting out its exceptions to the ORDER OF DISMISSAL.

312STATUS OF THE ORDER OF DISMISSAL

31810. The ORDER OF DISMISSAL is not a recommended order. The term

"330recommended order" is defined inCh. 120 as follows: "'Recommended order' means the

342official recommendation of an administrative law judge assigned by the division or of any other

357duly authorized presiding officer, other than an agency head or member of an agency head, for

373the final disposition of a proceeding under ss. 120.569 and 120.57." Section 120.52(15), Fla.

387Stat. The ORDER OF DISMISSAL does not use the term "recommended" in its title or in its

404body (except where it references ALJ CHISENHALL's previous recommended orders) and does

416not recommend that the DISTRICT do anything.

42311. But more importantly, the ORDER OF DISMISSAL finds that both the

435DISTRICT and DOAH lack jurisdiction. ALJ FFOLKES finds that "a tribw1al has jurisdiction

448-2-

449to detem1ine its own jurisdiction" (ORDER OF DISMISSAL at page I) and then rules that

"464Neither the District nor DOAH may proceed because the appellate court's jurisdiction also

477includes the legal issue raised by Petitioners." (ORDER OF DISMISSAL page 3) and then, "The

492petition is DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction." (ORDER OF DISMISSAL at

505page 3) This is not a recommendation of dismissal, but an order determining that DOAH lacks

521jurisdiction and then outright dismissing the PETITION. Therefore the ORDER OF

532DISMISSAL is not a "recommended" order.

53812. Finally, it is apparent that ALJ FFOLKES did not consider the ORDER OF

552DISMISSAL to be a recommended order. This is because ALJ FFOLKES did not give the

567standard "Notice of Rights to Submit Exceptions" which is given on recommended orders. The

581governing statutes and rules governing exceptions only apply to recommended orders. See,

593Sectionl20.57(1)(k), Fla. Stat. ("The agency shall allow each party 15 days in which to submit

609written exceptions to the recommended order."); Rule 28-106.217(1), F.A.C. ("Parties may file

623exceptions to findings of fact and conclusions of law contained in recommended orders with the

638agency responsible for rendering final agency action within 15 days of entry of the

652recommended order. .. ")That is why recommended orders issued by DOAH have a "Notice of

667Rights to Submit Exceptions" at the end, to give notice that the parties may submit exceptions.

683As ALJ FFOLKES did not give the standard "Notice of Rights to Submit Exceptions" on the

699ORDER OF DISMISSAL, it is apparent that ALJ FFOLKES did not consider the ORDER OF

714DISMISSAL to be a recommended order.

720FINDINGS OF THE ORDER OF DISMISSAL

72613. In the ORDER OF DISMISSAL, ALJ FFOLKES found that DOAH and the

739DISTRICT lacked subject matter jurisdiction. The apparent reason seems to be that DOAH and

753the DISTRICT were divested of jurisdiction due to the appeal:

763The lower tribunal calll1ot conduct fi1rther proceedings and enter orders that

774would affect or interfere with the subject matter of the appeal, and thus impinge

788on the appellate court's power and authority to decide the issues raised. See Bailey

802v. Bailey, 392 So. 2d 49 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981 ).

813A separate lower tribunal is also without jurisdiction to proceed with

824subject matter that is pending on appeal. See Dep't of Rev. ex rei. Simmons v.

839Wardlaw, 25 So. 3d 80, 82 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). The lower tribunal cannot act if

855it would interfere with the subject matter of a pending appeal. See Casavan v.

869Land O'Lakes Realty, Inc. of Leesburg, 526 So. 2d 215,216 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988).

884Neither the District nor DOAH may proceed because the appellate court's

895jurisdiction also includes the legal issue raised by Petitioners.

904(ORDER OF DISMISSAL at page 3) (Emphasis supplied); However, at the time ALJ FFOLKES

918issued the ORDER OF DISMISSAL, ALJ FFOLKES had been informed that the First District

932Court of Appeal was considering a stay of the appeal and relinquishing jurisdiction to DOAH to

948proceed. See, Fla. R. App. P. 9.600(b) (Stating that, "[T]he comt by order may permit the lower

965-3-

966tribunal to proceed with specifically stated matters during the pendency of the appeal.")

