Captiva Restaurant Files Lawsuit Over Sand Dune Blocking Sunset Views, Seeks $10.5M
The Mucky Duck restaurant on Captiva Island filed a lawsuit against the Captiva Erosion Prevention District and its board of commissioners on Dec. 8, 2025. Mucky Duck Inc. and Lucky…
The Mucky Duck restaurant on Captiva Island filed a lawsuit against the Captiva Erosion Prevention District and its board of commissioners on Dec. 8, 2025. Mucky Duck Inc. and Lucky Duck Re LLC claim the district broke the law when it built a 12-foot artificial sand barrier blocking the restaurant's sunset views.
The lawsuit argues the district and board misused their powers. Those powers were granted for beach and shore preservation, not for building barriers like this one. The complaint contains 12 points and includes unconstitutional taking and inverse condemnation that violate both the United States and Florida constitutions. Private nuisance serves as another basis.
The beachfront eatery has asked for a jury trial. Owners want the court to award at least $10.5 million in damages, plus unspecified special damages, declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and any other appropriate relief.
The barrier went up as part of a beach renourishment project on the island. Officials at CEPD say it protects the area from hurricanes, storm surge, and rising seas.
Sunset views have drawn guests to this establishment for decades. That experience has been blocked by the new barrier, which created the basis for legal action.
The restaurant is rebuilding after back-to-back hurricanes damaged it. The barrier construction has added another layer of difficulty for the business during its recovery.
The case centers on whether the district had authority to build the 12-foot structure. Legal arguments will focus on property rights, constitutional protections, and the scope of powers granted to erosion prevention districts.
Beach renourishment projects have grown more common along Florida's Gulf Coast in recent years. These efforts fight erosion and protect coastal properties from storm damage and rising water levels.
The controversy shows tensions between coastal protection measures and businesses that depend on unobstructed water views. No trial date has been set.
