FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEV EN T HC IRC U IT APR 28 , 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 04- 12420

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 4 - 0 0 9 8 8 - C V- 1 - MHS B A N K W E S T , I N C ., A D V A N C E A M E R I C A , C A S H A D V A N C E C E N T E R S O F G E O R G I A , I N C ., C O M M U N I T Y S T A T E B A N K , F I R S T A M E R I C A N C A S H A D V A N C E O F G E O R G I A , L L C , C A S H A M E R I C A F I N A N C I A L S E R V I C E S , I N C ., G E O R G I A C A S H A M E R I C A , I N C ., F I R S T B A N K O F D E L A W A R E , C R E D I T C O R P O F G E O R G I A , L L C , C O U N T Y B A N K O F R E H O B O T H B E A C H , D E L A W A R E , E X P R E S S C H E C K A D V A N C E O F G E O R G I A , L L C , P la in tif f s - A p p e lla n ts , v ersu s T H U R B E R T E . B A K E R , A tto rn e y G e n e r a l o f th e S ta te o f

G e o r g ia , C A T H Y C O X , S e c r e ta ry o f S ta te , f o rth e S ta te o f

G e o r g ia , in th e iro f

f ic ia l c ap a c itie s , D e f e n d a n ts - A p p e lle e s .

________________________ A pp ea l s f

rom the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e N o r th e rn D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( A p r i l28, 2006)2

B efo re C A RN E S , H U L L an d H IL L , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: T h is ap p e a l h a v in g b e e n r e m a n d e d b y th e e n b a n c c o u r t to th is p a n e l, B a nkW e s t , I nc . v. B a ke r , __ F . 3d __ ( 11th C i r . A pr . 27, 2006) ( e n ba nc ) , w e ha ve be f or e us the i s s ue of

w he the rA ppe l l a nt s ’ appe a l f r om the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s M a y 13, 20 04 order denyi ng thei r m ot i on s f or a pre l i m i naryi nj un ct i on i s now m oo t . A ft er r e v ie w , w e c o n c lu d e th a t it is . A c c o r d in g ly , w e v a c a te o u ro w n p r io rd e c is io n in thi s c a s e , B a nkW e s t , I nc . v. B a ke r , 411 F . 3d 1289 ( 11th C i r . ) , r e h’ g gr a nt e d, 433 F . 3d 1344 ( 11th C i r . 2005) ( e n ba nc ) , va c a t e d __ F . 3d __ ( 11th C i r . A pr . 27, 2006) (e n b anc) , vaca t e the di stri ctcourt ’ s M ay13 , 20 04 order, B ankW es t , Inc. v. B aker , 324 F . S upp. 2d 1333 ( N . D . G a . 2004) ( de ny i ng pr e l i m i na ry i nj unc t i on) , a nd d is m is s th is ap p e a l a s m o o t. I . Fa c t ua lBa c k g r o und A . Th e Pa r t i e s ’ Lo a n Pr o g r a ms T he f ourA ppe l l a ntba nks a r e B a nkW e s t , I nc . ( “ B a nkW e s t ” ) , C ounty B a nk of R ehob oth B ea ch, D el aw ar e ( “ C ou nty B ank”), C om m un i ty S t at e B ank (“ C S B ”) , and F i rs tB ank o f D el aw ar e ( “ F B D ”) . T he A pp el l antbank s a re st at e- chart er ed i ns t i tut i ons l oc a t e d i n S outh D a kot aa nd D e l a w a r e . E a c h ba nk e nt e r e d i nt o a se rvi ci ng agre em entw i th o ne or m ore of the A pp el l antno n-bank part i es , w ho ar e3

A dv ance A m er i ca , C as h A dv ance C ent er s of G eorgi a, Inc. (“ A dv ance A m er i ca ”) , F i rs tA m er i ca n C as h A dv ance of G eorgi a, L L C (“ F i rs tA m er i ca n”), C as h A m er i ca F in a n c ia l S e rv ic e s , I n c . ( “C a s h A m e r ic a ” ) , G e o r g iaC a s h A m e r ic a , I n c . ( “G e o r g ia C as h A m er i ca ”) , C re di t corp of G eorgi a, L L C (“ C re di t corp”), and E xp re ss C heck A dv ance of G eorgi a, L L C (“ E xp re ss C heck”). T he four A pp el l antbank s a re p ai red w i th th ei r i n -st at e ag en t s as fo l l o w s:

• B ankW es tand A dv ance A m er i ca

• C S B an d F i rstA m eri can , C ash A m eri ca, an d G eo rg i a C ash A m er i ca

• C ou nty B ank and E xp re ss C heck

• F B D and C re di t corp A ppe l l a nt s , ba nks a nd a ge nt s , c ont e nde d tha tthe ba nks w e r e m a ki ng l oa ns to G e o r g ia n s u s in g th e n o n - b a n k a g e n ts in G e o r g ia . T h e typ e o f lo a n s a t is s u e in th is c a s e a r e s h o r t- te rm lo a n s th a t a r e s in g le - a d v a n c e , s in g le - p a y m e n t lo a n s , in am ou nt s up t o $ 50 0 for t erm s of f ou r t o forty- fi ve days , w i th m aturi ty dat es general l y c oi nci di ng w i th the bo rr ow er ’ s nextpayday , so thatthe l oans ar e t erm ed

“ p ayd ay l o an s. ” A tm atu ri ty, th e b o rro w er i s req u i red t o rep ay th e p ri n ci p al p l u s a f i na nc e c ha r ge of

a ny w he r e f

r om 17% t o 27% of

the a m ounta dva nc e d, de pe ndi ng on the t e rm of

the l oa n. F oratw o- w e e k l oa n, the s e f i na nc e c ha r ge s a r e e qui va l e nt to a n a n n u a l p e r c e n ta g e r a te o f in te r e s t b e tw e e n 4 4 3 % a n d 5 2 0 % .4

