FI LED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEV ENT H CI RCUI T FEBRUARY 24, 2 009 T HOMAS K . KAHN CLERK [PUBLIS H] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 7- 12 01 2

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 9 8- 06 05 6- CV-J AL MIC COSUKEE TRIBE OF INDIANS OF FLORIDA, FRIENDS OF THE EVERGLAD ES, Pl ai nt iff s- App el la nt s, UNITED STAT ES ARMY CORP S OF ENGINEERS, et al ., In te rv en or -Pl ai nt iff s, ve rs us SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll ee.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e So uthe rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Feb ru ary 24 , 20 09 )Befo re DUBINA an d C ARNES, Cir cu itJu dg es , andGOLDBERG, Ju dg e. * CARNES, Ci rcu itJu dg e: Thi s i s a t al e o f two cas es , on e o f whi ch is be fo re u s i n t hi s ap pe al . The cas es are s ix an d e le ve n years o ldan d t og ethe r ha ve ge ne rat edm or e th antwel ve hu nd reddo ck eten tri es in th e d is tri ctco urt. On e cas e h as be ento th e Supr em e Co urt, wh ere i t was rem an de d b ackto us , andth enwe se ntitalo ng to th e d is tri ct co urt i n 2 00 4; th e o th er o ne wentto tri al fortwo m on th s i n 2 00 6. Th e two cas es ha ve a lo t i n c omm on . The y sh are t he same pla in ti ffs (th e Mi cco su ke e Trib e an d t he Fri en ds of t he Eve rg la de s) an d t he same defe nd an t (t he So ut h F lo rid a Water M an ag em en t Dis tri ct ), an d t he y

bo th pre se ntth e is su e o f whe th er the Cle anW at er Actrequi res th e Water Di st ric t t o o bt ai n Nat io na l Po ll ut io n Di sc ha rg e Eli m in at io n S y st em (NPDES) p erm it s fo r it s p um p s ta ti on s. On e la wsu it , th e “ S-2 cas e,” cl ai m s t ha t pe rm it s ar e requi redforpu m p s ta ti on s S- 2, S- 3, an d S -4 , whi ch m ov e p ol lu te d wate r fro m

th e Eve rg la de s Ag ric ul tu ral Area cana ls in to Lake Okee ch ob ee. The pr es en t l aws ui t, the “ S-9 cas e,” cl ai m s t ha t a p erm itis requi redforpu m p s ta ti on S-

Honora ble Richard W. Goldber g , J udg e, United States Court of International Trade , * sitti ngby designation . 29, wh ic h m ov es po ll ut edwate r fro m th e C-1 1 c an al s i nt o WaterCo ns erv at io n Are a 3A (WCA-3 A). Afte r th e S-2 cas e was tri edto fin al jud gm en t i n 2 00 6, the di st ric t co urt st ay edit s p ro ceed in gs in th e S-9 cas e p en di ng ap pe al of t he S-2 jud gm en t. The ap pe al of t he S-2 jud gm en t i s s ti ll pe nd in g i n t hi s C ou rt. Se e Fri en ds of t he Eve rg la de s, In c. v. S. Fl a. W at er Mg m t. Di st ., 20 06 W L 36 35 46 5 (S .D. Fla. Dec. 11 , 20 06 ), No. 0 7- 13 82 9 (app eal do ck et edAug . 13 , 20 07 ). Thi s ap pe al ch al le ng es th e st ay ord er tha t t he di stric t co urt o n i ts own m ot io n e nt eredin th e S-9 cas e p en di ng th e o ut co m e o f th e ap pe al in th e o th er ca se . The fi rs t, an d a s i t turns ou t, the las t i ss ue we ne edto ad dr es s i s wh ethe r we h av e juri sd ic ti on to rev ie w th e st ay ord er u nd er 2 8 U.S.C. § 12 91 . The jur is di ct io n qu es ti on requi res us to de ci de whet he r th e st ay ord er i n t hi s ca se pu t t he pl ai nt iff s

“ effe ct iv el y

ou t o f co urt” an d wh ethe r th e co ll at eral ord er d oc tri ne ap pl ie s h ere. I. A. Thi s ca se was fi le d i n t he di st ric t co urt i n J anua ry 19 98 . The Fri en ds of t he Eve rg la de s an d t he Mi cco su ke e Trib e su edth e Water Di st ric t, co nt en di ng th atit s 1

The Micc osukee Tribe and F riends of the Everg lades initially filed sepa

rate lawsuits 1 ag ainst the Water District, but the ca ses wer e consolidate d in May 1998. 3S-9 pu m

p s ta ti on requi redanNPDES perm it . In 1 99 9 t he di st ric t co urt g ran te d su m m ary jud gm en t t o the pl ai nt iff s b ecau se th e co urt fo un d t ha t t he S-9 pu m p qu al ifi edas apo in t s ou rce a ndm ov edpo ll ut edwate r fro m on e d is ti nc t wat er b od y in to an ot he r. Mi cco su ke e Trib e o f In di an s v . S. Fla . W at er Mg m t. Di st ., 19 99 W L 33 49 48 62 , at * 7 (S .D. Fla. Se pt . 30 , 19 99 ). W e aff irmed th e d is tri ctco urt’s ru li ng on th e Cl ean W at er Actis su e. Mi cco su ke e Trib e o f In di an s v . S. Fla . W at er Mg m t. Di st ., 28 0 F .3d13 64 , 13 71 (11 th Cir . 20 02 ). The Supr em e Co urt g ran te d re vi ew an d d eci de d t ha t t he S-9 pu m p was a po in t s ou rce u nd er the Cle anW at er Act . The Co urt, h owe ve r, di d n otde ci de whe th er the C-1 1 c an al s an d WCA-3A wer e “ m ean in gf ul ly dis ti nc t” wate r bo di es . See S . Fla . W at er Mg m

