Ft. Myers Real Estate Holdings, LLC v. Department of Business & Professional Regulation, Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering
2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 1428
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Appellant Ft. Myers Real Estate Holdings seeks review of the final order dismissing its amended petition challenging the denial of its amended quarter horse racing permit in Miami-Dade County.
- Division denied the amended permit for failure to show the location was available for quarter horse racing and to provide evidence that substantial construction would begin within one year; the denial referenced land ownership and contingencies related to Senate Bill 7882.
- denial letter informed Appellant of right to an administrative hearing and distinguished between informal and formal hearings under §120.57(2) and §120.57(1).
- Appellant filed a petition for formal hearing; Division dismissed the petition without prejudice for lack of genuine disputed issues of material fact, and Appellant timely amended the petition.
- Division later dismissed the amended petition with prejudice, finding no redressable injury or standing; court reviews standing de novo and reverses, directing remand to DOAH for a hearing under §120.57(1).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Appellant has standing to challenge the denial in an administrative hearing. | Appellant is a named permit applicant, an aggrieved party; lack of standing under Agrico does not apply to applicants. | Division found no injury-in-fact and thus no standing to pursue a formal hearing. | Appellant has standing to challenge the denial. |
| Whether Appellant is entitled to a formal DOAH hearing under §120.57(1). | As the applicant disputes the factual grounds for denial, a formal hearing is required. | Standing alone and contingent land issues negate entitlement to a formal hearing at this stage. | Appellant is entitled to a DOAH hearing on disputed material facts. |
Key Cases Cited
- Agrico Chemical Co. v. Dep t of Envtl. Reg., 406 So.2d 478 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981) (Agrico test applies to third parties; not required for applicants.)
- Village Saloon, Inc. v. Div. of Alcoholic Bev. & Tobacco, 463 So.2d 278 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984) (party has absolute right to a formal hearing when material facts are in dispute.)
- Palm Beach County Envtl. Coal. v. Fla. Dep of Envtl. Prot., 14 So.3d 1076 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (standing distinctions separate from the merits of proving the case.)
- St. Francis Parkside Lodge of Tampa Bay v. Dep’t of Health & Rehab. Sens., 486 So.2d 32 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) (standing vs. ability to prove case in administrative hearing.)
- W. Frank Wells Nursing Home v. Agency for Health Care Admin., 27 So.3d 73 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (explains Agrico applies to third parties, not permit applicants.)
- Maverick Media Group, Inc. v. Dep t of Tramp., 791 So.2d 491 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001) (reiterates standing/agency hearing framework for applicants.)
- Mid-Chattahoochee River Users v. Fla. Dep of Envtl. Prot., 948 So.2d 794 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) (standing and de novo review framework in administrative context.)
- Doyle v. Dep t of Bus. Regulation, 794 So.2d 686 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001) (court may review agency legal conclusions de novo when no special expertise required.)