T he pa r t i c ul a rpa y da y l oa n pr ogr a m s a ti s s ue i n thi s appe a l a r e e vi de nc e d by the c ons um e rl oa n a gr e e m e nta nd the s e pa r a t e s e rvi c i ng a gr e e m e ntpr ovi de d by B an k W est , w h i ch w e h av e b een l ed b y th e p art i es t o b el i ev e are typ i cal o f th o se us e d by a l l f

ourba nks a nd the i ri n- s t a t e a ge nt s . P r i ort o the e na c tm e ntof the G e or gi aA c ta ti s s ue , A ppe l l a nt s w e r e m a ki ng a nd a dm i ni s t e r i ng the type of pa y da y l oa n pr ogr a m r e f l e c t e d i n the l oa n a nd s e rvi c i ng a gr e e m e nt s i n the r e c or d. B . P roce du ra l H i st ory In A pri l 20 04 , the G eorgi a l egi sl ature e nact ed S enat e B i l l 15 7, 20 04 G a. L a w s 4 4 0 , n o w c o d if

ie d a t G a . C o d e A n n . § § 1 6 - 1 7 - 1 to 1 6 - 1 7 - 1 0 ( th e “A c t” ) . T h e A c t p r o v id e s th a t its e f f e c tiv e d a te is M a y 1 , 2 0 0 4 . S hor t l y a f

t e rthe A c tw a s pa s s e d, e a c h of the f ourA ppe l l a ntba nks , j oi ne d by i t s G e or gi aa ge ntora ge nt s , f i l e d ac om pl a i nt( the “ c om pl a i nt s ” ) a ga i ns tthe A ppe l l e e s , the G e or gi aA tt orne y G e ne r a l a nd the G e or gi aS e c r e t a ry of S t a t e ( the

“ S t a t e ” ) . E a c h c om pl a i nts oughtat e m por a ry r e s tr a i ni ng or de ra nd pr e l i m i na ry a nd perm anenti nj un ct i ve re l i ef agai nstenforc em entof the A ct , as w el l as a dec l ar at ory j u d g me n tth a tth e p r o v i s i o n s o f th e A c tth a tap p l y t o th e i rp a y d a y l o a n p r o g r a ms and servi ci ng agre em ent s, w hi ch predat ed the A ct , w er e pre em pt ed by fe dera l l aw and w er e uncon st i tut i on al . T he di stri ctcourtconsol i dat ed the four cas es and h ea rd a r g u m e n t o n th e m o tio n s f o rap r e lim in a ry in

ju n c tio n .5

B ec ause the A ctw as sc hedu l ed t o g o i nt o eff ec ton M ay1, 20 04 , the di stri ct courtent er ed a t em po ra ryre stra i ni ng order prohi bi t i ng enforce m entof the A ct agai nstA pp el l ant s i n thei r r es pect i ve cond uctof thei r pay day l oan b usi ness es at i ss ue i n the ca se . T w o da y s be f

or e the t e m por a ry r e s tr a i ni ng or de rw a s s e tt o e xpi r e , the di stri ctcourtdeni ed A pp el l ant s’ m ot i on s f or a pre l i m i naryi nj un ct i on and ref used t o ent eran i nj un ct i on pend i ng appeal . T he di stri ctcourtfoun d thatA pp el l ant s had f a ile d to d e m o n s tr a te alik e lih o o d o f s u c c e s s o n th e m e r its a s to a n y o f th e irc la im s . T he courtal so concl ud ed thatthe bal ance of harm s f avored the S t at e a nd w ei gh ed a g a in s t is s u in g a n in

ju n c tio n a n d th a t e n

jo in in g e n f

o r c e m e n t o f

th e A c t w o u ld h a rm th e p u b lic in te r e s t. A pp el l ant s then fi l ed no t i ce s of app ea l as w el l as m ot i on s a ski ng thi s C ou rt t o i s s ue a n i nj unc t i on pe ndi ng appe a l . W e de ni e d the m ot i ons f ora n i nj unc t i on p e n d in g ap p e a l. O n Ju n e 1 0 , 2 0 0 5 , a p an el o f th is C o u rt af firm ed th e d istrict co u rt’s p r e l i m i n a ry i n

j u n c t i o n ru l i n g i n a2 - 1 d e c i s i o n . S e e B a n k We s t , 4 1 1 F . 3 d 1 2 8 9 . On D e c e m be r28, 2005, thi s C ourte n ba nc gr a nt e d A ppe l l a nt s ’ pe t i t i on f orr e he a r i ng e n ba nc a nd va c a t e d the pa ne l de c i s i on. S e e B a nkW e s t , I nc . v. B a ke r , 433 F . 3d 13 44 (11th C i r. 20 05 ).6

O n M ar ch 15 , 20 06 , w hi l e the ca se w as bei ng bri ef ed atthe en banc st age, the S t a t e f

i l e d as ugge s t i on of

m ootne s s . T he S t a t e c ont e nds tha tthi s appe a l i s now m oo tas a r es ul tof re gu l at ory a ct i on s or a ct i vi t i es of the F eder al D eposi tInsura nce C orpor a t i on ( “ F D I C ” ) tha t , a s apr a c t i c a l m a tt e r , ha ve c a us e d the A ppe l l a ntba nks no ton l y t o cea se m aki ng the type of s ho rt -t erm l oans ati ss ue bu tal so t o w i thd ra w f r om the s e rvi c i ng a gr e e m e nt s tha tw e r e the s ubj e c tof the pr e l i m i na ry i nj unc t i on rul i ng . In short , the S t at e a rgues thatA pp el l ant s a re no l on ger pursui ng or even poi s e d t o pur s ue orr e s um e the pa r t i c ul a r i z e d s hor t - t e rm l oa n pr ogr a m a nd s e rvi c i ng a gr e e m e nt s tha tw e r e the s ubj e c tof the pr e l i m i na ry i nj unc t i on m ot i ons and thi s app ea l . A pp el l ant s f i l ed re spon se s t o the sugg es t i on of m oo tness , w hi ch w e d e ta il la te r , m o s t o f

w h ic h c o n te n d th a t th e ap p e a l is n o t m o o t. O n A pri l 27 , 20 06 , the en banc C ou rtvaca t ed i t s ordergrant i ng re hear i ng en banc and rem anded the appeal t o the panel t o add re ss the m oo tness i ss ue, B a n k W e s t, _

_F .3 d __( 1 1 th C ir . A p r . 2 7 , 2 0 0 6 ) , w h ic h w e n o w d o . I I . D i s c u s s i on A . C e s s a tio n o f

