Danny R. Lopez v. Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division of Licensing
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
Date FiledApril 22, 2020
Docket3D19-1742
StatusPublished
📰 News Coverage: Read the LAWS.com news report on this case
Full Opinion
Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed April 22, 2020.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D19-1742
Lower Tribunal Nos. D1409047, CD201901994
________________
Danny R. Lopez,
Appellant,
vs.
Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services,
Division of Licensing,
Appellee.
An Appeal from the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer
Services, Division of Licensing.
Danny R. Lopez, in proper person.
Staci A. Bienvenu, Senior Attorney (Tallahassee), for appellee.
Before FERNANDEZ, SCALES and GORDO, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See § 493.6118(1)(c), (2), Fla. Stat. (2019) (authorizing the
Department to take disciplinary action, including revocation of a license where the
license holder is “convicted of a crime that directly relates to the business for which
the license is held or sought”); Fla. Admin. Code R. 28-106.111(4) (2020) (“Any
person who receives written notice of an agency decision and who fails to file a
written request for a hearing within 21 days waives the right to request a hearing on
such matters.”); see also Nicks v. Dep’t of Bus. & Prof’l Regulation, 957 So. 2d 65,
66 n.1 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (“When a party waives the right to challenge the factual
allegations of an administrative complaint, either by requesting an informal hearing
pursuant to section 120.57(2), Florida Statutes, or by failing to respond to the
complaint at all, the facts of the complaint are deemed to be admitted.” (citations
omitted)); Gonzalez v. Dep’t of Bus. & Prof’l Regulation, 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. & Prof’l Regulation, 844 So. 2d 757, 758 (Fla. 1st
DCA 2003))).
2