980Therefore it would seem as though the proper course would have been to hold the proceedings

996before DOAH in abeyance and allow the First District Court of Appeal to rule on the motion to

1014stay appeal and relinquish jurisdiction to DOAH to proceed with a hearing on the PETITION.

102914. However, ALJ FFOLKES also gave another reason for issuing the ORDER OF

1042DISMISSAL as follows:

1045Petitioners argue that they should be able to file a new petition challenging

1058the Permit based on Florida Administrative Code Rule 40B-1.1010(2)(a). The

1068new petition essentially challenges a legal ruling made by the judge in the Seven

1082Springs Water case regarding the licensing provision in section 120.60(1), Florida

1093Statutes. The District responded to the Order to Show Cause on Aprill2, 2021.

1106The District's response reflects its understanding that it has invoked the

1117jurisdiction of the First DCA to review final agency action. See§ 120.68(1), Fla.

1130Stat. (2020); Sowell v. State, Dep't of Rev., 136 So. 3d 1285 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014);

1146Hill v. Div. of Retirement, 687 So. 2d 1376 (Fla. lst DCA 1997).

1159Petitioners contend that the District's rule 40B-1.1010(2)(a) allows their

1168new petition. However, such an interpretation of the rule cannot be condoned

1180by the undersigned. Such an interpretation would mean that the

1190administrative adjudicatory process would never come to an end as new and

1202former petitioners attempt to get the same tribunals, DO AI-I and the District, to

1216rehear an unfavorable legal ruling. The appropriate remedy is to appeal the final

1229agency action.

1231(ORDER OF DISMISSAL at page 2) (Emphasis supplied)

123915. The operative provisions of Rule 40B-1.1010(2)(a), F.A.C. provide, "If final

1250agency action materially differs from a written notice of the DISTRICT's intended action,

1263persons who may be substantially affected shall have an additional 21 days, or for a notice of

1280consolidated intent an additional 14 days, from the date of receipt or publication of notice of

1296such action to request an administrative hearing." COUNCIL argues that as the DISTRICT's

1309intended action was to deny the PERMIT and the DISTRICT' final agency action was to grant

1325the Permit, the DISTRICT's final action "materially differs" from its intended action triggering

1338Rule 40B-l.!Ol0(2)(a)'s reopening of a 14 day window to file a petition.

135016. But ALJ FFOLKES ruled that COUNCIL's interpretation of Rule 40B-

1361l.1010(2)(a), F.A.C. "cannot be condoned" because it "would mean that the administrative

1373adjudicatory process would never come to an end as new and former petitioners attempt to get

1389the same tribunals, DOAH and the District, to rehear an unfavorable legal ruling." (ORDER OF

1404DISMISSAL at page 2) As the DISTRICT has now taken final agency action on the PERMIT,

1420and the rule only reopens a single 14 day window to file a petition after the DISTRICT takes

1438final action, it is unclear why ALJ FFOLKES believes that COUNCIL's interpretation "would

1451mean that the administrative adjudicatory process would never come to an end." ALJ FFOLKES

1465-4-

1466did not offer what other possible interpretation of Rule 408-1.101 0(2)(a), F.A.C. could be

"1480condoned" or find that Rule 40B-1.1010(2)(a), F.A.C. was invalid?

148917. Therefore it seems likely that ALJ FFOLKES's belief that COUNCIL's

1500interpretation of Rule 40B-1.1 01 0(2)( a), F .A. C. "cannot be condoned" is the reason ALJ

1517FFOLKES chose not to hold the DOAH proceedings in abeyance to wait for the First District

1533Court of Appeal's ruling on the motion to stay and for relinquishment of jurisdiction and entered

1549the ORDER OF DISMISSAL.