P a y d a y L o a n s a n dS e rv ic in g A g r e e m e n ts T he S t a t e ’ s s ugge s t i on of m ootne s s r e pr e s e nt s tha ta s ar e s ul tof the re gu l at ory a ct i on s or a ct i vi t i es of the F D IC , the A pp el l antbank s have c ea se d m a ki ng the type of

pa y da y l oa ns a ti s s ue i n thi s appe a l a nd ha ve w i thdr a w n f r om7

the s e rvi c i ng a gr e e m e nt s ora ge nc y r e l a t i ons hi ps w i th the A ppe l l a ntnon- ba nk p a r tie s a ls o a t is s u e h e r e . A ppe l l a nt s do notc ont e s tthe S t a t e ’ s f a c tua l r e pr e s e nt a t i ons , a nd i nde e d, th eir w ritt en re sp o n se s a p p ea r to co n ce d e th em . F o r e x am p le, B an k W es t’ s re spon se t o the sugg es t i on of m oo tness ac kn ow l edges that the F D I C . . . a dvi s e d B a nkW e s ttha ti ts houl d e xi tthe pa y da y l e ndi ng b u s in e s s u n le s s it c o u ld im m e d ia te ly p r e s e n t to th e F D I C ap la n a s to h o w it in te n d e d to s a tis f y th e F D I C ’s s ta te d c o n c e rn s . . . . A t th is t i me , Ba n k W e s th a s e l e c t e d n o tt o p u r s u e s u c h ap l a n w i th th e FD I C, a n d is e f f e c tiv e ly o u t o f

th e c la s s ic p a y d a y le n d in g b u s in e s s in G e o r g ia. . . . B an k W estR esp o n se t o S u g g est i o n o f M o o tn ess at7 . S i m i l arl y, C S B ’ s resp o n se s ta te s th a t “[ b ]e c a u s e o f r e g u la to ry p r e s s u r e f

r o m th e F D I C u n r e la te d to th e m e r its o f th is c a s e , th e B a n k is in th e p r o c e s s o f d is c o n tin u in g its P a y d a y L o a n p r o g r a m . . . .” C S B R e s p o n s e to S u g g e s tio n o f M o o tn e s s a t 2 . L ik e w is e , C o u n ty B a n k ’s r e s p o n s e s ta te s th a t [i ] n 2 0 0 5 , th e F D IC i ssu ed i t s G ui de l i ne s on P ay day L e ndi ng w hi ch beca m e e ff

ec t i ve i n Jul y, 20 05 . A s are sul tof these new fe dera l rul es tha tl i m i t e d the num be ra nd dur a t i on of pa y da y l oa ns , C ounty B a nk m a de ade t e rm i na t i on tha ti tw a s no l onge rpr of i t abl e f orC ounty B a nk t o be i nvol ve d w i th thi s type of l e ndi ng. A s of

D e c e m be r14, 2005, C ounty B a nk c e a s e d of

f e r i ng “ pa y da y ” l oa ns a nd, a s of D e c e m be r31, 20 05 , C ou nty B ank end ed i t s r el at i on shi ps w i th al l of i t s l oan s e rv ic e r s . C ou nty B ank and E xp re ss C heck R es po nse t o S ug gest i on of M oo tness at3-4. In8

th e sam e v ei n , F B D ’ s resp o n se st at es th at“ [t ] h e S t at e’ s su g g est i o n o f m o o tn ess w i th r e s pe c tt o . . . [ F B D ] . . . i s ba s e d on apr e s s r e l e a s e i s s ue d by F B D . . . t o the ef fe ctthatthe B ank h as been force d b y the [F D IC ] t o d i sc on t i nu e m aki ng ‘ payday l o an s. ’ ” F B D R esp o n se t o S u g g est i o n o f M o o tn ess at1 . F B D d o es n o tco n t est thati ti ss ued the pres s r el ea se , w hi ch the S t at e provi ded t o thi s C ou rt , or thati thas s to p p e d m a k in g th e typ e o f p a y d a y lo a n s a t is s u e h e r e . A s w e have al re ady not ed, thi s app ea l i nv ol ves aspec i fi c type of s ho rt -t erm l oa n pr ogr a m i n G e or gi a , t e rm e d pa y da y l e ndi ng, tha tw a s c onduc t e d thr ough a pa r t i c ul a rs e tof

l oa n a nd s e rvi c i ng a gr e e m e nt s . T he a m ount s , t e rm s , dur a t i on, a nd c ondi t i ons of

the s hor t - t e rm l oa ns a ti s s ue a nd the e xt e ns i ve pr ovi s i ons of the s e rvi c i ng a gr e e m e nt s f

orm e d the f

a c tua l f ounda t i on of

the pr e l i m i na ry i nj unc t i on ru l i n g i n th e d i s tr i c tc o u r ta n d f r a me d th e i s s u e s o n ap p e a l . Se e Ba n k W e s t , 3 2 4 F. S up p. 2d at13 39 -40; B ankW es t , 41 1 F . 3d at12 92 -96; B ankW es t , 41 1 F . 3d at 1 3 1 2 - 1 4 ( C a rn e s , J ., d is s e n tin g ) . G i ven the re ce ntdevel op m ent s a nd si gn i fi cantchange i n fac tual c i r c um s t a nc e s , i nc l udi ng the c om pl e t e c ol l aps e of the f a c tua l unde rpi nni ng of

the pr e l i m i na ry i nj unc t i on rul i ng, w e a gr e e w i th the S t a t e tha tthe pr e s e ntappe a l f r om th e p rel i m i n ary i n

j u n ct i o n ru l i n g n o l o n g er p resen t s a j u st i ci ab l e co n tro v ersy w i thi n the m ea ni ng of A rt i cl e I II of the C on st i tut i on . W e now di sc uss the ca se -or-9

co n tro v ersy co n strai n to n o u r j u ri sd i ct i o n an dth en ex p l ai n w h y w e m u std i sm i ss th is ap p e a l a s m o o t. B . C as e- or-C on trovers y P ri nci pl es

“ T he rul e tha tf

e de r a l c our t s m a y notde c i de c a s e s tha tha ve be c om e m oot d e r i v e s f r o m Art i c l e I I I ’ s c a s e a n d c o n tr o v e r s y r e q u i r e m e n t . ” S i e rr aC l u b v . E P A, 3 1 5 F .3 d 1 2 9 5 , 1 2 9 9 (1 1 th C ir. 2 0 0 2 ); se e a lso U .S . C o n st. art. III , § 2 . “ ‘[A ]n a c t i o n th a ti s m o o tc a n n o tb e c h a r a c t e r i z e d a s a n a c t i v e c a s e o rc o n tr o v e r s y . ’ ” Al N a jj a rv. A s hc r of

t , 273 F . 3d 1330, 1335 ( 11th C i r . 2001) ( c i t a t i on om i tt e d) . T he

“ ca se -or- controvers y r equi re m entsubsi st s throu gh al l st ages of fe dera l j ud i ci al pr oc e e di ngs , tr i a l a nd appe l l a t e . ” L e w i s v. C ont ’ l B a nk C orp. , 494 U . S . 472, 477, 110 S . C t . 1249, 1253 ( 1990) ; a c c or d H or t on v. C i ty of S t . A ugus t i ne , 272 F . 3d 1 3 1 8 , 1 3 2 6 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) .

