Filing # 241128264 E-Filed 02/05/2026 07:22:36 PM

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

IN AND FOR HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA

CASE NO.:
SECTION:
JUDGE:

STANLEY SHULTZ, on behalf of himself and all

others similarly situated,

Plaintiff, CLASS REPRESENTATION

v.

BUSPATROL AMERICA, LLC AND

HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY PUBLIC
SCHOOLS,

Defendants.
________________________________________/

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF

Plaintiff, Stanley Shultz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, sue

Defendants, BusPatrol America, LLC (“BusPatrol”), Hillsborough County Public Schools

(“HCPS”), and allege:

INTRODUCTION

1. This class action challenges Hillsborough County’s school-bus camera

enforcement under section 316.173, Florida Statutes, as implemented through an adjudicatory

scheme that never complied with the statute’s “local hearing officer” requirement. The

Legislature initially enacted section 316.173 without any hearing mechanism, requiring later

amendment to add one; yet even after adding hearings, Hillsborough routed contested Notices of

Violation (“NOVs”) to the, Tallahassee-based, Division of Administrative Hearings (“DOAH”)

administrative law judges rather than to a local hearing officer appointed by the School Board or

the County, as the statute requires.

1
 2. Contested Hillsborough NOVs were thus adjudicated before decision makers not

appointed as “local hearing officers,” and in a forum outside the locality implicated by the

NOVs.

3. Following those determinations, vehicle owners—including Plaintiff—paid civil

penalties and costs. Public reporting reflects that, in approximately 90% of contested school-bus

camera NOVs decided through DOAH, liability is upheld.1 Whatever the cause, the effect is the

same: Hillsborough’s use of non-local DOAH adjudication yields payments extracted without

the local adjudicatory process the statute prescribes.

4. Plaintiff seeks declarations that Tallahassee DOAH determinations in these

circumstances were ultra vires and void, restitution of amounts paid after those determinations,

and related constitutional relief.

JURISDICTION, PARTIES, AND VENUE

5. Jurisdiction and venue are proper under Art. V, §5(b), sections 26.012, 47.011,

86.011, Florida Statutes.

6. Plaintiff Stanley Shultz is a Hillsborough County, Florida resident who received a

NOV tied to a Hillsborough school bus, contested the NOV, and was adjudicated liable by a

DOAH ALJ in Tallahassee.

7. BusPatrol America, LLC installed/operated camera systems, generated NOV

packages, mailed NOVs, processed contest submissions and payments, and shared in penalty

revenue while acting jointly with government actors.

1
Katie LaGrone, “What's the point?” Nearly 90% of drivers who appeal school bus camera tickets lose, WFTS
Tampa Bay (Dec. 3, 2025), [Link]
appeal-school-bus-camera-tickets-lose (last visited on February 5, 2026).

2
 8. Hillsborough County Public Schools adopted the program, owned/operated the

buses, and was statutorily obligated to appoint a local hearing officer for contested NOVs.

GENERAL FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Legislative and Statutory History for School Bus Camera Program

9. Section 316.172(1)(a), Florida Statutes, makes it unlawful for motorists to pass a

school bus that displays a stop signal until said signal is withdrawn.

10. Section 316.173, Florida Statutes, permits a school district to contract with a

private vendor or manufacturer to install a school bus infraction detection system on any school

bus within its fleet, whether owned, contracted, or leased, and for services including, but not

limited to, the installation, operation, and maintenance of the system, for the sole purpose of

improving public safety.

11. Unlike other statutes governing automated traffic law enforcement, section

316.173 initially lacked any substantive procedures to ensure that municipalities protect the

constitutional due process rights of motorists who are cited under it.

12. The legislative history of section 316.173 demonstrates that the Florida legislature

initially identified the need for similar due process protections in connection with programs such

as school bus camera enforcement; however, those protections were stricken before the law was

enacted.

