EmptyCup-
You seem to have some inside information on this case, so I'd like to know just what the thinking was that led to the plaintiffs not asking for a formal hearing. It seems apparent to me (maybe it's 20/20 hindsight) that the disputed issue from the outset was whether in fact any of the exceptions to the statute existed. When the agency indicates by its action that they believe they do, and the plaintiffs allege that they do not, it seems that an issue of fact exists from the start, thereby requiring a formal DOAH hearing. If FDOT se the case for an informal hearing, it seems to be a dangerous assumption by the plaintiffs that FDOT was agreeing that no factual dispute existed. The position that a formal hearing is required to resolve an issue of fact is not new law. Am I wrong?