“ D i sm i ss al of a m oo tca se i s r equi re d b ec ause m oo tness i s j uri sdi ct i on al . ” S i erra C l u b , 3 1 5 F . 3 d at1 2 9 9 . “ T h e ‘ case o r co n tro v ersy’ co n strai n ti m p o ses a

‘ du al l i m i t at i on ’ kn ow n as ‘ j ust i ci abi l i ty’ on fe dera l court s. ” D e L a T ej a v. U ni t ed S t a t e s , 321 F . 3d 1357, 1361 ( 11th C i r . 2003) ( c i t a t i ons om i tt e d) . “ ‘ T he doc tr i ne of j ust i ci abi l i ty pre vent s c ou rt s f rom encr oachi ng on the po w er s of the el ec t ed branches of governm entand g uara nt ee s thatcourt s c on si der onl y m att er s pre se nt ed in a n a c tu a l a d v e r s a r ia l c o n te x t.’” I d . ( c ita tio n s o m itte d ) .10

A s the S upr e m e C our tha s de f i ne d the doc tr i ne of

m ootne s s , “ ‘ ac a s e i s m oot w h e n th e is s u e s p r e s e n te d a r e n o lo n g e r‘liv e ’ o rth e p a r tie s la c k ale g a lly c ogni z abl e i nt e r e s ti n the out c om e . ’ ” I d. a t1362 ( c i t i ng P ow e l l v. M c C orm a c k, 39 5 U . S . 48 6, 49 6, 89 S . C t . 19 44 , 19 51 (196 9)). A ca se ca n b ec om e m oo tei ther

“ du e t o a change i n [fa ctual ] ci rc um st ance s, or . . . [due t o] a c hang e i n the l aw . ” C oral S pri ng s S t . S ys . , Inc. v. C i ty of S un ri se , 37 1 F . 3d 13 20 , 13 28 (11th C i r. 20 04 ). “ If

a l aw sui ti s m oo t ed by subsequentdevel op m ent s, any dec i si on a f eder al courtm i gh tre nd eron the m er i t s of [ the] ca se w ou l d con st i tut e a n [i m perm i ss i bl e] a d v is o ry o p in io n .” N a t’l A d v e r . C o . v . C ity o f M ia m i, 4 0 2 F .3 d 1 3 2 9 , 1 3 3 2 ( 1 1 th C i r. 2 0 0 5 ), cert . d en i ed , __U . S . __ , 1 2 6 S . C t . 1 3 1 8 (2 0 0 6 ); see al so C o ral S p ri n g s, 37 1 F . 3d at13 28 . “ A n app el l at e c ou rtsi m pl y does nothave j uri sdi ct i on un der A r t i c l e I I I ‘ t o de c i de que s t i ons w hi c h ha ve be c om e m ootby r e a s on of i nt e rve ni ng event s. ’ ” B rook s v. G a. S t at e B d. of E l ec t i on s, 59 F . 3d 11 14 , 11 19 (11th C i r. 1995) ( c i t a t i ons om i tt e d) . “ [ T ] he A r t i c l e I I I ‘ c a s e orc ontr ove r s y ’ r e qui r e m e nt m a nda t e s tha tthe c a s e be vi abl e a ta l l s t a ge s of the l i t i ga t i on; ‘ i ti s nots uf f i c i e nt th a t th e c o n tr o v e r s y w a s liv e o n ly a t its in c e p tio n .’” I d . ( c ita tio n o m itte d ) . W e d e t e rmi n e o n ac a s e - b y - c a s e b a s i s wh e th e rac a s e o rc o n tr o v e r s y e x i s t s . GTE D i re ct ori es P ub l ’ g C orp. v. T ri m en A m . , Inc. , 67 F . 3d 15 63 , 15 67 (11th C i r. 19 95 ); H e n d r ix v . P o o n a i, 6 6 2 F .2 d 7 1 9 , 7 2 1 - 2 2 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 8 1 ) .11

C . A pp l i ca t i on of C as e- or-C on trovers y P ri nci pl es t o T hi s A pp ea l A p p lic a tio n o f

th e s e w e ll- e s tab lis h e d c a s e - o r - c o n tr o v e r s y p r in c ip le s to th is appe a l i s notdi f

f i c ul t . T he pa y da y l oa n pr ogr a m s tha tf orm e d the he a r tof

, a nd ga ve r i s e t o, the pr e l i m i na ry i nj unc t i on rul i ng a r e no l onge rbe i ng us e d by a ny of the A ppe l l a nt s . M or e i m por t a nt l y , the F D I C ha s t a ke n c e r t a i n r e gul a t ory a c t i on and A pp el l ant s have now abando ned thei r s ervi ci ng agre em ent s a nd ar e no l on ger i n apos i t i on t o of

f e r , orr e s um e of

f e r i ng, the pa y da y l oa ns tha tw e r e the s ubj e c tof th e p r e lim in a ry in

ju n c tio n ru lin g . A s ar e s u lt, A p p e lla n ts n o lo n g e rh a v e ale g a lly c o g n iz ab le in te r e s t in o b ta in in g a n in ju n c tio n a g a in s t e n f

o r c e m e n t o f

th e A c t a s it m i ghtha ve appl i e d t o the i rm a ki ng a nd a dm i ni s t e r i ng the s e pa r t i c ul a rtype s of pa y da y l oa ns a nd s e rvi c i ng a gr e e m e nt s . S e e D e L aT e j a , 321 F . 3d a t1362 ( s t a t i ng tha tac a s e i s m ootw he n the pa r t i e s l a c k al e ga l l y c ogni z abl e i nt e r e s ti n the o u tc o m e ) . In d ee d , th e m o ti o n s f

o r a p re li m in ary in

ju n ctio n an d th e d istrict co u rt’s rul i ng on them w er e s peci fi c a s t o the part i cul arl oan p rogram re fl ec t ed i n the l oan a n d s e rv ic in g a g r e e m e n ts in th e r e c o r d . S ta te d a n o th e rw a y , th e ap p e a l b e f o r e u s is aboutthe va l i di ty of