13. Specifically, although the original draft of the proposed HB 741 anticipated

“judicial or administrative proceedings,” that language was stricken in subsequent amendments,

and the substituted bill SB 766 included no such language.

3
 14. However, the text of SB 994 was amended substantially in a subsequent iteration

posted on February 15, 2024, which eliminated the due process protections afforded by the

designation of a local hearing officer.

15. As a result of the Florida Legislature's elimination of procedural due process

protections in the language of the proposed bills, section 316.173 lacked any substantive

procedural due process protections for cited motorists when it was first implemented.

16. This statutory gap enabled school districts and their private contractors to

implement enforcement schemes that coerced payments from drivers without providing adequate

opportunities to contest liability.

The 2025 Legislative Amendment Requiring Local Hearing Officers

17. After widespread public criticism, implementation failures, and operational chaos

documented in multiple Florida counties—including Miami-Dade County's suspension due to

lack of due process—the Florida Legislature finally acted to remedy these deficiencies.

18. Section 316.173 was amended to include subsection (6), which requires the

school district to appoint a local hearing officer to conduct hearings on contested NOVs.

19. The amended statute now explicitly provides: “A local hearing officer appointed

by the school district or county shall conduct hearings relating to a notice of violation issued

pursuant to this section. . . . A person who receives a notice of violation may contest the violation

before the local hearing officer. . . .”

20. The Legislature’s intent was unambiguous: contested NOVs must be heard by a

local hearing officer appointed by the school district or county—not by state administrative law

judges in Tallahassee operating outside any local appointment or authorization.

4
 21. The requirement that hearings be conducted by a “local hearing officer appointed

by the school district or county” is mandatory, not discretionary.

Implementation of the School Bus Camera Program in Hillsborough County

22. Defendants BusPatrol and Hillsborough County Public Schools (HCPS) entered

into a contract authorizing the enforcement of school bus stop signal violations and allowing for

revenue generation from citations issued through automated camera systems.

23. Pursuant to the contract, BusPatrol installed cameras on school buses operated by

HCPS, generated NOV packages when alleged violations were detected, mailed NOVs to vehicle

owners, processed contest submissions and payments, and shared in penalty revenue.

24. BusPatrol, as the private contractor, receives up to 60% of each paid violation

according to its contract with Hillsborough County.

25. This revenue-sharing arrangement creates a direct financial incentive for

BusPatrol and HCPS to maximize the number of paid violations, regardless of the accuracy or

fairness of the violation determinations.

Defendants’ Ultra Vires Routing of Contested NOVs to DOAH

26. Despite the Legislature’s clear mandate that contested NOVs be heard by "a local

hearing officer appointed by the school district or county," Hillsborough County and BusPatrol

implemented an adjudicatory scheme that routed all contested NOVs to the Division of

Administrative Hearings (“DOAH”) in Tallahassee.

27. DOAH is a state agency located in Tallahassee, Florida, staffed by Administrative

Law Judges (“ALJs”) who are state employees.

28. Hearings were conducted virtually via Zoom, but the decisionmakers were state

ALJs operating from Tallahassee, not locally-appointed hearing officers.

5
 29. The adjudications took place outside Hillsborough County, before officials who

had no local appointment, no connection to the community, and no statutory authority to hear

these matters under section 316.173.

30. This fundamental departure from the statutory scheme was not a mere

technicality. The Legislature specifically chose to require local hearing officers—not state

ALJs—to ensure local accountability, convenience for motorists, and compliance with the clear

statutory text.

31. Defendants knowingly implemented this ultra vires system, routing contests to

DOAH despite lacking statutory authority to do so.

The DOAH Track Record

32. Public reporting confirms what Plaintiff and putative class members experienced:

the DOAH process operates as a one-sided tribunal overwhelmingly favorable to the government

and BusPatrol.

33. According to investigative journalism from Tampa Bay area news outlets, since

drivers began appealing school bus camera citations in Hillsborough County in September 2025,

of over 1,100 appeal hearings conducted by DOAH, nearly 90% have been upheld against the

motorist.2

34. This systematic pattern of upholding violations mirrors DOAH’s historical track

record in cases involving state agencies and state-created entities.

