MB Doral, LLC v. State
Citation | 295 So.3d 850 |
Decision Date | 27 April 2020 |
Docket Number | No. 1D19-820,1D19-820 |
Parties | MB DORAL, LLC, d/b/a Martinibar, Appellant, v. State of Florida, DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, DIVISION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES AND TOBACCO, Appellee. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Louis J. Terminello and Michael Martinez of Greenspoon Marder, LLP, Tallahassee, for Appellant.
Ross Marshman, Beth A. Miller, and Joseph Y. Whealdon, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
Roberts, J. MB Doral, a limited liability company doing business as "Martinibar," appeals a final order from the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) denying its rule challenge. We agree with MB Doral that Florida Rule of Administrative Procedure 61A-4.020 is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority and violates section 120.52(8), Florida Statutes (2019), and reverse the order on appeal.
Facts
MB Doral operates an alcoholic beverage establishment, Martinibar, in Miami-Dade County. It holds a liquor license (referred to as a "quota" license) issued by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco (the Division). See § 561.20, Fla. Stat. (2019). Quota licenses are issued in relation to the population of a county, so the license is tied to the county in which the licensee conducts its business—in this case Miami-Dade County. In addition to operating Martinibar, MB Doral also caters alcoholic beverages at large open-air events throughout Florida. It does so through an exemption to the quota license. See § 561.20(2)(a) 5., Fla. Stat. (2019).
Vendor licensees of the Division are permitted to store their inventory in limited locations. See § 562.03, Fla. Stat. (2019). Inventory may be stored in the building or room shown in the diagram accompanying a license application or "in another building or room approved by the [D]ivision." § 562.03, Fla. Stat. (2019). To provide guidance as to when "off-premises storage" (OPS) permits would be approved, the Division promulgated Florida Administrative Rule 61A-4.020. OPS permits are unlimited in number for licensees and require no fee. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 61A-4.020.
MB Doral applied for, and was granted, an OPS permit for storage facilities in Miami-Dade County. However, when MB Doral sought OPS permits outside of Miami-Dade County to store alcoholic beverages for use in its catering business, the Division denied the permit based on the language of rule 61A-4.020, which provided in relevant part1 :
(Emphasis added.)
MB Doral filed a petition pursuant to section 120.56(3), Florida Statutes (2018), arguing rule 61A-4.020 was an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. MB Doral specifically took issue with the rule's requirement that OPS storage be in the same county as the parent place of business of the licensee. In a final order, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) concluded the rule was a valid exercise of delegated legislative authority because section 562.03's pronouncement that a vendor may store alcoholic beverages "in another building or room approved by the [D]ivision" gave the Division the ability to restrict the location where alcoholic beverages are stored, as well as the ability to approve additional locations for off-premises storage. The ALJ concluded the rule's county-based limitation was consistent with and provided clarity to section 562.03. MB Doral seeks review of the ALJ's final order.
Standard of Review
Judicial review of administrative orders is authorized by section 120.68(1), Florida Statutes (2019). The ALJ's findings of fact are reviewed for competent, substantial evidence, and its conclusions of law and determinations of statutory interpretation are reviewed de novo . State, Dep't of Elder Affairs v. Fla. Senior Living Ass'n, Inc. , 45 Fla. L. Weekly D207, ––– So.3d ––––, 2020 WL 464618 (Fla. 1st DCA January 29, 2020) (citing J.S. v. C.M. , 135 So. 3d 312, 315 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) ). Whether an agency exceeded its rulemaking authority or enlarged the specific provisions of law implemented is reviewedde novo . S. Baptist Hosp. of Fla. v. Agency for Health Care Admin ., 270 So. 3d 488, 500 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019). With the passage of article V, section 21 of the Florida Constitution, the previously afforded deference to the agency's interpretation of the statutes it implements has been abolished; our review is de novo . Id. at 502.
Analysis
A substantially affected party may challenge an existing rule at any time on the basis that the rule is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. § 120.56(3), Fla. Stat. (2019). An existing rule is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority if the "agency has exceeded its grant of rulemaking authority"; if the rule "enlarges, modifies, or contravenes the specific provisions of law implemented"; if the rule is "vague, fails to establish adequate standards for agency decisions, or vests unbridled discretion in the agency"; or if the rule is "arbitrary or capricious." § 120.52(8)(b)-(e), Fla. Stat. (2019). MB Doral presented argument as to why rule 61A-4.020 is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority under sections 120.52(8)(b)-(e). Because we agree that the rule is invalid under sections 120.52(8)(b) and (c), we need not address the remaining arguments on appeal.
157 So. 3d 514, 516-17 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015).
Rule 61A-4.020 cites section 561.11, Florida Statutes (2018), as its rulemaking authority.2 Section 561.11(1) authorizes the Division to adopt rules to implement the "Beverage Law," which is contained in chapters 561 through 568, Florida Statutes. See § 561.01(6), Fla. Stat. (2019) (defining the Beverage Law). This general grant of rulemaking authority is insufficient by itself to provide authority for the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Fla. Dep't of Health v. Louis Del Favero Orchids, Inc.
...that "compels a particular action." § 120.68 (7)(d), Fla. Stat. (2020) ; see MB Doral, LLC v. Dep't of Bus. & Pro. Regul., Div. of Alcoholic Beverages & Tobacco , 295 So. 3d 850, 853 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020) ("The ALJ's findings of fact are reviewed for competent, substantial evidence, and its c......
-
G.R. v. Agency for Persons with Disabilities
...give no deference to agency interpretations of statutes or rules." Id. (citing MB Doral, LLC v. Dep't of Bus. & Prof'l Regulation, Div. of Alcoholic Beverages & Tobacco, 295 So. 3d 850, 853 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020) (noting: "With the passage of article V, section 21 of the Florida Constitution, ......
-
Dep't of Agric. & Consumer Servs. v. Henry & Rilla White Found., Inc.
...given to DACS's independent interpretation of statutes or rules. Art. V, § 21, Fla. Const.; MB Doral, LLC v. Dep't of Business & Pro. Regul. , 295 So. 3d 850, 853 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020). We find no error in the hearing officer's conclusions. The Foundation met the eligibility requirements duri......
-
Fla. Prepaid Coll. Bd. v. Intuition Coll. Sav. Solutions, LLC
...but we review her conclusions of law and statutory interpretations de novo . MB Doral, LLC v. Dep't of Bus. & Prof'l Regulation, Div. of Alcoholic Beverages & Tobacco , 295 So. 3d 850, 853 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020) ; see also § 120.68(7)(b), (d), (10), Fla. Stat. (2020). "Whether an agency exceed......
-
The Florida Alcohol Beverage Law: A Body of Law in Flux and Change.
...61A-4.020(1) (emphasis added). (2) MB Doral, LLC v. Dep't of Bus. & Prof'l Regulation, Div. of Alcoholic Beverages & Tobacco, 295 So. 3d 850 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020). Louis J. Terminello, chair of Greenspoon Marder's Hospitality, Alcohol & Leisure Industry Group and this article's au......