Update on Petition filed against the Village of Palmetto Bay by Yacht Club By Luxcom. Petitioner, YACHT CLUB BY LUXCOM, LLC (“Petitioner”), unilaterally filed its response to the DOAH Judge’s Initial Order dated September 6, 2019.

Update on the DOAH Administrative Court action. On September 13, 2019, the Petitioner, YACHT CLUB BY LUXCOM, LLC (“Petitioner”), unilaterally filed its response to the DOAH Judge’s Initial Order dated September 6, 2019. The petitioner advised the Court (in foot note 1, page 1 that  Petitioner attempted to file a Joint Response by emailing a proposed Joint Response on September 10, 2019 to the Village’s attorney Dexter Lehtinen, Esquire and to the Village’s Manager, Edward Silva. However, Petitioner’s counsel did not receive any response to the proposed Joint Response. Accordingly, Petitioner has filed its own Response to the Initial Order.)

IMPACT – not much. The response addresses procedural issues which include:

1. There are no related cases before DOAH;

2. Petitioner estimates that the time necessary to conduct the final hearing is two (2) to three (3) days;

3. The suggested geographic location for the final hearing is North Miami-Dade County;

4. Petitioner is available to conduct the hearing during the month of February, 2020 after discovery is completed. Proposed hearing dates are: February 19-21, 2020 or February 26-28, 2020.

5. Petitioner is unaware of any need for an ADA accommodation.

Obviously the Petitioner anticipates discovery (as indicated in #4, above).

There is no assurance that an actual hearing ever takes place, that the Petition is ever actually heard by a DOAH Judge.  The DOAH court is not obligated to hear this case.  There has been no challenge to the Jurisdiction of DOAH to hear this issue either filed (yet) by the Village of Palmetto Bay or any initial consideration of jurisdiction from the DOAH judge.

The DOAH Rules provide as follows (in part):

PART II HEARINGS INVOLVING DISPUTED ISSUES OF MATERIAL FACT

28-106.201 Initiation of Proceedings.

   * * * 

(3) Upon receipt of a petition involving disputed issues of material fact, the agency shall grant or deny the petition, and if granted shall, unless otherwise provided by law, refer the matter to the Division of Administrative Hearings with a request that an administrative law judge be assigned to conduct the hearing. The request shall be accompanied by a copy of the petition and a copy of the notice of agency action.

28-106.203 Answer.

A respondent may file an answer to the petition.

(above emphasis added, the respondent MAY, but is not REQUIRED to file an answer to the petition).

28-106.204 Motions.

* * *

(2) Unless otherwise provided by law, motions to dismiss the petition or request for hearing shall be filed no later than 20 days after assignment of the presiding officer, unless the motion is based upon a lack of jurisdiction or incurable errors in the petition.

See PRIOR RELATED POST of Friday, September 13, 2019, Update on Petition filed against the Village of Palmetto Bay by Yacht Club By Luxcom. Initial order rendered. There are links to earlier related posts. 

I will continue to be your source for information not being disseminated publicly.  This action before DOAH is a publicly noticed and open action, this is not a secret or privileged matter. It can be discussed in public. 

Note: Palmetto Bay officials have apparently chosen not to include any information relating to this action (or other recent actions) on the current Village Litigation page of the official village website (at least as of 4:00 PM, Tuesday, 9/17/2019). Posting would be for courtesy, at their own choice, as it is not required.

Opinions stated above are my own.
Eugene Flinn