Live courthouse data across 10 states. Pro users get alerted instantly on every filing. Get started

Seventy7, LLC v. Department of Revenue

Docket 1D2025-0532

Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research

AdministrativeAffirmed
Filed
Jurisdiction
Florida
Court
District Court of Appeal of Florida
Type
Opinion
Disposition
Affirmed
Docket
1D2025-0532

Appeal from the Division of Administrative Hearings

Summary

The Florida First District Court of Appeal affirmed the decision of the Division of Administrative Hearings in a dispute between Seventy7, LLC and the Florida Department of Revenue. The appeal challenged an administrative ruling, but the appellate court, in a per curiam decision with three judges concurring, concluded the lower administrative decision should stand. The opinion contains only the disposition 'AFFIRMED' without published reasoning in this document.

Issue Decided

  • Whether the Division of Administrative Hearings' decision concerning Seventy7, LLC and the Department of Revenue should be reversed or affirmed

Court's Reasoning

The court issued a brief per curiam disposition affirming the administrative decision. No substantive reasoning or legal analysis is included in the opinion text provided; the court simply stated the administrative determination was upheld and listed concurrence by the three judges.

Parties

Appellant
Seventy7, LLC
Appellee
Department of Revenue
Judge
Robert L. Kilbride (Administrative Law Judge)
Attorney
Jeanette Moffa
Attorney
Timothy E. Dennis
Attorney
Jacek P. Stramski

Key Dates

Decision date
2026-04-16

What You Should Do Next

  1. 1

    Consider post-decision motions

    If a party wishes to seek further review, they should consult counsel about filing a timely motion for rehearing or certification under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.330 or 9.331.

  2. 2

    Review underlying record

    Counsel for the appellant should review the administrative record and the Division's decision to determine whether grounds exist for further appellate relief.

  3. 3

    Comply with administrative order

    If the underlying administrative decision imposes obligations or penalties, the affected party should ensure compliance or timely pursue lawful avenues to challenge enforcement.

Frequently Asked Questions

What did the court decide?
The court affirmed the prior administrative decision from the Division of Administrative Hearings.
Who is affected by this decision?
Seventy7, LLC (the appellant) and the Florida Department of Revenue (the appellee) are the directly affected parties.
Does the opinion explain the court's reasoning?
No. The published text is a short per curiam opinion that only states 'AFFIRMED' and does not include detailed reasoning.
Can this be appealed further?
Potential further review (such as a motion for rehearing or discretionary review) may be available under Florida appellate rules; parties should consult counsel for deadlines and options.

The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.

Full Filing Text
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
                STATE OF FLORIDA
                 _____________________________

                        No. 1D2025-0532
                 _____________________________

SEVENTY7, LLC,

    Appellant,

    v.

DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,

    Appellee.
                 _____________________________


On appeal from the Division of Administrative Hearings.
Robert L. Kilbride, Administrative Law Judge.

                         April 16, 2026


PER CURIAM.

    AFFIRMED.

ROBERTS, RAY, and TREADWELL, JJ., concur.

                 _____________________________

    Not final until disposition of any timely and
    authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or
    9.331.
               _____________________________
Jeanette Moffa of Moffa, Sutton, & Donnini, P.A., Fort Lauderdale,
for Appellant.

Timothy E. Dennis, Chief Assistant Attorney General, and Jacek
P. Stramski, Special Counsel, Tallahassee, for Appellee.




                                2