Save Our Creeks v. State Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission
112 So. 3d 128
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Appellants seek review of a dismissal with prejudice of their petition for an administrative hearing challenging a Commission decision to backfill a navigation channel in Cowbone Marsh, which is sovereignty submerged land.
- The Commission manages land around Fisheating Creek under a lease from the Trustees and must maintain navigability, including the Cowbone Marsh channel.
- Appellants allege the Commission sent an email indicating a decision to backfill, labeling it a proposed action and a decision, but the email text and specifics are not provided.
- The petition argues backfilling would exceed the Commission’s authority, violate the lease terms, and affect Appellants’ substantial interests.
- The Commission dismissed, finding no final agency action due to ongoing planning with federal and state agencies, suggesting any final action would be by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection.
- This Court reverses the dismissal because it relied on matters outside the petition and because the petition lacks sufficient specificity to plead final agency action, remanding to permit amendment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dismissal was proper for relying on matters outside the petition. | Appellants argue dismissal improperly referenced enforcement planning outside petition. | Commission contends ongoing planning means no final action by it yet. | Dismissal improper; remand for amendment. |
| Whether the petition adequately pleads final agency action by the Commission. | Petition claims a final decision/backfill action existed. | Language is too vague to show final agency action. | Allegations are too conclusory; not clearly final action. |
| Whether Appellants should be allowed to amend the petition. | Petition can be corrected to plead final action. | Amendment not necessary if remained defective. | Remand with opportunity to amend. |
Key Cases Cited
- St. Francis Parkside Lodge of Tampa Bay v. Dep’t of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 486 So.2d 32 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) (limits on consideration of outside-petition allegations; de novo review standard)
- Gen. Dev. Utils., Inc. v. Fla. Dep’t of Envtl. Regulation, 417 So.2d 1068 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982) (final agency action when agency takes position in writing and disseminates)
- Daniels v. Fla. Parole & Probation Comm’n, 401 So.2d 1351 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981) (final agency action subject to review; written establishment of status)
- Manasota-88, Inc. v. Gardinier, Inc., 481 So.2d 948 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) (informal notice may constitute final action if it binds parties)
- Gen. Dev. Utils., Inc. v. Fla. Dep’t of Envtl. Regulation, 417 So.2d 1068 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982) (agency action; final action when agency takes position)
- Hobe Assocs., Ltd. v. State, Dep’t of Bus. Regulation, Div. of Fla. Land Sales, Condos., & Mobile Homes, 504 So.2d 1801 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987) (letter not final agency action if not a warning or rule)
- Sickon v. Sch. Bd. of Alachua County, Fla., 719 So.2d 360 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) (de novo review standard in petition for hearing)
- Friends of the Hatchineha, Inc. v. Dep’t of Envtl. Regulation, 580 So.2d 267 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (substantial-interests, right to 120.57 hearing when final action affects interests)
- Dockery v. Fla. Democratic Party, 719 So.2d 9 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (amendment required when allegations are too conclusory)