Jacksonville Property Rights, et al v. City of Jacksonville

Filing

Opinion issued by court as to Appellants Hartsock Enterprises, Inc., Horton Enterprises, Inc. and Jacksonville Property RIghts Association, Inc.. Decision: Affirmed. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam. Motion to dismiss appeal without prejudice filed by Appellants Jacksonville Property RIghts Association, Inc. and Horton Enterprises, Inc. is DENIED as MOOT. [6681036-2], Motion to dismiss appeal without prejudice filed by Appellant Hartsock Enterprises, Inc. is DENIED as MOOT. [6675419-2].(See 11/13/12 opinion)(GBT/SM/PAK)

Case: 12-11197

Date Filed: 11/13/2012

Page: 1 of 3

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 12-11197
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 3:05-cv-01267-MMH-JRK

JACKSONVILLE PROPERTY RIGHTS ASSOCIATION, INC.,
a Florida non-profit corporation,
HORTON ENTERPRISES, INC.,
a Florida corporation,
d.b.a. The New Solid Gold,
HARTSOCK ENTERPRISES, INC.,
a Florida corporation,
d.b.a. Doll House,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

E.M.R.O. CORPORATION, INC., etc., et al.,
lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll

Plaintiffs,
versus

CITY OF JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA,
a Florida municipal corporation,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll

Defendant - Appellee.

Case: 12-11197

Date Filed: 11/13/2012

Page: 2 of 3

________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(November 13, 2012)
Before TJOFLAT, MARCUS and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
In Jacksonville Property Rights Ass'n, Inc. v. City of Jacksonville, 635 F.3d
1266, 1277 (11th Cir. 2011), we dismissed the parties' appeals, vacated the District
Court’s judgment, and remanded the case to the District Court “with instructions
to dismiss this action.” Following the issuance of our mandate, appellants moved
the District Court for leave to amend their complaint and for other relief. The
District Court, following the mandate rule, see Piambino v. Bailey, 757 F.2d 1112,
1120 (11th Cir. 1985), dismissed the case1, “reserv[ing] jurisdiction to consider any
timely filed motions for attorneys’ fees and costs.”
Appellants now appeal the District Court’s ruling. The District Court did
precisely what our mandate instructed it to do, i.e., dismiss the action. We
accordingly affirm.

1

We construe the dismissal to be without prejudice, since the basis for our disposition of
the parties’ appeals was that the case was moot.
2

Case: 12-11197

Date Filed: 11/13/2012

AFFIRMED.

3

Page: 3 of 3