35. DOAH has long been criticized for its structural bias favoring government

entities, particularly in cases where the state or its contractors are adverse parties.

2
Katie LaGrone, “What's the point?” Nearly 90% of drivers who appeal school bus camera tickets lose, WFTS
Tampa Bay (Dec. 3, 2025), [Link]
appeal-school-bus-camera-tickets-lose (last visited on February 5, 2026).

6
 36. For example, in cases involving Citizens Property Insurance Corporation—a

state-created entity—DOAH ALJs have historically ruled in favor of Citizens in the

overwhelming majority of coverage disputes, leading to widespread criticism that the forum

itself is structurally biased against policyholders.3

37. The same structural dynamics are at play here. DOAH is a state agency. Its ALJs

are state employees. When BusPatrol—a private contractor operating in partnership with a local

school board—routes contested citations to DOAH, vehicle owners face a forum with a

documented history of ruling in favor of state and local governmental entities.

38. Defendants chose to route contested NOVs to DOAH precisely because it was

more convenient for them, more profitable, and—based on the 90% government win rate—more

likely to result in paid violations.

39. The result is that even after the Legislature acted to fix the school bus camera

program, Defendants found a new way to circumvent the statutory protections and deny vehicle

owners their rights.

The DOAH Determinations Were Ultra Vires and Void Ab Initio

40. Because section 316.173(6) mandates that contested NOVs be adjudicated by “a

local hearing officer,” any determination rendered by a DOAH ALJ in outside of Hillsborough

County is ultra vires and void ab initio.

41. DOAH ALJs had no statutory authority whatsoever to adjudicate Hillsborough

County school bus camera violations.

42. The statute does not authorize non-local state ALJs to conduct these hearings.

43. The DOAH ALJs located outside of Hillsborough County were not local.

3
[Link]
policyholders-attorneys-say/ (last visited on February 5, 2026)

7
 44. The DOAH ALJs therefore lacked jurisdiction to conduct the hearings and render

the determinations.

45. When state actors act without jurisdiction or statutory authority, the resulting

determinations are void and cannot support the imposition of civil penalties.

CLASS REPRESENTATIVE FACTUAL BACKGROUND

46. Plaintiff Stanley Shultz is, and at all relevant times to this Complaint was, a

resident of Hillsborough County, Florida.

47. On October 31, 2025, a vehicle registered to Mr. Shultz was traveling on a road in

Hillsborough County.

48. At 2:19 P.M., a Camera Program bus photographed a vehicle registered to Mr.

Shultz.

49. On November 14, 2025, a Notice (# HBC-4872598) was issued to Mr. Shultz,

alleging that the vehicle was operated in violation of Florida traffic laws.

50. Mr. Shultz believed that the Notice issued to him on November 14, 2025 was

improper.

51. Mr. Shultz submitted the form to contest liability found on the back of the Notice

on November 18, 2025.

52. Mr. Shultz subsequently received a letter dated November 27, 2025,

acknowledging receipt of the contestation.

53. Mr. Shultz received a scheduled hearing notice dated December 22, 2025,

scheduling a virtual hearing for January 28, 2026 at 9:00 AM.

54. On January 28, 2026, Mr. Shultz attended a virtual hearing via Zoom with Judge

Suzanne Van Wyk (“Judge Van Wyk”).

8
 55. Judge Van Wyk found that Mr. Shultz was liable for penalties under section

316.173, Florida Statutes and directed him to pay the civil penalty.

56. Mr. Shultz has not yet paid the civil penalty or any associated costs.

57. Mr. Shultz is uncertain whether he is legally obligated to pay penalties imposed

pursuant to an ultra vires determination rendered by a decisionmaker who lacked statutory

authority to adjudicate his case.