t. Di st . v. Mi cco su ke e Trib e o f In di an s, 5 41 U.S. 95 , 11 2, 12 4 S . Ct. 1 53 7, 1 54 7 (2 00 4) . Ins te ad , th e Co urt re m an de d t he cas e fo r fu rth er fact fin di ng on th atpo in t an d fo r co ns id erat io n o f th e Water Di stric t’s “ un it ary wate rs ” arg um en t. Id . Und er the un it ary wate rs th eo ry all na vi gabl e wat ers are co ns id eredto be on e b ody of wa te r, so th atm ov in g apo ll ut an t fr om on e n av ig ab le wate r to an ot he r wou ldno t am ou ntto th e “ ad di ti on of apo ll ut an t t o t he na vi gabl e wate rs ” u nd er the Cle anW at er Act . Id. at10 7– 09 , 12 4 S . Ct. at15 43 –4 5. If t ha t th eo ry ho ld s wat er, the W at er Di st ric t wo ul d n otne edanNPDES perm itev enif th e wat er co ns erv at io n a rea a ndth e can al s wer e m ean in gf ul ly dis ti nc t wat er 4bo di es . Id. W e rem an de d the cas e to th e d is tri ctco urt fo r fu rth er p ro ceed in gs in

Nov em be r 20 04 . It h as be enpe nd in g t he re ev er s in ce. B. The pa ral le l S- 2 c as e, whi ch co nc ern s wh ethe r th e Water Di st ric t’s o th er pu m ps (S-2 , S-3 , andS-4 ) requi re an NPDES perm it , was fi le d b y th e sa m e pl ai nt iff s (a ndso m e o th ers ) ag ai ns t t he same defe nd an t i n 2 00 2. The pro ceed in gs in th e S-2 cas e were s ta y edforni ne te enm on th s u nt il th e Supr em e Co urt’s de ci si on in th e S-9 cas e was is su ed . See Mi cco su ke e, 54 1 U.S. 9 5, 1 24 S. Ct. 15 37 . Then th e S-2 cas e was re-o pe ne d. InJan uary

20 06 th e S-2 cas e wen t t o t ria l, wh ic h l as te d n earl y two m on th s an d i nv ol ve d m or e th ana do zen ex pe rt wi tn es se s an d o ne hu nd redan d fi fty ex hi bi ts . The d is tri ctco urt i ss ue d a10 7- pa ge rul in g c on cl ud in g t ha t the Eve rg la de s Ag ric ul tu ral Area cana ls an d Lak e Oke ech ob ee— th e wat er b od ie s co nn ect edby the S-2 , S-3 , andS-4 pu m ps — were m ean in gf

ul ly dis ti nc t wat er bo di es , andth atth e p um

ps requi redanNPDES perm itbe cau se th ey m ov ed po ll ut an ts fro m

th e can al s i nt o t he Lake . Frie nd s o f th e Eve rg la de s v . S. Fla . W at er Mg m

t. Di st ., 20 06 W L 36 35 46 5, at*5 1 (S .D. Fla. Dec. 1 1, 2 00 6) . In the co ur se of r each in g tha t co nc lu si on , th e co urt re jecte d t he W at er Di st ric t’s u ni ta ry wate rs th eo ry . Id. at*4 3. 5C.

Mea nwh il e, th is cas e—b ackfro m it s t rip to th e Supr em e Co urt—was b ei ng ha nd le d i n t he same dis tri ctby a dif fere ntjud ge . In l ig htof the S-2 de ci si on , and wit ho uta reque stfro m

th e p art ie s, s he is su eda st ay in th is cas e. The s ta y

ord er st at edth at“ itis ex tre m el y li ke ly tha t an ap pe al is forth co m in g i n [t he S-2 cas e], whi chis m

uc h fu rth er al on g i n i ts pro ceed in gs th anth e in st an t [S -9 ] cas e.” The or de r no te d “ ex te ns iv e si m il ari ti es ” b etweenth e is su es in th e cas es an d fo un d t ha t

“ th e in te res ts of ju st ic e an d ju di ci al eco no m y , in cl ud in g a vo id in g i nc on si st en t res ul ts , th e dup li cat io n o f effo rts , andth e was te of ju di ci al res ou rces , wil l b e pr om ot edby gran ti ng a st ay of t hi s p ro ceed in g.” Unl es s ex te nd edby writ te n or de r, th e st ay

was t o e xp ire aft er o ne y ear o r atth e co nc lu si on of t he ap pe al s o f th e S-2 cas e, whi ch ev er ca m e fi rs t. Thi s i s t he Mi cco su ke e Trib e an d t he Fri en ds 2 of th e Eve rg la de s’ app eal fro m th e st ay ord er. II . The Fri en ds of t he Ever gl ad es an d t he Mi cco su ke e Trib e co nt en d t ha t t he di st ric t co urt ab us edit s d is cret io n i n e nt eri ng th e st ay . The Water Di st ric t co nt en ds th atwe lac k ju ris di ct io n t o d eci de th at . Ju ris di ct io n i s a t hr es ho ldis su e. The initial stay

was issued in Mar ch of 2007. In J uly 2008, the plaintiffs filed a notice 2 that the stay

had lapse d and re quested a trial. The district cour

t instead rene wed the sta

y for one more year under the same ter

ms as the first one . 6See P aren ts Inv ol ve d i n C m ty. Sch . v. Sea tt le Sch . Dis t., _

