Federal Trade Commission v. Start Connecting LLC
8:24-cv-01626
| M.D. Fla. | Jan 31, 2025Background
- Hamlet Garcia, Jr. sought to intervene in an FTC enforcement action against Start Connecting LLC and others.
- Garcia based his intervention request on his association with an organization involved in defendants’ consumer strategy, claiming a direct and substantial interest in defending its business model and reputation.
- Garcia moved to intervene as of right under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a), or permissively under Rule 24(b).
- The Court evaluated Garcia’s claimed interests and whether the motion was timely, his interest legally protectable, and whether intervention would prejudice the main action.
- The Court also considered whether Garcia’s claims presented a common question of law or fact with the underlying FTC litigation.
- Garcia labeled his request as an emergency to prevent alleged irreparable harm, but the Court found no actual emergency.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intervention as of right under Rule 24(a) | Garcia lacks sufficient legal interest in the action | Garcia claims a direct and substantial interest via org. | Denied: Interest insufficient and belongs to org., not Garcia. |
| Permissive intervention under Rule 24(b) | No common questions of law or fact with Garcia's claims | Garcia asserts generalized challenge to FTC regulations | Denied: No shared issues; intervention would delay case. |
| Whether Garcia’s intervention is timely and proper | Untimely/emergency not substantiated | Claimed need to preserve status quo and prevent harm | Denied: No true emergency; potential for sanction warned. |
| Whether Garcia’s involvement would prejudice parties | Intervention would delay and prejudice proceedings | Believes intervention is necessary to defend interests | Denied: Proceedings would be unduly delayed and prejudiced. |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis v. Butts, 290 F.3d 1297 (11th Cir. 2002) (setting forth the four requirements for intervention as of right)
- Mt. Hawley Ins. v. Sandy Lake Props., Inc., 425 F.3d 1308 (11th Cir. 2005) (defining what constitutes a legally protectable interest for intervention)
- Chiles v. Thornburgh, 865 F.2d 1197 (11th Cir. 1989) (affirming burden of proof and court's discretion in intervention)
- United States v. S. Fla. Water Mgmt. Dist., 922 F.2d 704 (11th Cir. 1991) (distinguishing between direct/legal interests and mere economic interests for intervention)
- Worlds v. Dep’t of Health & Rehab. Servs., State of Fla., 929 F.2d 591 (11th Cir. 1991) (affirming denial of intervention when separate challenge more appropriate)