Town of Davie v. Santana
Cases that cite this one
6 later published cases cite this decision.
- Carney, Collier v. City of Cape Coral, Florida Department of Environmental Protection (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2025)
- C.N.G. v. Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division of Licensing (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2024)
- State of Florida, Department etc. v. Choice Plus, LLC (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2019)
- Department Of Financial Services v. Choice Plus, Llc (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2019)
- Department Of Financial Services v. Choice Plus, Llc (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2019)
- State of Florida, Agency For Health Care Adm. v. Planned Parenthood of Southwest etc. (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
These appeals, which were consolidated for briefing purposes, are hereby consolidated for opinion purposes as well. Appellant, the Town of Davie, contends that the administrative law judge (“ALJ”) erred in concluding that he lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate Appellant’s motion for attorney’s fees and costs filed pursuant to section 120.595(1), Florida Statutes, after he closed the cases and relinquished jurisdiction to the Florida Commission on Human Relations. We reject this argument along with Appellant’s contention that the ALJ’s ruling deprived it of its substantive right to attorney’s fees and costs without due process.
As the ALJ noted in his order denying Appellant’s motion to re-open the cases, there were no pending motions for attorney’s fees when Appellees voluntarily dismissed their cases and when the ALJ closed the files and relinquished jurisdiction. Cf G.E.L. Corp. v. Dep’t of Envtl. Prot., 875 So.2d 1257, 1263 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (holding that an ALJ has jurisdiction to award fees under section 120.595(1) when a petition has been dismissed but noting that the motion for fees was filed prior to the voluntary dismissal). Appellant’s argument that it had no basis to file a motion for fees prior to the voluntary dismissals is refuted by its assertions below and on appeal that Appellees engaged
Accordingly, we AFFIRM.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.