Florida Statutes
Fla. Stat. § 120.69 (2025)
Enforcement of agency action.
✓ 2025 Florida Statutes — current through the 2025 Regular Session
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us
JustiaFla. Statutes
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
120.69 Enforcement of agency action.—
(1) Except as otherwise provided by statute:
(a) Any agency may seek enforcement of an action by filing a petition for enforcement, as provided in this section, in the circuit court where the subject matter of the enforcement is located.
(b) A petition for enforcement of any agency action may be filed by any substantially interested person who is a resident of the state. However, no such action may be commenced:
1. Prior to 60 days after the petitioner has given notice of the violation of the agency action to the head of the agency concerned, the Attorney General, and any alleged violator of the agency action.
2. If an agency has filed, and is diligently prosecuting, a petition for enforcement.
(c) A petition for enforcement filed by a nongovernmental person shall be in the name of the State of Florida on the relation of the petitioner, and the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel shall apply.
(d) In an action brought under paragraph (b), the agency whose action is sought to be enforced, if not a party, may intervene as a matter of right.
(2) A petition for enforcement may request declaratory relief; temporary or permanent equitable relief; any fine, forfeiture, penalty, or other remedy provided by statute; any combination of the foregoing; or, in the absence of any other specific statutory authority, a fine not to exceed $1,000.
(3) After the court has rendered judgment on a petition for enforcement, no other petition shall be filed or adjudicated against the same agency action, on the basis of the same transaction or occurrence, unless expressly authorized on remand. The doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel shall apply, and the court shall make such orders as are necessary to avoid multiplicity of actions.
(4) In all enforcement proceedings:
(a) If enforcement depends on any facts other than those appearing in the record, the court may ascertain such facts under procedures set forth in s. 120.68(7)(a).
(b) If one or more petitions for enforcement and a petition for review involving the same agency action are pending at the same time, the court considering the review petition may order all such actions transferred to and consolidated in one court. Each party shall be under an affirmative duty to notify the court when it becomes aware of multiple proceedings.
(c) Should any party willfully fail to comply with an order of the court, the court shall punish that party in accordance with the law applicable to contempt committed by a person in the trial of any other action.
(5) In any enforcement proceeding the respondent may assert as a defense the invalidity of any relevant statute, the inapplicability of the administrative determination to respondent, compliance by the respondent, the inappropriateness of the remedy sought by the agency, or any combination of the foregoing. In addition, if the petition for enforcement is filed during the time within which the respondent could petition for judicial review of the agency action, the respondent may assert the invalidity of the agency action.
(6) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, upon receipt of evidence that an alleged violation of an agency’s action presents an imminent and substantial threat to the public health, safety, or welfare, the agency may bring suit for immediate temporary relief in an appropriate circuit court, and the granting of such temporary relief shall not have res judicata or collateral estoppel effect as to further relief sought under a petition for enforcement relating to the same violation.
(7) In any final order on a petition for enforcement the court may award to the prevailing party all or part of the costs of litigation and reasonable attorney’s fees and expert witness fees, whenever the court determines that such an award is appropriate.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 47
cases, 1976–2014 · leading case: Gulf Coast Home Health Serv. v. State, Dhr, 513 So. 2d 704 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987).
Gulf Coast Home Health Serv. v. State, Dhr, 513 So. 2d 704 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). “This is an appeal from a final order of the circuit court dismissing with prejudice Gulf Coast's Amended Petition to Enforce Final Order pursuant to Section 120.69, Florida Statutes, and Amended Complaint for Declaratory Judgment and Injunctive Relief.”
City of Homestead v. Johnson, 760 So. 2d 80 (Fla. 2000). “The City has requested the Court review the PSC's authority to issue attorney's fees under section 120.69(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1997).”
State Ex Rel. Pettengill v. Copelan, 466 So. 2d 1133 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). “While "any substantially interested person" may bring an enforcement action pursuant to § 120.69, appellants' action is necessarily dependent upon a challenge to DER's determination that appellee complied with and satisfied the requirements of the restoration order.”