CLASS DEFINITIONS

58. Plaintiff seeks certification of the following statewide class under Rule

1.220(b)(2):

All persons who received an NOV under Hillsborough County's school bus
camera enforcement program pursuant to section 316.173, Florida Statutes,
contested their violation, and had their violation adjudicated by a DOAH
Administrative Law Judge located outside of Hillsborough County from
September 1, 2025 through the present.

Excluded from the Class are Defendants, their officers, directors, employees, legal
representatives, heirs, successors, and wholly or partly owned subsidiaries or
affiliated companies; Class Counsel and their employees; and the judicial officers
and their immediate family members and associated court staff assigned to this
case.

CLASS REPRESENTATION ALLEGATIONS

59. Numerosity: The Class is so numerous that joinder of all members is

impracticable. According to public reporting, since September 2025, over 1,100 contested school

bus camera violations in Hillsborough County have been adjudicated by DOAH Administrative

Law Judges. Upon information and belief, hundreds of motorists remain subject to DOAH

determinations rendered without proper statutory authority.

60. The precise number of Class members is readily ascertainable from Defendants’

records, including citation data, hearing records, and payment logs maintained by BusPatrol and

9
Hillsborough County Public Schools. Given the large number of affected individuals and the

ongoing nature of the challenged conduct, joinder of all Class members is impracticable, and

class treatment is the superior method for adjudicating this controversy.

61. Commonality:

1. Common Questions of Law

a. Whether section 316.173(6), Florida Statutes, requires contested Notices

of Violation to be adjudicated by a local hearing officer appointed by the
school district or county;

b. Whether DOAH Administrative Law Judges located in Tallahassee qualify

as “local hearing officers” under section 316.173(6);

c. Whether determinations rendered by DOAH Administrative Law Judges

absent proper local appointment are ultra vires and void ab initio; and

d. Whether Defendants' routing of contested NOVs to non-locally appointed

DOAH ALJs violates the mandatory requirements of section 316.173(6).

2. Common Questions of Fact

a. Whether Hillsborough County Public Schools or Hillsborough County

appointed the DOAH Administrative Law Judges as “local hearing
officers” pursuant to section 316.173(6);

b. Whether the DOAH ALJs who adjudicated Class Members’ contested

NOVs were located in outside of Hillsborough County; and

c. Whether Defendants uniformly routed all contested NOVs to DOAH

rather than to a locally-appointed hearing officer.

62. Typicality: Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the Class under Rule 1.220(a)(3).

Plaintiff received an NOV under Hillsborough County’s school bus camera enforcement

program, contested the violation, and had his case adjudicated by a DOAH ALJ in Tallahassee.

Plaintiff’s claims—that the DOAH determination was ultra vires and void because it violated

section 316.173(6)'s requirement for a locally-appointed hearing officer—arise from the same

10
course of conduct affecting all Class Members and are based on the same legal theories. Plaintiff

seeks the same declaratory on behalf of the entire Class.

63. Adequacy of Representation: Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the

interests of the Class. Plaintiff has no interests antagonistic to those of the Class Members in the

Class and seek relief for the same injuries arising from the same alleged conduct. Plaintiff is

committed to vigorously prosecuting this action on behalf of the Class and have retained counsel

experienced in complex civil and class action litigation, including successfully certifying classes

in similar matters. Plaintiff and their counsel are prepared to devote the resources necessary to

represent the Class and to manage this litigation efficiently. The interests of Plaintiff and the

Class are aligned in seeking declaratory relief to remedy the alleged unlawful conduct of

Defendants. Plaintiff anticipates providing appropriate notice to the certified Class in to be

approved by the Court after class certification or pursuant to court order.

64. Rule 1.220(b)(2): Defendants have acted on grounds generally applicable to the

Class, warranting declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to the Class as a whole.

Defendants acted in a manner applicable to the entire Class by uniformly routing contested

NOVs to DOAH ALJs in Tallahassee who were not appointed as local hearing officers, in

violation of section 316.173(6), Florida Statutes.