1553EXCEPTIONS

155418. While COUNCIL filed exceptions, the statutory provisions concerning

1563exceptions, including the requirement for the DISTRICT to rule on the exceptions, apply only to

1578recommended orders. See, Section 120.57(1 )(k), Fla. Stat. ("The agency shall allow each party

159315 days in which to submit written exceptions to the recommended order. The final order shall

1609include an explicit ruling on each exception ... ")

161819. As the ORDER OF DISMISSAL is not a recommended order, the requirements

1631concerning exceptions do not apply and this final order need not include an explicit ruling on

1647COUNCIL's exceptions.

1649DISTRICT MAY NOT MODIFY OR DEVIATE FROM ALJ FFOLKES RULING

165920. Section 120.57(1)(1), Fla. Stat., which provides statutory authority for an agency

1671to modify or reject an ALI's findings of facts and/or conclusions of law, concems only

"1686recommended orders" and is therefore inapplicable to the ORDER OF DISMISSAL.

169721. Further, the ORDER OF DISMISSAL was cast as an order determining DOAH's

1710'It is also worth noting that the operative language from the DISTRICT's Rule 40B-1.1010(2)(a),

1724F.A.C. is substantially the same as the operative language contained in(!) the St. Johns Water

1739Management District's rule 40C-1.1007(2)(a) ("If the District's Governing Board takes action

1751which substantially differs from a written notice of the District's decision describing intended

1764action, persons who may be substantially affected shall have an additional21 days, ... from the

1779date of receipt of notice of said action to request an administrative hearing ... "); (2) the

1796Southwest Florida Water Management District's rule 40D-1.1 01 0(2)( a) ("If final agency action

1811materially differs from a written notice of the District's intended action, persons who may be

1826substantially affected shall have an additional21 days, or for a notice of consolidated intent an

1841additional14 days, from the date of receipt or publication of notice of such action to request an

1858administrative hearing."); and (3) the South Florida Water Management District's rule

187040E-0.109(2) ("If the District takes action which substantially differs from the notice of intended

1885agency decision, the applicant or persons who may be substantially affected shall have an

1899additional point of entry pursuant to Rule 28-106.111, F.A.C., unless otherwise provided by

1912law.")

1914-5-

" 1915subject matte r jurisd i ct i on" T h e DISTRICT doe s not b e l ieve it ha s the author i t y to ovenLJle

1944ALJ FFOLKES on the is s ue ofDOAH 's s ubject matter juri s diction and compe l DOAH to

1964exercise jmisdiction which ALJ FFOLKES ha s ru l ed that DOAH lack s .

197922. Therefore , the DISTRICT i s compelled to di s mi ss the PETITION for th e rea s on s

2000s et out in the ORDER OF DISMISSAL.

2008ORDER

2009The PETITION i s di s missed , with prejudice , for t h e rea s ons set out in t h e ORDER OF

2033DISM I SSAL.

2036JUDICIAL REVIEW

2038Any party to this proceeding ha s th e righ t to s eek judicial review of t hi s Final Order

2060pursuant to Sectio n 120.68 , Florida Statutes , by filing a Notice of Appea l pur s uant to R ul es

20819 . 110 and 9 . 190 , F l orida Ru l e s of Appellate Procedure , with the clerk of t h e Suwannee River

2107Water Management District, 9225 CR 49 , Live Oak , Florida 32060 ; and by fi lin g a copy of the

2126No tic e of Appea l accompani e d by the applicable filing fees wit h th e app r optia t e District Comi

2151of Appeal.

2153The N otice of Appea l m u s t be filed within 30 day s fi · om the date thi s Fina l Order is filed

2181with the cle r k of t h e Suwannee River Water Management Di s tri c t.

2199DONE and ORDERED on _ -'----'--- \\'C'\\ _____,_, o....,tj"'<--\\"--'\\ -----="" -="" '="" 202="">

2211GOVERNING BOARD OF THE SUWANNEE

2216RNER WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT

2220C hair

2222Secretary I Treas rer

2226(The remainder of th i s page was intentionally l e ft bl ank.)

2240- 6 -

2243CERTIFICATE OF FILING

2246I HEREBY CERTIFY that the above order was fi l ed with the Suwannee River Water

2262Management District on /111/ Y // , 2021.