__U.S. __

_, 1 27 S. Ct. 27 38 , 27 50 (20 07 ); Ki ng v. Ce ss naAirc raftCo ., 50 5 F .3d11 60 , 11 65 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ). The ke y

pro vi si on , 28 U.S.C. § 1 29 1, s ta te s: “ The co urts of app eal s . . . sh al l h av e juri sd ic ti on of app eal s fr om all fin al de ci si on s o f th e d is tri ctco urts of th e Uni te d S ta te s . . . .” Ordi na ril y a st ay ord er i s n ota fi na l d eci si on forpu rp os es of § 1 29 1. Mo se s H. Co ne Mem . Hos p. v . Merc ury Co ns tr. C or

p., 4 60 U.S. 1, 1 0 n.1 1, 1 03 S. Ct. 9 27 , 93 4 n .11 (19 83 ) (“ [T]he u su al rul e [i s] th ata st ay is no t or di na ril y a fi na l d eci si on forpu rp os es of § 12 91 , si nc e m os t s ta y s d o n otpu t t he pl ai nt iff ‘ effe ct iv el y

ou t o f co urt.’”). Usi ng a “pr act ic al co ns tru ct io n” of f in al it y , ho wev er, the Supr em e Co urt h as bl azedth ro ug h t he juri sd ic ti on al th ic ke t s ev eral pa th s b y whi ch a st ay

ord er m ay

be co ns id ereda fi na l d eci si on . See Swi ntv. Ch am be rs Co un ty Com

m ’n, 51 4 U.S. 3 5, 4 1– 42 , 11 5 S . Ct. 1 20 3, 1 20 7– 08 (19 95 ) (ref erri ng to th e co ll at eral ord er d oc tri ne “ no t as anex cep ti on to th e ‘fin al de ci si on ’ ru le lai d d own by Con gr es s i n § 12 91 , bu t as a ‘pract ic al co ns tru ct io n’ of it ” (ci ta ti on s o m it te d) ). Our p la in ti ffs , th e Fri en ds of t he Ever gl ad es an d t he Mi cco su ke e Trib e, co nt en d t ha t t wo o f th os e p ract ic al co ns tru ct io n p aths cange t th em to th e h ig he r gr ou ndof app el la te juri sd ic ti on .

7A.

The fir stof t ho se pa th s, ac co rd in g t o t he pl ai nt iff s, i s t he on e st ak edou t i n Id le wil d B on Voyage Li qu orCo rp . v. Eps te in , 37 0 U.S. 7 13 , 71 5 n .2, 8 2 S . Ct. 12 94 , 12 96 n.2 (19 62 ), whi chreco gn iz edth ata st ay lea vi ng a pa rty “ effe ct iv el y ou t o f co urt” is a fi na l o rd er ap pe al ab le un de r § 1 29 1. Se e al so Ces sn a Air craf t, 50 5 F .3dat 1 16 5– 66 . Ord in ari ly a part y

is “ effe ct iv el y

ou t o f co urt” when a fed eral co urt s ta y s i ts ha ndpe nd in g t he co nc lu si on of r el at edst at e co urt o r st at e ad m in is tra ti ve pr oc eed in gs . See Id le wil d, 3 70 U.S. at 7 15 , 82 S. Ct. at12 96 (ho ld in g tha t ab st en ti onun de r th e Pu ll m ando ctrin e to all ow a s ta te co urt t o i nt erp retan d c la rif y st at e la w pu t p la in ti ff eff

ect iv el y ou t o f co urt); Quac ke nb us h v . All st at e In s. Co ., 51 7 U.S. 7 06 , 11 6 S . Ct. 1 71 2 (1 99 6) (ho ld in g t ha t a r em an d o rd er u nd er the Bu rfo rdab st en ti on do ctrin e to all ow a s ta te adm in is tra ti ve ag en cy to de ci de th e is su e p utpl ai nt iff

effe ct iv el y

ou t o f co urt); Mo se s H. Co ne , 46 0 U.S. at10 –1 3, 10 3 S . Ct. at93 4– 35 (ho ld in g t ha t a s ta y gra nt edun de r th e Co lo rad o R iv er ab st en ti ondo ctrin e to all ow a s ta te co urt t o a dd res s t he cen tra l i ss ue of t he laws ui t pu t p la in ti ff eff

ect iv el y ou t o f co urt). The Idl ewil d, M os es H. Con e, an d Qu ack enbu sh de ci si on s es tabl is h t he fo un da ti on of t he “ effe ct iv el y ou t o f co urt” fin al ity

rul e. See C es sn a Air craf t, 5 05 8F.3 d a t 1 16 6– 68 . Con cern s ab ou t p ro te ct in g fe de ral co urt d eci si on al auth or it y

un de rli e al l thr ee o f th os e d eci si on s. Mo se s H. Co ne , 46 0 U.S. at10 n.1 1, 1 03 S. Ct . 93 4 (“ Id le wil d’s re as on in g i s l im it edto cas es wher e . . . the ob ject o f th e st ay

is to requi re al l o r aness en ti al pa rt o f th e fed eral su itto be li ti ga te d i n ast at e fo ru m .”); Quac ke nb us h, 5 17 U.S. at 7 14 , 11 6 S . Ct. at17 19 (no ti ng th atth e rem an d t o s ta te co urt was “pr eci se ly to s urren de r juri sd ic ti on of afed eral su itto a st at e co urt.”) . Eve n t ho ug h t he effe ct iv el y ou t o f co urt d oc tri ne ha s i ts roo ts in co nc ern s ab ou t fe de ral co urts ’ su rren de rin g d eci si on al au th or it y to st at e co urts , it s b ran ch es ha ve sp readbe y on d t ha t. Ina ha nd fu l o f cas es we ha ve fou ndjuri sd ic ti on to rev ie w ord ers gra nt in g s ta y s p en di ng li ti ga ti on in no n- st at e fo ru m s, i nc lu di ng th e Ita li anco urts in Ces sn a Air craf t, 5 05 F.3dat 1 16 9; th e Ira n- Uni te d S ta te s C la im s Trib un al in CTI-Co nt ai ne r Leas in g C or p. v . Uit erwyk C or

p., 6 85 F.2d12 84 (11 th Ci r. 19 82 ); a ndth e EEOC inHin es v. D’Arto is , 53 1 F .2d72 6 (5 thCir . 19 76 ). 3 See a ls o Ort eg a Tru

