Ross v. City of Tarpon Springs

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Ross v. City of Tarpon Springs

802 So. 2d 473, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 18024, 2001 WL 1635485

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 21, 2001

DocketNo. 2D01-114

StatusPublished

This text of 802 So. 2d 473 (Ross v. City of Tarpon Springs) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ross v. City of Tarpon Springs, 802 So. 2d 473, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 18024, 2001 WL 1635485 (Fla. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

BLUE, Chief Judge.

Henry Ross appeals the final order by the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) that adopted an administrative law judge’s order dismissing Ross’s petition as a sanction for discovery violations. Ross argues that he did not receive adequate notice of the hearing on the motion for sanctions. We agree and reverse.

It is undisputed that the only notice Ross received regarding the hearing on the motion for sanctions was provided by a telephone message left the day before the hearing. This was insufficient notice. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 28 106.208 (stating that for hearings involving disputed issues of material fact, the ALJ “shall set the time and place for all hearings and shall serve written notice on all parties”). The City and the DEP contend that the hearing did not involve disputed issues of fact, so notice was not required. We disagree.

“Although the concepts of due process in an administrative proceeding are less stringent than in a judicial proceeding, they nonetheless apply.” A.J. v. Dep’t of Health & Rehab. Servs., 630 So.2d 1187, 1189 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994) (citing Hadley v. Dep’t of Admin., 411 So.2d 184 (Fla.1982)). An evidentiary hearing is required before an action can be dismissed as a sanction for discovery violations. See, e.g., Belflower v. Cushman & Wakefield of Fla., Inc., 510 So.2d 1130 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Austin v. Papol, 464 So.2d 1338 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). Due process requires adequate notice of the hearing to afford the wayward party an opportunity to be heard [475]*475on the question of whether the violations were willful or done in bad faith. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a properly noticed evidentiary hearing on the City’s motion for sanctions.

Reversed and remanded.

ALTENBERND and DAVIS, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

BLUE, Chief Judge.

Henry Ross appeals the final order by the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) that adopted an administrative law judge’s order dismissing Ross’s petition as a sanction for discovery violations. Ross argues that he did not receive adequate notice of the hearing on the motion for sanctions. We agree and reverse.

It is undisputed that the only notice Ross received regarding the hearing on the motion for sanctions was provided by a telephone message left the day before the hearing. This was insufficient notice. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 28 106.208 (stating that for hearings involving disputed issues of material fact, the ALJ “shall set the time and place for all hearings and shall serve written notice on all parties”). The City and the DEP contend that the hearing did not involve disputed issues of fact, so notice was not required. We disagree.

“Although the concepts of due process in an administrative proceeding are less stringent than in a judicial proceeding, they nonetheless apply.” A.J. v. Dep’t of Health & Rehab. Servs., 630 So.2d 1187, 1189 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994) (citing Hadley v. Dep’t of Admin., 411 So.2d 184 (Fla.1982)). An evidentiary hearing is required before an action can be dismissed as a sanction for discovery violations. See, e.g., Belflower v. Cushman & Wakefield of Fla., Inc., 510 So.2d 1130 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Austin v. Papol, 464 So.2d 1338 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). Due process requires adequate notice of the hearing to afford the wayward party an opportunity to be heard [475]*475on the question of whether the violations were willful or done in bad faith. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a properly noticed evidentiary hearing on the City’s motion for sanctions.

Reversed and remanded.

ALTENBERND and DAVIS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

802 So. 2d 473, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 18024, 2001 WL 1635485, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ross-v-city-of-tarpon-springs-fladistctapp-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack