State Judge Refuses Preliminary Injunction of Anaconda Rule
The state this year targeted anacondas, which are native to South America, as part of a move to control invasive species that can harm habitats in Florida.
December 09, 2019 at 10:34 AM
2 minute read
A Leon County circuit judge has rejected a request for a preliminary injunction against a state rule that largely bans anacondas in Florida.
Judge Angela Dempsey issued a two-page order Wednesday that denied the request from owners and dealers of anacondas. The state this year targeted anacondas, which are native to South America, as part of a move to control invasive species that can harm habitats in Florida.
But the owners and dealers, in a lawsuit filed in June and in the preliminary injunction request, contended that the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission did not follow the proper process in approving the rule. Also, they contend that the rule would destroy their "livelihoods, investments, conservation and educational" efforts.
"Plaintiffs, as snake owners, breeders, traders, conservators and business owners, have submitted affidavits describing the significant economic and personal impact the rule's arbitrary prohibition on reptile species [the anacondas] will have on them and their businesses including, perhaps most gravely and irreversible, the likely imminent euthanization or otherwise divesting themselves of animals they have spent decades selectively breeding and maintaining, a wasteful and senseless loss," the preliminary injunction motion said.
But Dempsey wrote that the plaintiffs had not justified a preliminary injunction. "The plaintiffs have failed to show a substantial likeliness of success on the merits, the plaintiffs have failed to show irreparable harm to the plaintiffs if the preliminary injunction is not issued, the plaintiffs have failed to show they lacked an adequate remedy at law, and the plaintiffs failed to show that the injunction would be in the public interest," she wrote.
The rule added a series of animals, ranging from anacondas to meerkats and flying foxes, to a list of "prohibited non-native species" that cannot be sold or bought in the state. The rule generally allows the prohibited species to be kept only for research or exhibition purposes, though it includes an exception for people who had the animals as pets before the change took effect. Those people could obtain permits to keep possession until the animals die.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllCOVID-19 Death Suit Against Nursing Home Sent to State Court, 11th Circuit Affirms
Year-End Tax Planning: How Real Estate Investors Can Leverage Qualified Opportunity Funds
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1First California Zantac Jury Ends in Mistrial
- 2Democrats Give Up Circuit Court Picks for Trial Judges in Reported Deal with GOP
- 3Trump Taps Former Fla. Attorney General for AG
- 4Newsom Names Two Judges to Appellate Courts in San Francisco, Orange County
- 5Biden Has Few Ways to Protect His Environmental Legacy, Say Lawyers, Advocates
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250