jil lo v. Co no ve r & Co . Comm c’ns , Inc ., 22 1 F .3d12 62 (11 th Ci r. 20 02 ) (jur is di ct io n a ss um edwher e st ay gra nt edpe nd in g l it ig at io n i n t he Bah am ia n c ou rts ).
In our en ba

nc dec ision in Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 ( 11th 3 Cir.1981), we a dopted as bindingprec edent a ll decisions of the for mer F ifth Circuit handed down prior to Octobe r 1, 1981. 9The Ces sn a Air craf t ca se st emm edfro m

anair pl an e co ll is io n i n It al y . 50 5 F.3 d a t 1 16 3. Th e d is tri ctco urt s ta y edanAm eri can pl ai nt iff ’s laws ui t t o a waitth e Ita li anco urts ’ res ol ut io n o f wha te ve r is su es mig htbe rai se d i n fu tu re l it ig at io n th ere. Id . at 1 16 3– 64 . Even th ou gh th e st ay ha d n otbe enis su edin fav orof ast at e co urt, we ex pl ai ne d t ha t the “ di ffer en ces be twee n fe de ral is m an d i nt ern at io na l co m it y . . . . do no t, h owe ve r, affe ctth e ex te ntto whi ch a pl ai nt iff is pl aced ‘effect iv el y

ou t o f co urt,’ whic h i s t he m eas ur e th atde fin es ou r ap pe ll at e juri sd ic ti on ov er s ta y

ord ers .” Id . at 1 16 9– 70 . The p la in ti ff i n C es sn a Air craf t was effe ct iv el y

ou t o f co urt und er Id le wil d a ndMo se s H. Co ne be cau se th at do ctrin e ap pl ie s “ whe n afed eral co urt s ta y s i ts ha ndto all ow an othe r [ty pe of] co urt t o a ss um e p art ia l juris di ct io n o ve r th e m eri ts of the su it .” Id . at 1 16 9. Se e al so Mo se s H. Co ne , 46 0 U.S. at9 n .8, 1 03 S. Ct. at93 3 n .8 (e ffec ti ve ly outof co urt m ean s “ ou t o f

fe de ra l co urt— in ke ep in g wi thth e fac t t ha t t he de ci si on un de r ap pe al is th e ref

us al to ex erci se fe de ra l

juri sd ic ti on ”). The pre se ntcas e is un li ke th e tr ad it io na l ef fect iv el y ou t o f co urt ca se s be cau se th is st ay

was n otis su edpe nd in g t he co nc lu si on of s ta te co urt o r adm in is tra ti ve pro ceed in gs , anditis un li ke Ces sn a Air craf t b ecau se th e st ay

was no t i ss ue d p en di ng for ei gn co urt p ro ceed in gs . It was is su edpe nd in g t he ou tc om e of ot he r li ti ga ti on in fed eral co urt—th e ap pe al of alaws ui t fi le d i n the same 10di st ric t co urt. The So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a si m pl y ha d t wo l aws ui ts rai si ng so m e p ot en ti al ly dis po si ti ve is su es co m m on to bo th . After o ne jud ge en te red jud gm en t i n t he cas e b efo re h er, the sec on d ju dg e st ay edhe r cas e to awai t t he ou tc om e o f anap pe al of t ha t fi na l ju dg m en t. To t he ex te ntjuri sd ic ti on was

“ su rren de red ” to an y

co urt, s ee Qu ack enbu sh , 51 7 U.S. at71 4, 1 16 S. Ct. at17 19 , itwas n otto a st at e co urt o r to a fo rei gn co urt. In st ead , itwas s urren de redto th is Co urt, the same on e th atwou ldde ci de any ap pe al fro m

an y fin al jud gm en t i n t he st ay edcas e, if

th e p ro ceed in gs ha d n otbe enst ay ed . Ourpl ai nt iff

s ar e n otbe in g fo rcedto li ti ga te th ei r cas e in a no n- fed eral co urt i n d ero ga ti on of the fed eral co urts ’ “ vi rtu al ly unf la gg in g o bl ig at io n . . . to ex erci se th e juri sd ic ti on gi ve n t he m .” Co lo rad o R iv er Water C on se rv at io n Di st . v. Uni te d S ta te s, 4 24 U.S. 80 0, 8 17 , 96 S. Ct. 1 23 6, 1 24 6– 47 (19 76 ). The Supr em e Co urt n ot edinCo lo rad o R iv er tha t “ as be twee n s ta te an d fe de ral co urts , th e ru le is th atth e p en de nc y

of an a ct io n i n t he st at e co urt i s n o b ar t o p ro ceed in gs co nc ern in g t he same m at te r inth e Fed eral co urt h av in g juris di ct io n . . . . As be twee n fe de ral di st ric t co urts , ho wev er, tho ug h n o p reci se rul e h as ev ol ve d, t he ge ne ral pri nc ip le is to av oi d dup li cat iv e li ti ga ti on .” 42 4 U.S. at81 7, 9 6 S . Ct. at 12 46 (ci ta ti on s o m it te d) . Avo id in g dup li cat iv e fed eral li ti ga ti on is th e rea so n t he st ay was e nt eredin th is cas e. Becaus e itdo es no t re qu ire th e fed eral co urt 11pl ai nt iff

s t o a waita de ci si onfro m a no n- fed eral co urt o r ot he r tr ib un al , th ey ha ve no t b een pu t ef

