ROEMMELE-PUTNEY, ET AL. V. REYNOLDS, ET AL.

State: Florida

Court: Florida Third District Court

Docket No: 12-0333

Case Date: 02/06/2013

Preview:Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida, January Term, A.D. 2013
Opinion filed February 6, 2013. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. ________________ No. 3D12-333 Lower Tribunal No. 11-342 ________________

Alicia Roemmele-Putney, et al.,
Appellants, vs.

Robert D. Reynolds, et al.,
Appellees.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Monroe County, David J. Audlin, Jr., Judge. Robert N. Hartsell (Fort Lauderdale); Robert Wright (Tallahassee); Richard Grosso (Ft. Lauderdale); Derek V. Howard, Assistant County Attorney, Monroe County Attorney's Office (Key West); Andrew M. Tobin (Tavernier), for appellants. Barton W. Smith and Gregory S. Oropeza (Key West), for appellees. S. Curtis Kiser, General Counsel, and Martha C. Brown, Senior Attorney, and Pamela H. Page, Attorney (Tallahassee), as Amicus Curiae for the Florida Public Service Commission. Before SUAREZ, LAGOA and SALTER, JJ.

SALTER, J. The appellants are certain individual property owners on No Name Key in Monroe County, and the County itself. Other No Name Key property owners and the Utility Board of the City of Key West (doing business as "Keys Energy Services") are the appellees. The legal issue presented to the circuit court and here is whether the County and private landowners may obtain judicial (declaratory and injunctive) relief establishing that the prospective electrification of No Name Key is regulated--or even precluded--by the Coastal Barrier Resources Act1 and the County's policies and regulations adopted pursuant to that Act. Concluding that the Florida Public Service Commission has exclusive jurisdiction to decide the issues raised by the appellants, we affirm the circuit court judgment dismissing the complaint with prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. The Complaint and Motion to Dismiss In the complaint, Monroe County sued Keys Energy Services (KES) and the individual owners of forty-three developed properties on No Name Key. The County alleged that KES had the exclusive power and authority to extend electric service to the residences on No Name Key owned by the individual defendants, and that a number of the property owners and KES were nearly ready to move

1

16 U.S.C.

Download ROEMMELE-PUTNEY, ET AL. V. REYNOLDS, ET AL..pdf