the A c ta s appl i e d t o as pe c i f i c type of

pa y da y l oa n s a i d t o be betw ee n the A pp el l antbank s a nd G eorgi a borrow er s, and servi ce d and m arket ed th r o u g h as p e c if

ic typ e o f

s e rv ic in g a g r e e m e n t b e tw e e n th e b a n k s a n d as p e c if icWe have be foreus only the appe al from the denial of a preliminary injunction, and that 1 is what w eho ld i s mo ot. We do n ot h avebe fo reus theissueof wh e ther t hec omp laint s themselves are moot. That is an issue for the district court to dec ide. 12 typ e o f n o n - b a n k a g e n t in G e o r g ia . W e r e c o g n iz e th a t th e p a r tie s s till d is p u te w he the rthe A c ti s l e ga l l y va l i d. H ow e ve r , A ppe l l a nt s ha ve notj us tc e a s e d but h a v e e x ite d th e p a y d a y lo a n b u s in e s s r e f le c te d in th e lo a n a n d s e rv ic in g a g r e e m e n ts in th e r e c o r d . F o rth a t r e a s o n , th e y n o lo n g e rh a v e ale g a lly c o g n iz ab le in te r e s t in the i s s ue of

w he the rthe A c tc a n be va l i dl y appl i e d t o thos e l oa ns a nd s e rvi c i ng a g r e e m e n ts . I n s h o r t, th e r e is n o a c tu a l a d v e r s a r ia l c o n te x t f o ro u rru lin g in th is appeal . S ee i d. at13 61 (not i ng that“ ‘ court s c on si der onl y m att er s pre se nt ed i n an ac tual advers ar i al cont ext ’ ”) (c i t at i on om i tt ed). T hu s, thi s app ea l of the di stri ct court ’ s deni al of A pp el l ant s’ m ot i on s f or a pre l i m i naryi nj un ct i on no l on ger p resen t s a l i v e co n tro v ersy. 1 A ppe l l a nt s , ora tl e a s ts om e of the m , r a i s e tw o pr i m a ry a r gum e nt s a s t o w hy thei r app ea l of the prel i m i naryi nj un ct i on rul i ng i s notm oo t . W e a dd re ss ea ch a r gum e nti n turn. D . C ol l e c t i on of

P r e - A c tL oa ns T hr e e of the A ppe l l a nt s ( B a nkW e s t , E xpr e s s C he c k, a nd C r e di t c orp) a r gue thatthe appeal i s notm oo tbecause they a l re ady ow n o r m aypu rc hase l oans that w e r e m a d e b e f

o r e th e e f

f e c tiv e d a te o f

th e A c t, w h ic h th e y h a v e n o t c o lle c te d .Notably, in their June 4, 2004 pane l brief, B ankWest and Adva nce America

advised the 2 Court that “Advanc e America ha s been f orce d to cea se all loan orig ination activity on behalf of [BankWest] and will onl y remain open to acc ept principal pay ments for [Ba

nkWest] on loans made by Ba nkWest prior to May

1, 2004, and duringthe term of theTRO.” This indicates that two year s ag o, when initially appealing the district c ourt’s order deny ing them preliminary injunctive relief

, Ba nkWest and Advanc e America a pparently believed that they

could collec t on their pre -Ac t loans, a position that conflicts with their rec ent re sponses to the State’s sug g estion of mootness. 13 T he y s a y tha tthe y a r e a f r a i d t o c ol l e c tthos e l oa ns be c a us e of the thr e a ttha tthe A c t ’ s s a nc t i ons w i l l be appl i e d t o the m . T he y c ont e nd tha tthe A c tc a nnotbe va l i dl y appl i e d t o thos e l oa ns , a nd the r e f or e , the S t a t e s houl d be e nj oi ne d f r om a tte m p tin g to ap p ly it to th e m . M ore s peci fi ca l l y, B ankW es tst at es thati t“ had l oans ou t st andi ng of ov er $8, 100, 000 r e pr e s e nt i ng f unds a dva nc e d on S m a l l E xc e s s R a t e L oa ns pr i ort o the e f f e c t i ve da t e of

the A c t ” tha ti ts t oppe d c ol l e c t i ng due t o the “ r i s k of vi ol a t i ng” the A c t. B a n k W e s t R e s p o n s e to S u g g e s tio n o f M o o tn e s s a t 3 , 5 . B a n k W e s t a s s e r ts th a ti f th e A c tw e r e d e e me d t o b e p r e e mp t e d , i t“ w o u l d e v a l u a t e w h e th e rt o r e s u me c ol l e c t i on a c t i vi t i e s ors e l l i t s por t f ol i o, t a ki ng i nt o a c c ountthe r e l e va ntc os t s a nd be ne f i t s . ” I d. a t5. 2 O ne s e rvi c e r , E xpr e s s C he c k, a s s e r t s tha ti n A pr i l 2004, i ta c qui r e d a l l of C ou nty B ank’ s uncol l ec t ed pre-A ctl oans, w orth app roxi m at el y $38 5, 23 2, and that i tceased co l l ect i n g th o se l o an s as o f th e effecti v e d at e o f th e A ct . A d d i t i o n al l y, C r e d itc o rp , a n o th e rs e rv ic e r , s ta te s th a t it “in te n d s to c o lle c t lo a n s c u rr e n tly14

ou t st andi ng t o [F B D ] . . . i f the G eorgi a l aw i s pre em pt ed, ” a l tho ug h C re di t corp c o n c e d e s th a t it “h a s n o t p u r c h a s e d a n y o f th e lo a n s m a d e b y F B D ” a n d is o n ly “in f o rm e d ” th a t “F B D w o u ld n e e d C r e d itc o rp to c o lle c t th o s e lo a n s in G e o r g ia ” if a nd w he n the G e or gi al a w w a s ove r turne d. D e c l . of C r e di t c orp P r e s i de ntS t e ve S c o g g in s a t 2 ( “S c o g g in s D e c l.” ) . T he i ns urm ount abl e hur dl e f orA ppe l l a nt s i s tha tthe s e unc ol l e c t e d l oa ns , by A p p e lla n ts ’ o w n a d m is s io n , w e r e m a d e p r io rto th e e f f e c tiv e d a te o f

