Pro Tech Monitoring, Inc. v. State, Department of Corrections
72 So. 3d 277
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Pro Tech protested a Department of Corrections bid award under section 120.57(3), Florida Statutes (2010).
- The formal protest petition was due January 3, 2011; the agency stamped receipt at 10:15 a.m. the next day.
- The Department dismissed the petition as untimely, rejecting timeliness based on the filing rule’s application to the facts.
- Splitt, for Pro Tech, testified that he hand-delivered the petition to the agency’s intake desk, not directly to the clerk, and a security guard accepted it and stamped a receipt at 4:46 p.m. on January 3, 2011.
- The front intake desk functioned as the filing point; the petition was effectively delivered within the agency’s process.
- The court reverses and remands to determine timeliness, allowing equitable tolling or timely filing as alternative.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the petition was timely under 120.57(3). | Pro Tech argues delivery to intake suffices for timely filing. | Department argues timely filing required receipt by Clerk by due date. | Timeliness should be determined on remand with proper facts. |
| Whether equitable tolling applies to 120.57(3) deadlines. | Equitable tolling could excuse late filing given agency actions misled and caused inaction. | Deadline is jurisdictional and not subject to tolling. | Equitable tolling applies; tolling may excuse late filing under appropriate facts. |
| Whether the Department’s implementation of the filing rule was unreasonable. | Agency clerical actions and security restrictions prevented proper delivery to clerk’s office. | Filing requires personal delivery to clerk; security barriers do not alter rule. | Department erred in applying the rule; the facts support timeliness or tolling. |
| Remedy on remand if timeliness is established. | If timely, petition should be reviewed on its merits; if not, tolling should be considered. | DOAH proceedings may be needed to resolve timeliness and merits separately. | Remand with instructions; DOAH review if timeliness or tolling is established. |
Key Cases Cited
- Machules v. Department of Admin., 523 So.2d 1132 (Fla. 1988) (equitable tolling applies to administrative actions)
- O’Donnell’s Corp. v. Ambroise, 858 So.2d 1138 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (late filing analogized to statute of limitations with tolling possible)
- Xerox Corp. v. Fla. Dep’t of Prof'l Regulation, 489 So.2d 1230 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) (informal communications insufficient to overcome timely notice)
- Strax Rejuvenation & Aesthetics Institute, Inc. v. Shield, 49 So.3d 741 (Fla. 2010) (purpose of APA and filing deadlines to ensure justice)
- Riverwood Nursing Ctr., LLC v. Agency for Health Care Admin., 58 So.3d 907 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (facts did not support equitable tolling where no prejudice or delay shown)