Jacksonville Property Rights, et al v. City of Jacksonville


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)

Download PDF
Case: 12-11197 Date Filed: 11/13/2012 Page: 1 of 3 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 12-11197 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C.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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?