th e A c t, a n d in thi s c a s e , the S t a t e ha s ne ve rs ugge s t e d tha tthe A c tappl i e s r e tr oa c t i ve l y t o l oa ns m ade before the ef

fe ct i ve dat e of the A ct . Indeed, the S t at e c on ce ded i n the di stri ct c our ttha tthe A c tdoe s notappl y t o pr e - A c tl oa ns , the di s tr i c tc our ta gr e e d, B a n k W e s t, 3 2 4 F . S u p p . 2 d a t 1 3 5 6 , a n d n o p a r ty h a s s u g g e s te d in its ap p e lla te b r ie f s th a t th e A c t d o e s ap p ly to p r e - e n a c tm e n t lo a n s . T here fore , al tho ug h som e A pp el l ant s ow n o r m aypu rc hase un col l ec t ed preA c tl oa ns , the r e i s no c a s e orc ontr ove r s y a s t o thos e l oa ns . S e e G r a ha m v. B ut t erw orth, 5 F . 3d 49 6, 50 0 (11 th C i r. 19 93 ) ( w here F l ori da A tt orney G ener al a nd l oc a l s t a t e a tt orne y ha d “ r e pe a t e dl y s t a t e d tha tthe s t a tut e doe s notpr ohi bi tthe ap p e lla n ts ’ p r o p o s e d c o n d u c t . . . [ ,] th e ap p e lle e s [ c o u ld n o t] e n f o r c e [ th e ] s ta tu te agai nstthe appel l ant s, ” a nd the ca se w as “ re nd er [e d] . . . m oo t ”) ; se e a l so C hri st i an C oal . of A l a. v. C ol e, 35 5 F . 3d 12 88 , 12 93 (11th C i r. 20 04 ) ( ca se w as m oo tw here15

th e “ su p p o sed ‘ en fo rcem en tp o l i cy’ ” o f a reg u l at o ry b o d y w as ev i d en ced o n l y b y a w i thd ra w n adv i soryop i ni on and the pl ai nt i ff s c ou l d b e “ re as on abl y c ert ai n” that c h a r g e s w o u ld n e v e rb e f ile d u n d e rth e e n f

o r c e m e n t p o lic y ) . I n d e e d , A p p e lla n ts m ake no al l egat i on thatthe S t at e or a nyon e e l se has threa t ened t o p rose cut e them u n d e rth e A c t f

o rth e irp r e - A c t lo a n s . F u r th e rm o r e , e v e n w ith o u t th e G e o r g iaA tto rn e y G e n e r a l’s e x p lic it conces si on , there w ou l d b e no credi bl e or obj ec t i vel y r ea sonabl e threa tof future e nf or c e m e ntof

the A c ta ga i ns tthe s e pr e - A c tl oa ns . C f . D oe v. P ry or , 344 F . 3d 12 82 , 12 87 -88 (11 th C i r. 20 03 ) ( pl ai nt i ff s l ac ked st andi ng t o chal l enge a s t atut ory prov i si on w here there w as no cr edi bl e threa tof thei r bei ng prosec ut ed un der i taf t er th e s ta te a tto rn e y g e n e r a l h a d s ta te d th a t it c o u ld n o t b e c o n s titu tio n a lly ap p lie d to th e m a n d w h e r e f

e a ro f p r o s e c u tio n w a s n o t “o b je c tiv e ly r e a s o n ab le ” ) . G e o r g ia la w is c le a rth a t th e A c t d o e s n o t ap p ly to th e s e p r e - A c t lo a n s . T h e G e o r g ia S u p r e m e C o u r t h a s h e ld th a t as ta tu te ap p lie s o n ly p r o s p e c tiv e ly u n le s s th e s ta tu te i t s e l f e x p r e s s l y s t a t e s o th e rwi s e . Se e Po l i t o v . Ho l l a n d , 2 5 8 Ga . 5 4 , 5 5 , 3 6 5 S. E. 2d 273, 273 ( 1988) ( s ubs t a nt i ve s t a tut e s “ pr e s c r i be f orthe f utur e a nd tha ti s the c ons truc t i on t o be gi ve n unl e s s the r e i s ac l e a rc ontr a ry i nt e nt i on s how n” ) . T he Ac tc o n t a i n s n o s t a t e m e n tth a ti tap p l i e s r e tr o a c t i v e l y , a n d th u s , u n d e rGe o r g i al a w, i tappl i es on l y prospec t i vel y. F urtherm ore, the G eorgi a C od e i t se l f provi des that16

“[ l]a w s p r e s c r ib e o n ly f o rth e f u tu r e ; th e y c a n n o t im p a irth e o b lig a tio n o f c o n tr a c ts n o r , o r d in a r ily , h a v e ar e tr o s p e c tiv e o p e r a tio n .” G a . C o d e A n n . § 1 - 3 - 5 ( e m p h a s is a d d e d ) . T h u s , b e c a u s e p r o s e c u tio n u n d e rth e A c t a s to p r e - A c t lo a n s c le a r ly w o u ld be c ontr a ry t o G e or gi al a w , a s w e l l a s t o the c l e a ra nd une qui voc a l pos i t i on of the G eorgi a A tt orney G ener al , thi s app ea l i s m oo ti n spi t e of the exi st ence of the preA c t lo a n s . T he r e ne ve rw a s a ny c ontr ove r s y i n thi s appe a l aboutw he the rthe A c tc a n be ap p lie d to th e u n c o lle c te d lo a n s th a t w e r e m a d e b e f o r e th e A c t’s e f

f e c tiv e d a te . A l tho ug h, as w e w i l l expl ai n l at er , m oo tness re qu i re s thatw e vac at e the di stri ct court ’ s order , the di stri ctcourti n thi s c as e c on cl ud ed, as w e do, that“ [u] nd er G e o r g iala w , as ta tu te is p r e s u m e d to ap p ly o n ly p r o s p e c tiv e ly u n le s s it e x p r e s s ly st at es otherw i se . ” B ankW es t , 32 4 F . S up p. 2d at13 56 . O n thatbasi s, the di stri ct courtre j ec t ed the A pp el l ant s’ cl ai m s thatthe G eorgi a s t atut e w as “ an unc ons t i tut i ona l e x pos tf a c t o l a w i ns of

a ra s the de f

a c t o l e nde rpr ovi s i ons c r im in a liz e lo a n s th a t w e r e le g a lly m a d e b e f o r e th e e f

f e c tiv e d a te o f

th e A c t.” I d . T ha trul i ng— tha tthe A c tdi d notappl y t o l oa ns m a de pr i ort o the e f f e c t i ve da t e of the A c t