fect iv el y ou t o f co urt i n t he tra di ti on al way . The pl ai nt iff

s ar gu e, ho wev er, tha t the y cansat is fy

th e eff ect iv el y ou t o f co urt d oc tri ne by sho win g t ha t the ir c as e h as be enpl acedin an“ ex te nd edst at e o f su sp en de d a ni m at io n” ev enth ou gh itwas s us pe nd edto awai t t he res ul t o f an ot he r fed eral co urt ac ti on . See Hin es , 53 1 F .2dat 7 30 . InHin es th e p la in ti ffs su edrep res en ta ti ve s o f th e Sh rev ep ort p ol ic e u nd er § 19 81 an d Ti tl e VII s eek in g re dr es s fo r “ a b ro adran ge of r aci al ly dis cri m in at ory pr act ic es ” in th e p ol ic e fo rce. 5 31 F.2dat 7 28 . The d is tri ctco urt s ta y edth e cas e un ti l t he pl ai nt iff

s p ur su edth ei r EEOC rem ed ie s u nd er Tit le VII. Id. at72 8– 29 . The st ay wou ldha ve pu t the fed eral co urt p ro ceed in gs —i nc lu di ng th e st atut or il y in de pe nd en t § 19 81 cla im s fo r whi ch th ere was no EEOC rem edy —o n h ol d fo r an ywhe re fro m

on e an d aha lf t o fi ve an d aha lf years . Id. at73 1– 32 . The Hi ne s Co urt ch arac te riz edth e res ul t as “ anex te nd edst at e o f su sp en de d a ni m at io n,” id . at 73 0, i m po se d wi th ou t an y

“ reas on ab le po ss ib il it y

th atth e EEOC co nc il ia ti on effo rts [wou ld ] be pro du ct iv e.” Id . at 7 31 . It co nc lu de d tha t i n t ho se ci rcu m st an ces th e st ay

ha d p utth e p la in ti ffs effe ct iv el y ou t o f co urt. “ Fo r th e pu rp os es of e xp ed it io n a ndcert ai nt y , th e p art ie s h ere wo ul d h av e b een serve d ju st as well by a sta y

pe nd in g t he arri va l o f God ot .” Id . at 7 31 –3 2. Al th ou gh Hin es

12pr e-d at edth e cl ear d is ti nc ti on be twee n t he Idl ewil d (e ffec ti ve ly outof c ou rt) an d

Co he n (c ol la te ral ord er) d oc tri ne s, we h av e si nc e ap pl ie d Hi ne s’ “ su sp en de d an im at io n” co nc ep t as pa rt o f th e eff ect iv el y ou t o f co urt d oc tri ne in Am . Mfrs . Mu t. In s. Co . v. St on e, 74 3 F .2d15 19 , 15 24 (11 th Cir . 19 84 ). It c an no t b e, ho wev er, tha t an y st at e o f su sp en de d a ni m at io n p la ces a pl ai nt iff effe ct iv el y

ou t o f co urt an d c on fers ap pe ll at e juri sd ic ti onun de r § 1 29 1. If th atwere the cas e, th enev ery st ay wou ldbe anap pe al ab le fin al ord er b ecau se ev ery st ay

su sp en ds th e an im at io n o f a cas e. Andwe kn ow t ha t n otev ery st ay is ap pe al ab le . Mos es H. Con e, 46 0 U.S. at10 n.1 1, 1 03 S. Ct. at93 4 (“ [A] stay is no t o rd in ari ly a fin al de ci si on forpu rp os es of § 12 91 , si nc e m os t s ta y s d o n otpu t th e p la in ti ff ‘effect iv el y

ou t o f co urt.’”). The p la in ti ffs ’ arg um en t s weep s t oo m uc h i nt o i ts ne t. The su sp en de d a ni m at io n c as es in whi ch th e st ay ha s b een he ldto be ap pe al ab le , andth ere a re o nl y fou r, all sh are o ne ch arac te ris ti c th atth e p res en t 4
cas e la ck s. The y

all in vo lv edst ay s re su lt in g i n i nd efi ni te de la y s p en di ng th e ou tc om e o f pr oc eed in gs th atwere unl ik el y to co nt ro l o r to na rro w subs ta nt ia ll y th e cl ai m s o r un res ol ve d i ss ue s i n the st ay edlaws ui t. See Hin es , 53 1 F .2dat 7 36 –3 7
Arguably there areonly

three of them; Cessna Airc raf t does not cite the “ suspended 4 animation” for

mulation of Hines, but could fa ll under it. 505 F.3d at 1163–70. 13(h ol di ng th ata st ay of alaws ui t ra is in g § 19 81 cla im s p en di ng anEEOC pr oc eed in g fo r di st in ctTit le VII cl ai m s p utth e p la in ti ffs effe ct iv el y ou t o f co urt be cau se th e d el ay

wou ldlas t fo r y ears witho utan y “ reas on ab le pro babi li ty tha t t he EEOC con ci li at io n e ffo rts wil l b e p ro du ct iv e”); CTI, 68 5 F .2dat 1 28 7– 88 (h ol di ng th ata st ay

in a cas e b etweentwo Am eri can co m pa ni es to awai t ac ti on by th e Ira n- Uni te d S ta te s C la im s Tri bu na l o n t he de fen da nt ’s cla im ag ai ns t Ir anpu t th e p la in ti ff eff

ect iv el y ou t o f co urt i n p artbe cau se th e d efen da nt ’s cla im s ag ai ns t Iran were “ co nt in ge ntup on a fi nd in g i n t he di stric t co urt” ); S to ne , 74 3 F .2dat 15 23 –2 4 (h ol di ng th ata st ay grant edto awai t t he ou tc om e o f rel at edst at e-co urt li ti ga ti on pu t the pl ai nt iff effe ct iv el y

ou t o f co urt b ecau se th e p art ie s ag reedth at

“ th e st at e la wsu itwil l n otde ci de th e is su es pre se nt edin [th e p la in ti ff]’ s fe de ral cl ai m ,” m ean in g t ha t the fed eral cas e h adbe ensubjec te d t o “ anin de fin it e an d un ne ces sary de la y ”); Ces sn a Air craf t, 5 05 F.3dat 1 17 2 (h ol di ng th ata st ay is su ed to awai t p ro ceed in gs in Ita li anco urt p utth e p la in ti ff eff ect iv el y ou t o f co urt i n p art be cau se th ere was “ no ass ur an ce atall th atth e It al ia n p ro ceed in gs wil l d ire ct ly rel at e to th e is su es in th is laws ui t” ). Effect iv el y

