Friends of Etna Turpentine Camp, Inc. v. U.S. Department of the Interior et al

Filing 34

ORDER denying 28 Motion to Intervene filed by Martin Lowy and M. Hatcher Norris and directing Clerk to strike their Answer 32 .Signed by Magistrate Judge Philip R. Lammens on 7/2/2018. (AR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
OCALA DIVISION
FRIENDS OF ETNA TURPENTINE
CAMP, INC., a Florida non-for-profit
corporation
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 5:18-cv-291-Oc-30PRL

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE
INTERIOR, RYAN ZINKE, U.S. FISH
AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, GREG
SHEEHAN and JIM KURTH
Defendants.

ORDER
Martin Lowy and M. Hatcher Norris, both of whom are proceeding pro se, seek leave to
intervene in this action as a matter of right. (Doc. 28).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a) provides in relevant part:

(a) Intervention of Right. On timely motion, the court must permit anyone to intervene
who:
(2) claims an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action,
and is so situated that disposing of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the
movant's ability to protect its interest, unless existing parties adequately represent that
interest.
In order to intervene, the parties must show that: (1) their application for intervention is timely;
(2) they have an interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the action;
(3) they are so situated that disposition of the action, as a practical matter, may impede or impair
their ability to protect their interest; and (4) their interest must be inadequately represented by
existing parties to the suit. Chiles v. Thornburgh, 865 F.2d 1197, 1213 (11th Cir. 1989).

Here, Martin Lowy and M. Hatcher Norris proclaim to have an interest in supporting the
Suncoast II Parkway because it is in the best interest of the residents of Citrus County, Florida. To
that end, they recently formed a Florida non-profit corporation “Friends of Suncoast2.” They seek
to offer testimony at the hearing regarding the benefits to the residents of Citrus County, including
testimony from a representative of the Citrus County Chamber of Commerce and an expert on
Citrus County real estate. They argue that no other party represents these interests.
However, the instant action focuses not on whether the Suncoast II Parkway should be
built, but whether Defendants complied with the procedural requirements of the National
Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) and the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) in issuing
the incidental takings permit. See e.g., Dep't of Transp. v. Pub. Citizen, 541 U.S. 752, 756-57
(2004) (NEPA does not itself mandate particular results, but only imposes “procedural
requirements on federal agencies with a particular focus on requiring agencies to undertake
analyses of the environmental impact of their proposals and actions.”). The proposed testimony
regarding the benefits of the Suncoast II Parkway to the residents of Citrus County has no bearing
on whether Defendants complied with the procedural requirements.
Accordingly, because Martin Lowy and M. Hatcher Norris have failed to assert an interest
relating to the subject of this action, their motion to intervene (Doc. 28) is due to be DENIED and
the Clerk shall STRIKE their answer (Doc. 32).
DONE and ORDERED in Ocala, Florida on July 2, 2018.

Copies furnished to:

-2-

Counsel of Record
Unrepresented Parties

-3-