— w a s notc ont e s t e d on appe a l by a ny pa r ty . T hi s i s y e ta nothe ri ndi c a t i on tha tthe r e i s no c r e di bl e orobj e c t i ve l y r e a s onabl e thr e a tof pr os e c ut i on unde rthe A c t a g a in s t A p p e lla n ts w ith r e g a r d to th e irp r e - A c t lo a n s .To the extent that the other Appe llants adopt these arguments as their own, or argue that 3 if thec a seis n ot m oo t a s toon epa rt y it i s n ot m oo t a s toall p artie s, wec on sider t ho searguments a s w e ll. 17 A c c or di ngl y , w e r e

j e c tA ppe l l a nt s ’ a r gum e nttha tthi s appe a l i s notm ootdue to u n c o lle c te d , p r e - A c t lo a n s . E. N e w Lo a n Pr o g r a ms T hr e e A ppe l l a nt s ( C S B , F B D , a nd C r e di t c orp) a r gue tha tthi s appe a l i s not m oo tbecause they i nt end t o d evel op , or ar e i n the process of devel op i ng , a new c o n s u m e rlo a n p r o g r a m , a n d th e p r e s e n c e o f th e A c t in te r f

e r e s w ith th e irab ility to de ve l op ne w l oa n pr oduc t s . F ore xa m pl e , C S B ’ s r e s pons e t o the s ugge s t i on of 3 m oo tness i nd i ca t es that“ atthe sa m e t i m e a s i ti s w i nd i ng do w n i t s P ay day L oan pr ogr a m , [ i t ] i s a c t i ve l y w orki ng on adi f f e r e ntc ons um e rl e ndi ng pr ogr a m ( the

“ N e w Pr o g r a m” ) w i th Pl a i n t i f f Ca s h A me r i c aFi n a n c i a l Se rv i c e s , I n c . . . . ” CSB R e s p o n s e to S u g g e s tio n o f M o o tn e s s a t 2 - 3 ( e m p h a s is a d d e d ) . C S B a r g u e s th a t its n e w , b u t d if

f e r e n t, lo a n p r o g r a m m ig h t c o m p ly w ith th e F D I C ’s n e w ru le s b u t s till v io la te th e A c t. S i m i l ar l y, w hi l e F B D i s di sc on t i nu i ng the part i cul arpaydayl oan p rogram thati s the subj ec tof thi s app ea l , F B D as se rt s thatthe A ct“ defi nes the t erm

‘ pa y da y l oa ns ’ m uc h m or e br oa dl y tha n doe s the F D I C ” a nd m or e br oa dl y tha n the type of pa y da y l oa ns tha tF B D i s di s c ont i nui ng. F B D R e s pons e t o S ugge s t i on of18

M oo tness at1. F rom thi s s t at em ent , F B D al so ar gu es thati tm aydevel op a new lo a n p r o g r a m th a t m a y c o m p ly w ith th e F D I C ’s n e w ru le s b u t th a t m a y s till v io la te th e A ct . A d d i t i o n al l y, C red i t co rp i n d i cat es th ati t“ w o u l d co n si d er m ark et i n g th ese b a n k p r o d u c ts in G e o r g ia ” if th e A c t w e r e d e c la r e d in v a lid . S c o g g in s D e c l. a t 1 . T he fa ctthatsom e A pp el l ant s m aybe re t oo l i ng thei r busi ness pl ans, m ay de ve l op a nothe rtype of s hor t - t e rm l oa n, a nd m a y e nt e ri nt o ne w s e rvi c i ng a gr e e m e nt s w i th the non- ba nk pa r t i e s i n G e or gi adoe s notke e p thi s appe a l f r om be i ng m oot . T he pr e c i s e na tur e of the ne w butdi f

f e r e ntl oa n pr ogr a m s a nd the m a nne ri n w hi c h the y a r e t o be a dm i ni s t e r e d i n G e or gi ar e m a i n f a rt oo s pe c ul a t i ve a nd abs tr a c ta tthi s j unc tur e t o c r e a t e a n a c tua l c a s e orc ontr ove r s y . S e e C hur c h of S c i e nt ol ogy of

C a l . v. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 506 U . S . 9, 12, 113 S . C t . 447, 449 ( 1992) ( “ I tha s l ong be e n s e tt l e d tha taf e de r a l c our tha s no a uthor i ty ‘ t o gi ve opi ni ons u p o n m o o t q u e s tio n s o rab s tr a c t p r o p o s itio n s . . . .’” ) ( c ita tio n o m itte d ) . F urtherm ore, there has bee n n o sho w i ng thateven i f A pp el l ant s w er e t o cre at e new lo a n p r o g r a m s a n d e n te rin to n e w s e rv ic in g a g r e e m e n ts , th e y w o u ld b e ab le to sa t i sf y the re l evantre gu l at ory autho ri t i es . T he m er e possi bi l i ty of new l oan prog ra m s i s notsuff

i ci entt o p re se nta j ust i ci abl e c on trovers y. If w e a dd re ss ed i ss ues thatm i gh tar i se , w e w ou l d b e r enderi ng an advi soryop i ni on on future c onduc ta nd e ve nt s tha tm a y ne ve roc c ur , s om e thi ng w hi c h A r t i c l e I I I doe s not19

p e rm it u s to d o . B as ed on a s pecul at i ve, abstra ctse tof fa ctual ci rc um st ance s thatm ayor m ay notc om e t o pa s s , A ppe l l a nt s a r e a s ki ng thi s C our tt o de c l a r e pr e e m pt e d a nd u n c o n s titu tio n a l a n A c t o f th e G e o r g iale g is la tu r e . I t m a y o rm a y n o t b e th a t a f utur e l oa n pr ogr a m , i f

one i s de ve l ope d by A ppe l l a nt s a nd i f i tdoe s notrun a f

oul o f r e g u la to ry a u th o r itie s , c o u ld ju s tif y am o tio n f

o rle a v e to a m e n d th e c o m p la in t, or a new m ot i on for aprel i m i naryi nj un ct i on , i f the future turns ou tthe w ay A pp el l ant s hop e i tdo es . B uttho se “ i f’ s, ” thatspec ul at i on , and tho se cont i ng enci es c a n n o t k e e p th e c u rr e n t ap p e a l o f th e p r e lim in a ry in

