David Llaurado v. Department of Business and Professional Regulation

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: July 10, 2024
• Docket: 2022-1878
• Status: Published

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed July 10, 2024. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D22-1878 Lower Tribunal No. 2021-053983 CILB ________________

David Llaurado, Appellant,

vs.

Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Appellee.

An Appeal from the Department of Business and Professional Regulation.

David Llaurado, in proper person.

Brooke Elizabeth Adams, Chief Appellate Counsel (Tallahassee), for appellee.

Before LOGUE, C.J., and SCALES and BOKOR, JJ.

LOGUE, C.J.

David Llaurado appeals a final order of the Department of Business

and Professional Regulation imposing an administrative fine and costs for practicing construction contracting without the required license. Llaurado

argues that the Department erred in resolving this dispute by way of an

informal hearing instead of a formal hearing under Chapter 120 of the Florida

Statutes. The Department utilized the informal process because it

understood Llaurado was not challenging the material facts alleged in the

administrative complaint. Based on a joint motion, this Court relinquished

jurisdiction for the Department to conduct a hearing to identify any material

fact disputed by Llaurado.

At the hearing, the hearing officer went through the complaint

paragraph by paragraph with the parties. It was undisputed that neither

Llaurado nor his company (doing business under the name “Golden

Hammer”) held a construction contractor’s license at the relevant times; that

Llaurado submitted a bid for construction work under his signature and on

the stationary of his company for construction work; the bid resulted in a

substantial contract between him and a consumer for which Llaurado was

paid; and the bid referred to a roofing contractor’s license of another

individual.

In these circumstances, we see no error in the Department resolving

this case in an informal proceeding to reach the result under review. See §

455.225(5), Fla. Stat. (2024) (“A formal hearing before an administrative law

2 judge from the Division of Administrative Hearings shall be held pursuant to

chapter 120 if there are any disputed issues of material fact.”); Gonzalez v.

Dep't of Bus. & Pro. Regul., 958 So. 2d 494, 495 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (“When

material facts are not in dispute, an agency need not refer a matter to the

Department of Administrative Hearings for a formal hearing, even if such a

hearing is requested by a party. It may, instead, proceed informally.” (quoting

Schafer v. Dep’t of Bus. & Pro. Regul., 844 So. 2d 757, 758 (Fla. 1st DCA

2003))). See also § 489.13(1), Fla. Stat. (2024) (“Any person performing an

activity requiring licensure under [Chapter 489, Part I] as a construction

contractor is guilty of unlicensed contracting if he or she does not hold a valid

active certificate or registration authorizing him or her to perform such

activity[.]”); § 489.105(6), Fla. Stat. (2024) (“‘Contracting’ means . . .

engaging in business as a contractor. . . . The attempted sale of contracting

services and the negotiation or bid for a contract on these services also

constitutes contracting.”); § 489.127(1)(c), Fla. Stat. (2024) (“No person shall

. . . [p]resent as his or her own the certificate or registration of another[.]”).

Affirmed.