Summary
finding that the appellant lacked standing where he obtained the relief he sought from the licensing board and did not demonstrate a basis for apprehension that as a result of the proceeding he would be disciplined in the future
Summary of this case from Diaz-Ramirez v. Dep't of Health, Bd. of Med.Opinion
No. 1D11–5597.
2012-08-17
Robert PETITO, Appellant, v. CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD, Appellee.
An appeal from the Construction Industry Licensing Board. Mark Pietanza, Chair. Rosemary H. Hayes, of Hayes Law, PL, Orlando, for Appellant. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Daniel R. Biggins and Charlyne M. “Khai” Patterson, Assistant Attorneys General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
An appeal from the Construction Industry Licensing Board. Mark Pietanza, Chair.
Rosemary H. Hayes, of Hayes Law, PL, Orlando, for Appellant. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Daniel R. Biggins and Charlyne M. “Khai” Patterson, Assistant Attorneys General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
PER CURIAM.
We dismiss the appeal in this case for lack of standing. See Bodenstab v. Dep't of Prof'l Regulation, 648 So.2d 742, 743 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). At oral argument, the Board's counsel affirmed that the petitioner, Robert Petito, would not be subject to discipline for any matter that has been brought to the Department's attention to date. This avowal ameliorates Petito's concern that the Board might use probation or other types of discipline as an impermissible condition on his license. It also buttresses our conclusion that Petito lacks standing: beyond receiving the relief he sought below (i.e., an unconditional transfer of his license) he has no basis for apprehension that the Board will attempt to improperly impose discipline upon him.
DISMISSED.