ju n c tio n ru lin g , tie d a s it is to the pr i orl oa n pr ogr a m s a nd s e rvi c i ng a gr e e m e nt s , f r om be i ng m oot . S e e E thr e dge v. H a i l , 996 F . 2d 1173, 1174- 76 ( 11th C i r . 1993) ( w he r e pl a i nt i f f’ s i ni t i a l m ot i on f o rap r e lim in a ry in

ju n c tio n w a s s p e c if

ic in s e e k in g r e lie f

s o th a t p la in tif

f c o u ld di spl ayst i cker s c ri t i ca l of form erP re si dentB ush, w ho w as no l on ger i n o ff i ce , appeal w as m oo tbecause the adm i ni stra t i ve order ati ss ue on l y f orbade st i cker s cr i t i ca l of the “ C om m ander i n C hi ef ”; pl ai nt i ff’ s “ prop ensi ty t o cri t i ci ze P r e s i de nt i a l pol i c i e s ” a nd l i ke l i hood of c r i t i c i z i ng f

utur e pr e s i de nt s di d notpr e s e nt al i ve c ontr ove r s y a s t o the appe a l of the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s pr e l i m i na ry i nj unc t i on ru lin g ) ; W a k e f

ie ld v . C h u r c h o f

S c ie n to lo g y o f

C a l., 9 3 8 F .2 d 1 2 2 6 , 1 2 2 9 n .1 ( 1 1 th C i r. 19 91 ) ( “ T hi s [ C ] ou rtre vi ew s the ca se tri ed i n the di stri ctcourt ; i tdo es no ttry20

e v e r - c h a n g in g th e o r ie s p a r tie s f a s h io n d u r in g th e ap p e lla te p r o c e s s .” ) . I n s um , the r e i s aj us t i c i abi l i ty gap i n thi s c a s e be c a us e A ppe l l a nt s ha ve di s c ont i nue d the i rol d l oa n pr ogr a m s a nd s e rvi c i ng a gr e e m e nt s a nd ha ve not re pl ac ed them w i th any new on es pres ent i ng the sa m e l egal i ss ues thatw er e deci ded b y the di stri ctcourtw hen i tdeni ed A pp el l ant s’ m ot i on s f or prel i m i nary i nj unc t i on. I f

w e w e r e t o rul e on thos e l e ga l i s s ue s , w hi c h a r e no l onge rpr e s e nt e d, w e w o u ld b e “o v e r s te p p in g o u rju d ic ia l a u th o r ity ” b y r e n d e r in g a n “im p e rm is s ib le a d v is o ry o p in io n ab o u t an o n - e x is tin g ” s e t o f f a c ts . C o le , 3 5 5 F .3 d a t 1 2 9 3 . T hus , w e r e

j e c tA ppe l l a nt s ’ c l a i m s tha tthe i ri nt e nt , a s pi r a t i ons , orongoi ng ef fort s t o d evel op a new l oan p rogram thatthey hop e w i l l do dg e a ny F D IC obj e c t i ons butthi nk m a y s t i l l vi ol a t e the A c tke e ps thi s c urr e ntappe a l f r om b e c o m in g m o o t. I I I . C on c l u s i on F or al l of the foregoi ng re as on s, w e c on cl ud e thatthe di stri ctcourt ’ s deni al o f A p p e lla n ts ’ m o tio n s f

o rap r e lim in a ry in

ju n c tio n — th e o n ly ru lin g a t is s u e in th is ap p e a l— is m o o t. T h is c o n c lu s io n c o m p e ls u s to d is m is s th is ap p e a l a n d to v a c a te the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s or de r , be c a us e “ w he n a n i s s ue i n ac a s e be c om e s m ooton ap p eal , [w e] n o to n l y m u std i sm i ss as t o th e m o o t ed i ssu e, b u t[w e m u st ] al so va c a t e the por t i on of

the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s or de rtha ta ddr e s s e s i t . ” D e L aT e j a , 32121

F . 3d at13 64 ; se e a l so S ol i m an v. U ni t ed S t at es , 29 6 F . 3d 12 37 , 12 43 (11th C i r. 2002) ( “ U nde rourpr e c e de nt , w he n ac a s e be c om e s m ooton appe a l , [ w e ] m us tnot o n ly d is m is s th e c a s e , b u t a ls o v a c a te th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s o r d e r .” ) . Ou rwe l l - e s t ab l i s h e d p r a c t i c e o f v a c a t i n g th e d i s tr i c tc o u r t ’ s o r d e rwh e n we di sm i ss a m oo tappeal “ cl ea rs the path for future r el i t i gat i on of the i ss ues betw ee n the pa r t i e s a nd e l i m i na t e s aj udgm e nt , r e vi e w of w hi c h w a s pr e ve nt e d thr ough h ap p e n s ta n c e .” S o lim a n , 2 9 6 F .3 d a t 1 2 4 3 ( c ita tio n s a n d q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itte d ) . I f A ppe l l a nt s do e ve ntua l l y c r e a t e ne w l oa n pr ogr a m s a nd e nt e ri nt o ne w s e rvi c i ng a gr e e m e nt s tha ta r e notbl oc ke d by the r e gul a t ory a uthor i t i e s buta r e pr ohi bi t e d by th e A ct , A p p el l an t s sh o u l d n o tb e “ fo rced t o acq u i esce i n [th e d i stri ctco u rt ’ s] m oot , a dve r s e de c i s i on” w i thoutha vi ng ha d the be ne f i tof f ul l appe l l a t e r e vi e w on the m e r i t s of

tha tde c i s i on. A l N a

jj a r , 273 F . 3d a t1340; s e e a l s o D e L aT e j a , 321 F . 3d at13 64 . R ather, i f a l l these event s a nd cont i ng enci es do occur, the part i es m aythen el ec tt o l i t i gat e the i ss ues c re at ed by the new l oan p rogram s a nd new s e rvi c i ng a gr e e m e nt s . A c c or di ngl y , w e va c a t e ourpr i orde c i s i on, B a nkW e s t , 411 F . 3d 1289, w e va c a t e the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s M a y 13, 2004 or de rde ny i ng the m ot i ons fo r p rel i m i n ary i n

j u n ct i v e rel i ef, B an k W est , 3 2 4 F . S u p p . 2 d 1 3 3 3 , an d w e d i sm i ss th is ap p e a l a s m o o t. PR I O R D EC I SI O N VA C A TED , D I STR I C T C O U R T O R D ER V AC AT E D, AN D A P P E AL DI S MI S S E D.