ou t o f co urt b y

su sp en de d a ni m at io n i s a n arro w do ctrin e th at ap pl ie s o nl y

whena cas e is pl acedin an“ ex te nd edst at e o f su sp en de d a ni m at io n” wit ho utgo odreas on . See Hin es , 53 1 F .2dat 7 30 . In Hi ne s, CTI, St on e, an d 14Ces sn a Air craf t, the pl ai nt iff

s’ fed eral cla im s l an gu is he d fo r no go odreas on be cau se th ere was li tt le li ke li ho odth atth e o th er fo rum s’ dec is io ns wou ldco nt ro l orsi gn ifi can tl y

in fo rm th e li ti ga ti on . Inth is cas e, ho wev er, the reas on for th e d is tri ctco urt’s s tay

was a t l eas t a go odon e, if

no t an ex cel le nton e: to awai t a f ed eral ap pe ll at e d eci si on th atis li ke ly to h av e a s ub st an ti al or c on tro ll in g e ffec t o n t he cla im s an d i ss ue s i n t he st ay edcas e. The ce nt ral qu es ti on inbo th th e S-2 cas e an d i n t hi s S- 9 c as e is whe th er, u nd er the Cle anW at er Act , th e Water Di stric t m us t ac qu ire NPDES pe rm it s fo r it s en orm ou s p um ps . In o ne cas e so m e o f th os e p um ps m ov e p ol lu te d wate r fro m

can al s i nt o awate r co ns erv at io n area, an d i n the ot he r cas e th e p um ps m ov e p ol lu te d wat er fro m di ffer en t ca na ls in to Lake Okee ch ob ee. The cen tra l arg um en t fo r th e Water Di st ric t, as supp orte d b y anEPA reg ul at io n, i s t he “un it ary wate rs th eo ry .” If we acc ep t tha t t he ory in th e S-2 ap pe al , itwil l was h o utth e pl ai nt iff s’ S-2 cas e en ti rel y

an d a ls o wi ll flo odm os t o f th ei r S-9 cas e. Butif we 5 rejectth e u ni ta ry

wate rs th eo ry , th enth e S-9 cas e wou ldrem ai n o n d ry gro un d a nd pr oc eedto a de te rm in at io n o f whe th er the can al s an d wat er co ns erv at io n a rea in vo lv edinth atcas e are “ m ean in gf ul ly dis ti nc t” wate r bo di es . Eventh atfin di ng , The plaintiffs have argued that the S-9 pump, unlike the S-2 pumps, also adds pollution 5 in the form of turbidity . Though this iss ue would re main in the S-9 case reg ardle ss of the outcome of the S-2 case , it is onl y a small part of

the S-9 ca se. 15ho wev er, wo ul d b e subs ta nt ia ll y gu id edby ourde te rm in at io n i n t he S-2 cas e o f wha t “ m ean in gf

ul ly dis ti nc t” m ean s an d b y ou r ap pl ic at io n o f th atst an da rdto th e can al s an d l ak e in vo lv edin it . Bec au se th e S-2 an d S -9 cas es are s o s im il ar, i t ap pe ars th atth e d is tri ct co urt’s s tay

was d es ig ne d t o p ro vi de th e p art ie s wi th a sp eci al de al inwhi ch th ey co ul d g ettwo ou tc om es forth e p ric e o f on e ap pe al . The p la in ti ffs , ho wev er, are no t i nt eres te d i n t ha t b arg ai n a ndin si stth atth ey ha ve a ri gh t t o p ro ceed imm ed ia te ly to tria l wi th th e S-9 cas e d es pi te th e p en de nc y of a n app eal in th e S-2 cas e. Butth e eff

ect iv el y ou t o f co urt d oc tri ne , andit s s us pe nd edan im at io n co m po ne nt , do no t cl ear apa th to ap pe ll at e rev ie w of wh ethe r th ey ha ve th atrig ht . B. A sec on d p ot en ti al pa th to ap pe ll at e juri sd ic ti on is th e co ll at eral ord er do ctrin e. See C oh env. Be ne fic ia l In du s. Lo anCo rp ., 33 7 U.S. 5 41 , 69 S. Ct. 1 22 1 (1 94 9) . “ To co m e wit hi n the ‘ sm al l cl as s’ of d eci si on s ex cep te d fr om th e fin al -jud gm en t ru le by Coh en , th e o rd er m us t [1 ] co nc lu si ve ly det erm in e th e di sp ut edqu es ti on , [2] res ol ve anim po rta ntis su e co m

pl et el y sep arat e fro m

th e m eri ts of the act io n, an d [3 ] be effe ct iv el y un rev ie wab le on ap pe al fro m a fi na l jud gm en t.” Co op ers & Ly br an d v . Liv es ay , 43 7 U.S. 4 63 , 46 8, 9 8 S . Ct. 2 45 4,

1624 58 (19 78 ); C arp en te r v. M oh awkIndus ., Inc ., 54 1 F .3d10 48 , 10 52 (11 th Cir .

