TIMBERLINE CONSTRUCTION GROUP, LLC VS DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
An appellant cannot obtain review of an agency's final order dismissing a petition for administrative hearing on timeliness grounds by arguing the merits of the underlying decision rather than challenging the dismissal itself under section 120.68(7), Florida Statutes.
[1] An appellant challenging an agency's dismissal of a petition for administrative hearing on timeliness grounds must directly address the timeliness determination under sec…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTimberline Construction Group filed multiple petitions for administrative hearings with the Department of Commerce, which dismissed the petitions with…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA
_____________________________
Nos. 1D2022-3364 1D2022-3366 1D2022-3367 1D2022-3368 1D2022-3369 1D2022-3370 1D2022-3372 1D2022-3373 _____________________________
TIMBERLINE CONSTRUCTION
GROUP, LLC,
Appellant,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE,
Appellee. _____________________________
On appeal from the Department of Economic Opportunity. Erik Sayler, Assistant General Counsel.
July 24, 2024
PER CURIAM.
Timberline Construction Group, LLC, appeals the Department’s final orders dismissing Timberline’s petitions for administrative hearings with prejudice because of untimely filings. Timberline does not challenge the Department’s determination that the petitions were untimely, instead arguing
2 in opposition to the Department’s underlying decisions that led to Timberline filing the petitions. Because Timberline does not argue or establish any ground to set aside the Department’s final orders under section 120.68(7), Florida Statutes, the final agency action in each case is
AFFIRMED.
B.L. THOMAS, BILBREY, and WINOKUR, JJ., concur.
_____________________________
Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331. _____________________________
Amy Schrader and Maia Fleischman of Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, P.C., Birmingham, AL, for Appellant.
Ryan Bourgoin, Deputy General Counsel, and Karen Gates, Department of Economic Opportunity, Tallahassee, for Appellee.