Piezo Tech. v. Smith, 413 So. 2d 121 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). “Section 120.69(1), Florida Statutes. Section 120.”
Discovery Experimental & Dev., Inc. v. DEPT. OF HEALTH, 824 So. 2d 195 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). “Section 120.69(7), Florida Statutes (2000), authorizes the award of costs, reasonable attorney's fees, and expert witness fees to the prevailing party in enforcement actions "whenever the court determines that such an award is appropriate.”
Hill v. Div. of Ret., 687 So. 2d 1376 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). “Effecting a denial of retirement benefits, the dismissal affected the petitioner's substantial interests within the meaning of section 120.69, Florida Statutes (Supp.1996) and disposed of the case before the State Retirement Commission.”
Century Utils., Inc. v. Palm Beach Cnty., 458 So. 2d 1178 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). “This appeal raises the narrow issue of whether it is procedurally appropriate for a respondent in an enforcement proceeding brought pursuant to Section 120.69, Florida Statutes (1983) to file a Third Party Complaint.”
State ex rel. State Attorney for the Twelfth Jud. Circuit v. Gen. Dev. Corp., 448 So. 2d 1074 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). “Appellant does not contend, nor could he successfully, that a state attorney is included under subsection (l)(c).”
Morgan v. Dep't of Env't Prot., 98 So. 3d 651 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012). “We affirm because Florida law does not afford citizens the right to intervene in agency enforcement proceedings, and because the trial court correctly determined that the Department of Environmental Protection diligently prosecuted the petition for enforcement pursuant to…”
Miami-Dade Cnty. ex rel. Walthour v. Malibu Lodging Investments, LLC, 64 So. 3d 716 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011). “3 Moreover, it is also likely the case that this [c]ourt does not have jurisdiction in the first instance because it appears that the County is not a qualified party seeking agency enforcement under section 120.69[, Florida Statutes]. Lastly, under Innkeepers, sections 33-121.”
Citizens of State v. Pub. Serv. COM'N, 425 So. 2d 534 (Fla. 1982). “The other is that the agency's decision may not be enforced under section 120.69 until it is reduced to written form and filed under section 120.”
HILLSBOROUGH CTY. HOSP. v. Tampa Heart Inst., 472 So. 2d 748 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). “58(3) requires the resort to section 120.69 to enforce all orders of a hearing officer where there is an attempt to impose sanctions for violations of those orders.”
— 120.69(1) — 2 cases
Piezo Tech. v. Smith, 413 So. 2d 121 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). “Section 120.69(1), Florida Statutes. Section 120.”
State Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs. v. Barr, 369 So. 2d 595 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978).
— 120.69(1)(a) — 2 cases
City of Homestead v. Johnson, 760 So. 2d 80 (Fla. 2000). “The City has requested the Court review the PSC's authority to issue attorney's fees under section 120.69(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1997).”
State by & Thro. State Atty. v. Gen. Dev. Corp., 448 So. 2d 1074 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984).
— 120.69(1)(b) — 4 cases
South Lake Worth Inlet Dist. v. Ocean Ridge, 633 So. 2d 79 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994).
Graham Contracting, Inc. v. Dept. of Gen. Servs., 363 So. 2d 810 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978).
State by & Thro. State Atty. v. Gen. Dev. Corp., 448 So. 2d 1074 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984).
State, Dept. of H. & R. Serv. v. State, 472 So. 2d 790 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985).
— 120.69(2) — 4 cases
Piezo Tech. v. Smith, 413 So. 2d 121 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). “Section 120.69(1), Florida Statutes. Section 120.”
State ex rel. State Attorney for the Twelfth Jud. Circuit v. Gen. Dev. Corp., 448 So. 2d 1074 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). “Appellant does not contend, nor could he successfully, that a state attorney is included under subsection (l)(c).”
Browning v. Dep't of Bus. Reg., Div. of Florida Land Sales, Condos. & Mobile Homes, 574 So. 2d 188 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991).