20 08 ). The Supr em e Co urt h as in si st edth ateach pa rt o f th e Co he n t es t i s

“ st rin ge nt ,” whi ch ke ep s t he do ctrin e “ na rro w andsel ect iv e in it s m em be rs hi p.” W il l v . Hall oc k, 5 46 U.S. 34 5, 3 49 –5 0, 1 26 S. Ct. 9 52 , 95 7– 58 (20 06 ) (“ [W] e ha ve no t m en ti on edap pl y in g t he co ll at eral ord er d oc tri ne rece nt ly w itho ut em ph as iz in g i ts m od es t s co pe .”); Dig it al Equ ip . Cor p. v . Desk to p Di rect , Inc ., 51 1 U.S. 86 3, 8 68 , 11 4 S . Ct. 1 99 2, 1 99 6 (1 99 4) (“ The ‘ na rro w’ ex cep ti on sh ou ldst ay th atway an d n ev er b e al lo wedto swal lo w th e g en eral rul e th ata pa rty is e nt it le d t o a si ng le ap pe al , to be de ferr edun ti l fi na l ju dg m en t h as be enen te red . . . . ” (ci ta ti on om it te d) ). The re as on forth e st rin ge nc y of t he do ctrin e’s requi rem en ts —fo r th e na rro wne ss an d m od es ty of it s re ach—i s t he fear th ata ro bu stco ll at eral ord er do ctrin e wou ld“ ov erp owe r th e subs ta nt ia l fi na li ty int eres ts § 1 29 1 i s m ean t t o fu rth er: jud ic ia l ef

fic ie nc y , forex am

pl e.” Will , 54 6 U.S. at35 0, 1 26 S. Ct. at95 8. Co ns is te ntwith t he Co urt’s co nf in em en t o f th e co ll at eral ord er d oc tri ne , each pa rt o f th e Co he n t es t i s a c rit ic al co nd it io n fo r juri sd ic ti on . Feld sp ar Truc ki ng Co . v. Grea te r Atl an taSh ip pe rs ’ Ass ’n., 84 9 F .2d13 89 , 13 92 (11 th Cir . 19 88 ) (“ If an y

on e cri te riais no t m et , juri sd ic ti on can no t b e in vo ke d. . . .”). Inth is

17cas e, we ne edno t ad dr es s t he fir stan d t hi rdco nd it io ns be cau se th e se co ndis no t

sa ti sf ie d. The sec on d c on di ti on un de r Co he n i s t ha t t he st ay ord er m us t “ res ol ve an im po rta ntis su e co m

pl et el y sep arat e fro m

th e m eri ts of t he act io n.” Mo se s H. Co ne , 46 0 U.S. at11 , 10 3 S . Ct. at93 4. A d eci si on to gra nta st ay is “ se pa rat e fro m th e m eri ts ,” bu t i t m

us t al so rai se an“ im

po rta ntis su e,” wh ic h m ean s t ha t an im po rta ntrig htis at s ta ke . Id. The Supr em e Co urt h as ob se rv edth at“ [t]he im po rta nc e o f th e ri gh t as se rte d h as alwa y s b een a si gn ifi can t p artof o urco ll at eral or de r do ctrin e.” Will , 54 6 U.S. at35 2, 1 26 S. Ct. at95 9 (q uo ti ng Laur o Li ne s S.R.L. v. Ch as se r, 49 0 U.S. 4 95 , 50 2, 1 09 S. Ct. 1 97 6, 1 98 0 (1 98 9) (Sca li a, J., co nc urrin g) ). The d oc tri ne requi res “ a jud gm en t ab ou t t he va lu e o f th e in te res ts th atwou ldbe lo stth ro ug h ri go ro us ap pl ic at io n o f a fi na l ju dg m en t re qu ire m en t.” Id . at 3 51 –5 2, 1 26 S. Ct. at95 9 (q uo ti ng Dig it al Equ ip . Cor p., 5 11 U.S. at 8 78 –7 9, 11 4 S . Ct. at20 01 ). Exa m pl es of “ im

po rta ntis su es ” si gn ifi can t en ou gh to jus ti fy im m ed ia te ap pe ll at e juri sd ic ti on un de r th e co ll at eral ord er d oc tri ne in cl ud e d en ia ls of t he de fen se s o f ab so lu te pre si de nt ia l i m m un ity , qu al ifi edim

m un it y , Elev en th Am en dm en t i m

m un it y , anddo ub le jeop ardy . W il l, 5 46 U.S. at 3 52 , 12 6 S . Ct. at

1895 9. In all of the se cas es , “ a subs ta nt ia l p ub li c in te res t” ex is te d i n t ak in g a n

imm ed ia te ap pe al . Id. at35 3, 1 26 S. Ct. at95 9. InMo se s H. Co ne th e Co urt h el d t ha t t he st ay ord er i n t ha t ca se in vo lv eda publ ic in te res t i m

po rtanten ou gh to sat is fy th e co ll at eral ord er d oc tri ne . 46 0 U.S. at12 , 10 3 S . Ct. at93 5. Th e la wsu itso ug htto co m pe l arbi tra ti on in a co nt ract di sp ut e. Id . at 7 , 10 3 S . Ct. at93 2. Be cau se a la wsu itbe twee n the same part ie s pr es en ti ng th e sa m e que st io n was alr eady un de rway

in st at e co urt, the di st ric t co urt s ta y edth e fed eral pro ceed in gs to awai t t he st at e co urt’s jud gm en t. Id . Once th e st at e co urt ju dg m en t was is su edth e fed eral co urt wo ul d h av e to gi ve itres jud ic at a eff

ect , id . at 1 0, 1 03 S. Ct. at93 4, an d a s a r es ul t m ean in gf ul fed eral rev ie w of t he arb it rat io n que st io n wo ul d h av e b een im po ss ib le . The Co urt s ta te d th atth ere was “no di sp ut e th atth is ord er m eet s t he sec on d . . . [co ll at eral ord er do ctrin e] crit eri a. An o rd er tha t am ou nt s t o arefu sa l t o a dju di cat e th e m eri ts pl ai nl y pre se nt s an im

po rta ntis su e se pa rat e fro m th e m eri ts .” Id . at 1 2, 1 03 S. Ct. at93 4. At fi rs t g la nc e, itap pe ars th atan y st ay gra nt edto awai t an othe r co urt’s co nt ro ll in g re so lu ti onof s ha redis su es wou ld“ am ou nt [] to a r efu sa l t o a dju di cat e th e m eri ts ,” m eet in g t he Mo se s H. Co ne requi rem en t o f anim po rta ntis su e fo r Co he n p ur

po se s. Onsec on d g la nc e, ho wev er, the fed eral co urt’s s ta y inMo se s H. 19Co ne m ean t tha t a s ta te co urt wo ul d re so lv e th e is su e. 46 0 U.S. at35 , 10 3 S . Ct. at