2269CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

2272I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the above order was provided to:

2285Doug l a s H. MacLaugh l in John Jopling

22953 1 9 Greenwood Drive 2631NW 4 1 st Street

2305West Palm Beach , FL 33405 Gainesville , FL 32606 - 6689

2315Emai l : dmaclaughlin (a{ aol.com John . joplin@dellgraham . com

2326Frederick T. Reeves Douglas P. Manson

23325709 Tidalwave Drive Craig Vam

2337New Port Richey , Florida 34652 Paria Shir z adi Heeter

2347Email : freeves@tbaylaw . com 109 N. Bmsh Street, Suite 300

2358j eckelkamp@tbaylaw.com Tampa , Florida 33602

2363Emai l : dman s on@mansonbolves.com

2369cvarn@ man so n bo I ves . co m

2379ph eeter@manson b o l ves. com

2386drodriguez@mansonbolves . com

2389by emai l on Jt;a // , 202 1.

2398epu ty L llCTogn p '"'( f

2406Suwannee River Water Management District

2411-7-

2412EXHIBIT ''A''

Select the PDF icon to view the document.
PDF
Date
Proceedings
PDF:
Date: 11/19/2021
Proceedings: BY ORDER OF THE COURT: The court grants the motion to correct the record, the court strikes the record for failure to conform with Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.200.
PDF:
Date: 07/20/2021
Proceedings: BY ORDER OF THE COURT: The motion docketed July 19, 2021, for extension to time to file and serve the index and record is granted.
PDF:
Date: 07/12/2021
Proceedings: BY ORDER OF THE COURT: The motion docketed July 12, 2021, for extension of time to serve the index to the record on appeal and transmit the record on appeal is granted and extended to July 19, 2021.
PDF:
Date: 07/01/2021
Proceedings: BY ORDER OF THE COURT: The Court denies Appellee's motion to correct the record, as the court has not received the record on appeal.
PDF:
Date: 05/17/2021
Proceedings: Acknowledgment of New Case, First DCA Case No. 1D21-1445 filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/12/2021
Proceedings: Agency Final Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/11/2021
Proceedings: Agency Final Order
PDF:
Date: 04/15/2021
Proceedings: Seven Springs' Notice of Cancellation of Taking Deposition filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/14/2021
Proceedings: Order Dismissing Petition Closing File. CASE CLOSED.
PDF:
Date: 04/14/2021
Proceedings: Order Denying Seven Springs Water Company's Motion for Reassignment.
PDF:
Date: 04/13/2021
Proceedings: Respondent Suwannee River Water Management District's Notice of Filing First District Court of Appeal Order to Show Cause filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/12/2021
Proceedings: Respondent Seven Springs Water Company's Brief in Support of Dismissal Pursuant to Order to Show Cause filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/12/2021
Proceedings: District's Response to Order to Show Cause filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/12/2021
Proceedings: Respondent Suwannee River Water Management District's Response in Opposition to Seven Springs Motion for Reassignment filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/09/2021
Proceedings: Seven Springs' Notice of Taking Deposition filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/07/2021
Proceedings: Petitioners' Response to Seven Springs Water Company's Motion for Reassignment filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/07/2021
Proceedings: Joint Response to Initial Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/05/2021
Proceedings: Seven Springs Water Company's Motion for Reassignment filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/05/2021
Proceedings: Petitioners' Response to Order to Show Cause filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/31/2021
Proceedings: Order to Show Cause.
PDF:
Date: 03/31/2021
Proceedings: Amended Notice of Appearance filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/31/2021
Proceedings: Initial Order.
PDF:
Date: 03/31/2021
Proceedings: Notice of Appearance (Frederick Reeves) filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/30/2021
Proceedings: Agency action letter filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/30/2021
Proceedings: Petition for Administrative Hearing filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/30/2021
Proceedings: Referral Letter filed.

Case Information

Judge:
FRANCINE M. FFOLKES
Date Filed:
03/30/2021
Date Assignment:
03/31/2021
Last Docket Entry:
11/19/2021
Location:
Fort White, Florida
District:
Northern
Agency:
Other
 

Counsels

Related Florida Statute(s) (5):

Related Florida Rule(s) (5):