CAUSE OF ACTION

COUNT I — DECLARATORY JUDGMENT (Chapter 86, Fla. Stat.)

65. This is an action for declaratory relief brought pursuant to Chapter 86, Florida

Statutes.

66. An actual, present, and bona fide controversy exists between Plaintiff and the

Class on one hand, and Defendants on the other, concerning the lawfulness and validity of the

11
adjudication process used to determine liability for school bus camera violations in Hillsborough

County.

67. Section 316.173(6), Florida Statutes, provides: “A local hearing officer appointed

by the school district or county shall administer an administrative hearing process for a contested

notice of violation issued pursuant to this section.”

68. The plain language of section 316.173(6) requires that contested NOVs be

adjudicated by a local hearing officer appointed by the school district or county.

69. The term “local” in “local hearing officer” is not surplusage. It reflects the

Legislature’s intent that contested violations be adjudicated locally, within the jurisdiction where

the alleged violation occurred.

70. Despite this clear statutory requirement, Defendants routed all contested NOVs to

DOAH ALJs located in Tallahassee, outside of Hillsborough County.

71. These DOAH ALJs are state employees of a state agency headquartered in

Tallahassee, not local officials within Hillsborough County.

72. Defendants’ appointment of non-local DOAH ALJs to adjudicate Hillsborough

County school bus camera violations violated the mandatory requirement of section 316.173(6)

that adjudications be conducted by a local hearing officer.

73. The Legislature specifically required local hearing officers—not state

administrative law judges located in the state capital.

74. Determinations rendered by non-local hearing officers in violation of section

316.173(6) are ultra vires and void ab initio.

12
 75. When government officials act outside the scope of their statutory authority, or

when officials lacking statutory authority purport to exercise governmental power, their actions

are ultra vires, without legal effect, and void from the beginning.

76. The DOAH determinations against Plaintiff and the Class Members were

rendered by adjudicators who did not satisfy the statutory requirement of being “local hearing

officers” as mandated by section 316.173(6).

77. These determinations therefore lack statutory authority and are void.

78. A declaration of rights is necessary and appropriate to resolve the actual

controversy between the parties.

79. Plaintiff and the Class Members have no adequate remedy at law.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court:

A. Certify this action as a class action pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure
1.220(b)(2);

B. Appoint Plaintiff as Class Representative;

C. Appoint undersigned counsel as Class Counsel;

D. Enter a declaratory judgment pursuant to section 86.011, Florida Statutes, declaring

that:

1. Section 316.173(6), Florida Statutes, requires contested NOVs to be

adjudicated by a local hearing officer appointed by the school district or
county;

2. DOAH Administrative Law Judges located in Tallahassee, Florida, do not

qualify as “local hearing officers” within the meaning of section 316.173(6);

3. All DOAH determinations finding Class Members liable for school bus
camera violations are ultra vires, void ab initio, and of no legal effect;

4. Class Members are not legally obligated to pay civil penalties, costs, or fees
imposed pursuant to such ultra vires determinations; and

13
 5. Defendants violated section 316.173(6) by routing contested NOVs to non-
local DOAH Administrative Law Judges;

E. Award Plaintiff costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees as permitted by law; and

F. Grant such further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

Plaintiff demands a jury trial for all triable issues.

Date: February 5, 2026. Respectfully submitted,

MORENO PERDOMO, PLLC ROBERT STRONGARONE, P.A.

5000 S.W. 75th Avenue, Suite 400 20134 SW 79th Court
Miami, FL 33155 Cutler Bay, FL 33189
Phone: 786-224-5093 Phone: 786-545-3223-

/s/ Gino Moreno /s/ Robert Strongarone

Gino Moreno, FBN: 112099 Robert Strongarone, FBN: 118931
gmoreno@[Link] bob@[Link]

/s/ Arlenys Perdomo

Arlenys Perdomo, FBN: 115561 Co-Counsel for Plaintiff
aperdomo@[Link]

Counsel for Plaintiff

14