Case Name: Alcides ACOSTA, Acosta Farms, Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-05-31
Citations: 236 F. App'x 490
Docket Number: No. 06-12832
Parties: Alcides ACOSTA, Acosta Farms, Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before ANDERSON, BARKETT and COX, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 236
Pages: 490–491

Head Matter:
Alcides ACOSTA, Acosta Farms, Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 06-12832.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
May 31, 2007.
Bartram G. Billbrough, Billbrough & Marks, P.A., Coral Gables, FL, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
Before ANDERSON, BARKETT and COX, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
After oral argument and careful consideration, we conclude that the particular arguments asserted by appellants on appeal do not persuade us that the Department's interpretation of the relevant statute is unreasonable. The South Florida Water Management District owns the land and the trees, and suffered the loss when the trees were destroyed. Appellants do not seem to assert that they suffered the loss; and in light of the fact that their year-to-year lease renewals are subject to termination on written notice, they clearly have failed to prove that they suffered the loss. We agree with the district court that the statutory term "grower" is sufficiently ambiguous so that the Department's interpretation of it to include the owner of the trees is not unreasonable under the circumstances of this case.
AFFIRMED.