State by & Thro. State Atty. v. Gen. Dev. Corp., 448 So. 2d 1074 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984).
— 120.69(3) — 1 case
Hollingsworth v. Dep't of Env't Reg., 466 So. 2d 383 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985).
— 120.69(4) — 1 case
Great Am. Banks, Inc. v. DIV. OF ADMIN, ETC., 412 So. 2d 373 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981).
— 120.69(5) — 6 cases
State Ex Rel. Pettengill v. Copelan, 466 So. 2d 1133 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). “While "any substantially interested person" may bring an enforcement action pursuant to § 120.69, appellants' action is necessarily dependent upon a challenge to DER's determination that appellee complied with and satisfied the requirements of the restoration order.”
State, Dep't of Env't Reg. v. Brown, 449 So. 2d 908 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984).
Century Utils., Inc. v. Palm Beach Cnty., 458 So. 2d 1178 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). “This appeal raises the narrow issue of whether it is procedurally appropriate for a respondent in an enforcement proceeding brought pursuant to Section 120.69, Florida Statutes (1983) to file a Third Party Complaint.”
Browning v. Dep't of Bus. Reg., Div. of Florida Land Sales, Condos. & Mobile Homes, 574 So. 2d 188 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991).
Dep't of Env't Reg. v. Bruno, 44 Fla. Supp. 205 (Fla. Cir. Ct., Bradford Cty. 1976).
— 120.69(7) — 3 cases
Discovery Experimental & Dev., Inc. v. DEPT. OF HEALTH, 824 So. 2d 195 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). “Section 120.69(7), Florida Statutes (2000), authorizes the award of costs, reasonable attorney's fees, and expert witness fees to the prevailing party in enforcement actions "whenever the court determines that such an award is appropriate.”
State Ex Rel. Pettengill v. Copelan, 466 So. 2d 1133 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). “While "any substantially interested person" may bring an enforcement action pursuant to § 120.69, appellants' action is necessarily dependent upon a challenge to DER's determination that appellee complied with and satisfied the requirements of the restoration order.”
Doyal v. Sch. Bd. of Liberty Cnty., 415 So. 2d 791 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982).
— 120.69(b)(1) — 1 case
Miami-Dade Cnty. ex rel. Walthour v. Malibu Lodging Investments, LLC, 64 So. 3d 716 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011). “3 Moreover, it is also likely the case that this [c]ourt does not have jurisdiction in the first instance because it appears that the County is not a qualified party seeking agency enforcement under section 120.69[, Florida Statutes]. Lastly, under Innkeepers, sections 33-121.”
— 120.69(l)(a) — 2 cases
State ex rel. State Attorney for the Twelfth Jud. Circuit v. Gen. Dev. Corp., 448 So. 2d 1074 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). “Appellant does not contend, nor could he successfully, that a state attorney is included under subsection (l)(c).”
Ramsey Nursing Facilities, Inc. v. State ex rel. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 391 So. 2d 795 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980).
— 120.69(l)(b) — 4 cases
State ex rel. State Attorney for the Twelfth Jud. Circuit v. Gen. Dev. Corp., 448 So. 2d 1074 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). “Appellant does not contend, nor could he successfully, that a state attorney is included under subsection (l)(c).”
State, Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs. v. State, 472 So. 2d 790 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985).
Stuart v. State ex rel. Miller, 629 So. 2d 288 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993).
A Cmty. Health, Inc. v. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 683 So. 2d 643 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996).
— 120.69(l)(b)(2) — 1 case
Morgan v. Dep't of Env't Prot., 98 So. 3d 651 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012). “We affirm because Florida law does not afford citizens the right to intervene in agency enforcement proceedings, and because the trial court correctly determined that the Department of Environmental Protection diligently prosecuted the petition for enforcement pursuant to…”
— 120.69(l)(d) — 1 case
Paradyne Corp. v. Miller, 455 So. 2d 432 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.