94 7 (R eh nqui st , J., di ss en ti ng ) (“ The is su e h ere was whethe r th e fac tu al qu es ti on whe th er the re was anag reem en t t o a rb it rat e sh ou ldbe ad jud ic at edin a st at e o r fed eral co urt.”) . The Supr em e Co urt l at er cl ari fie d the di st in ct io n wh enitst at edin Qua ck enbu sh : “ W e d et erm in ed[in Mo se s H. Co ne ] th ata st ay ord er b as edon th e Co lo rad o R iv er d oc tri ne pre se nt s an im po rta ntis su e se pa rat e fro m th e m eri ts be cau se itam ou nt s t o arefu sa l t o a dju di cat e th e cas e infed eral co urt.” 5 17 U.S. at 71 3, 1 16 S. Ct. at17 19 (qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . Inot he r wor ds , a de ci si on to gra nta st ay pe nd in g t he ou tc om e o f ot he r li ti ga ti on m ay

or m ay no t b e anim

po rta ntis su e. InMo se s H. Co ne , th e st ay is su e was “ im po rta nt ” b ecau se itin vo lv eda fed eral co urt s urren de rin g i ts juri sd ic ti on ov er a ca se to a st at e co urt. Tha t i m pl ic at edth e fed eral co urts ’ “ vi rtu al ly un fla gg in g o bl ig at io n” to de ci de cas es ov er wh ic h t he y have juri sd ic ti on . Co lo rad o R iv er, 4 24 U.S. at 8 17 , 96 S. Ct. at12 46 . There is a su ffi ci en tl y stro ng publ ic in te res t i n fe de ral co urts ex erci si ng th ei r juri sd ic ti on when itex is ts to pl ace Mo se s H. Co ne in th e co m pa ny of o th er i m

po rtantis su e cas es , su ch as t ho se in vo lv in g t he de ni al of i m m un ity an d d oubl e jeop ardy

de fen se s. The st ay in th is cas e d oe s n otpre se ntan“ im po rtantis su e” as requi redby th e co ll at eral ord er d oc tri ne . See Co op ers & Ly br an d, 4 37 U.S. at 4 68 , 98 S. Ct. at 2024 58 . There are n o i ss ue s o f fed eral is m or i nt ern at io na l co m it y

to ad d wei gh t an d fin al ity to th e d is tri ctco urt’s s ta y ord er. See Kers ha w v. Sh al al a, 9 F .3d11 , 14 (5 th Cir . 19 93 ) (“ [T]he Mo se s C on e ex cep ti on sh ou ldno t ap pl y [] where a d is tri ct co urt en te rs anord er s tay in g i ts own pro ceed in gs in fav orof o th er p ro ceed in gs wit hi n t he same fede ral jud ic ia l s y st em .”). In st ead , inth is cas e th e p la in ti ffs as se rt, i n e ffec t, tha t the re i s a p ub li c in te res t i n t he ir b ei ng all owe d t o p ro ceed wit h t wo fe de ral laws ui ts at the same tim e ev enth ou gh th ey rai se co m

m on is su es . Sp eci fic al ly, th e p la in ti ffs wantto pro ceedin th e So uthe rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a wit h th ei r S-9 cas e whi le th e ap pe al on th e m eri ts of t he ir p aral le l S- 2 c as e is pe nd in g i n th is Co urt. The re i s n o “ subs ta nt ia l p ub li c in te res t,” Wil l, 5 46 U.S. at 3 53 , 12 6 S . Ct . at 9 59 , inth ei r be in g a ll owe d t o d o s o. Becau se th e is su e is no t an im po rta nt 6
on e wit hi n t he m ean in g o f Co he n’s s eco ndco nd it io n, s ee M os es H. Con e, 46 0

Wit hholding de cision in a ca se to awa it guidanc e fr om a higher c ourt in a diffe rent c ase 6 is not an unusual event. It happens with some re gularity in the district courts, and f rom time to time we have done it ourselves. To g ive but one example, in Cunningham v. Billy , No. 07- 10808, afte r ora l argument we issued a notice that no dec ision would be forthcomingin that case until we had the be nefit of the Supre me Court’s dec ision in Dist . Atty ’s Off ice v. Osbor

ne, 129 S. Ct . 488 (ce rt. grante d Nov. 3, 2008). Simi larly , proce eding s in the S-2 case wer e stayed by the district court in 2003 to awa it the Supreme Court’s de cision in the prese nt case . See Micc osukee, 541 U .S. at 95, 124 S. C t. 1537. That stay , which the F riends of the Everg lades a sked for , lasted ninetee n months. At no time did any

party asser t that the stay

had put them out of cour t or that therewas a

substantial public interest in pre ssing a head in the S-2 c ase while the S-9 ca se wa s pendingon appea l.

21U.S. at 1 2, 1 03 S. Ct. at93 4, t ha t p ath t o app el la te juri sd ic ti onis no t o pe n t o t he

pl ai nt iff s. II I. For a ll of t he se reas on s, the Fri en ds of t he Ever gl ad es an d the Mi cco su ke e Trib e h av e n otde m on strat edth at§ 1 29 1 o r an y of i ts “pr act ic al co ns tru ct io ns ” ap pl y . W e la ckjuri sd ic ti on to he ar the ap pe al of t he di st ric t co urt’s s ta y ord er. APPEAL DISMI SSED FOR LACK OF JURI SDICT IO N.

22