Opinion
No. 1D19-3711
08-02-2021
GI SHAVINGS, LLC, Appellant, v. ARLINGTON RIDGE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, INC. and Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Appellees.
Benjamin J. Grossman and Mallory A. Neumann of Foley & Lardner, LLP, Tallahassee; Dorothy E. Watson of Foley & Lardner, Orlando, for Appellant. John L. Di Masi and Toby Snively of the Law Offices of John L. Di Masi, P.A., Orlando, for Appellee Arlington Ridge Community Association, Inc.; Jeffrey Brown, Assistant General Counsel, Stacey D. Cowley, Assistant General Counsel, and Matthew Knoll, Assistant General Counsel, Office of General Counsel, Tallahassee, for Appellee Florida Department of Environmental Protection.
Benjamin J. Grossman and Mallory A. Neumann of Foley & Lardner, LLP, Tallahassee; Dorothy E. Watson of Foley & Lardner, Orlando, for Appellant.
John L. Di Masi and Toby Snively of the Law Offices of John L. Di Masi, P.A., Orlando, for Appellee Arlington Ridge Community Association, Inc.; Jeffrey Brown, Assistant General Counsel, Stacey D. Cowley, Assistant General Counsel, and Matthew Knoll, Assistant General Counsel, Office of General Counsel, Tallahassee, for Appellee Florida Department of Environmental Protection.
Per Curiam.
In this environmental permitting case, Appellant challenged a minor source air construction permit with an identifying number ending in 009. While this appeal was pending, the Department of Environmental Protection issued to Appellant a final air operation permit ending in 011. No interested party filed a petition for administrative hearing or a notice of appeal as to the 011 permit. In response to this Court's order requesting a status update, the parties agree that the final air operation permit ending in 011 supersedes the 009 permit and that this appeal is now moot. See Godwin v. State , 593 So. 2d 211, 212 (Fla. 1992) (explaining a case is moot if "the issues have ceased to exist"); Montgomery v. Dep't of Health & Rehab. Servs. , 468 So. 2d 1014, 1016 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985) (explaining an appeal becomes moot if, "by a change of circumstances prior to the appellate decision, an intervening event makes it impossible for the court to grant a party any effectual relief"; and this Court can raise mootness on its own motion); see also Merkle v. Guardianship of Jacoby , 912 So. 2d 595, 600–02 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) ("During the pendency of an appeal, the duty of candor imposes an obligation on counsel to notify the court of any development that may conceivably affect the outcome of the litigation, including facts that may raise a question of mootness"; and sanctioning counsel that did not advise the court of a settlement reached during the pendency of the appeal). Accordingly, this appeal is DISMISSED.
Roberts, Kelsey, and Jay, JJ., concur.