FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IRC U IT Marc h 10, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ P U B 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

________________________ No . 0 6 - 1 5 9 3 1 - HH

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 5 - 0 0 2 6 9 - C V- OR L - 2 8 - J GG I S R A E L A L V A R E Z P E R E Z , P l ai nt i ff -A pp el l ee C r o s s - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s S A N F O R D - O R L A N D O K E N N E L C L U B , I N C ., C O L L I N S & C O L L I N S , d .b .a . C C C R a c in g , D efen d an t s-A p p el l an t s C r o s s - A p p e lle e s , J A C K C O L L I N S , D e f e n d a n t C r o s s - A p p e lle e .

_________________________ A pp ea l s f

rom the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ON P E T I T I ON F OR R E HE AR I NG2

B efo re C A RN E S , B A R K E T T an d H IL L , C i rcu i tJu d g es. C A RN E S , C i rc ui tJudg e: O ur previ ou s dec i si on i n thi s F L S A ca se , P er ez v. S anford-O rl ando K ennel C l ub, I nc . , 2008 W L 220070, ___ F . 3d ___ ( 11th C i r . J a n. 29, 2008) , de c i de d a l l of the i ss ues a gai nstthe defendant s w ho fi l ed the appeal , and i n favor of the pl ai nt i ff w h o f ile d th e c r o s s - ap p e a l ( e x c e p t a s it in v o lv e d th e o n e in d iv id u a l d e f e n d a n t) . T he deci si on had t he ef

fe ctof re qu i ri ng the defendant s t o p ay the pl ai nt i ff tw i ce as m u c h in d a m a g e s , a lo n g w ith m o r e a tto rn e y ’s f e e s , a n d it s a d d le d th e d e f e n d a n ts w ith a n u n f

a v o r a b le p r e c e d e n t w h ic h w ill le a d to m o r e d a m a g e s a n d f e e a w a r d s in o th e rc a s e s p e n d in g a g a in s t th e m . Iti s n o tsu rp ri si n g i n v i ew o f th o se u n p l easan tri es th atB arn ettQ . B ro o k s, th e a tto rn e y f

o rth e d e f

e n d a n ts , h a s f

ile d a r e h e a r in g p e titio n . W h a t is s u rp r is in g is the pos i t i on tha the ha s t a ke n i n tha tpe t i t i on. I ns t e a d of a tt e m pt i ng t o pe r s ua de us th a to u rd e c i s i o n wa s wr o n g o n th e m e r i t s , Mr . B r o o k s i n s t e a d c o n t e n d s th a twe shou l d n everhave deci ded t he m er i t s of the ca se . W e s ho ul dn ’ thave deci ded th e m , h e a r g u e s , b e c a u s e th e ap p e a l w a s m o o te d w h e n h is c lie n ts p a id th e f u ll a m o u n t o f

th e ju d g m e n t a n d a s a tis f a c tio n o f it w a s f ile d in th e d is tr ic t c o u r t. T hos e e ve nt s happe ne d tw o w e e ks a f t e rw e he a r d or a l a r gum e nt . I ns t e a d of pr om pt l y i nf

or m i ng us of

the m , M r . B r ooks w a i t e d t o s e e how w e w oul d de c i de the3

appe a l . O nl y a f

t e rl e a rni ng tha the ha d l os tthe appe a l , a nd l os ti tbi g, di d he t e l l us abou tw hathe chara ct er i ze s a s j uri sdi ct i on -s tri pp i ng event s thathad o cc urre d three a nd- a - ha l f

m onths be f

or e w e i s s ue d ourde c i s i on. W ha tw e m us tnow do, he i n si st s, i s reco g n i ze th ato u r o p i n i o n i s an i m p erm i ssi b l e ad v i so ry o n e w h i ch m u st b e v a c a te d . A s one m i ghti m a gi ne , w e a r e nothappy tha tM r . B r ooks a tt e m pt e d t o put thi s C our tthr ough a tr i a l run. H e s houl d ha ve i m m e di a t e l y di s c l os e d the c i r c um s t a nc e tha the c ont e nds r e nde r e d us pow e r l e s s t o de c i de thi s c a s e , i ns t e a d of hol di ng i tba c k a s a n i ns ur a nc e pol i c y unt i l he s a w ourde c i s i on. S e e B d. of L i c e ns e C om m ’ r s P a s t or e , 469 U . S . 238, 240, 105 S . C t . 685, 686 ( 1985) ( “ W he n a devel op m entaf

t erthi s C ou rt. . . no t es prob abl e j uri sdi ct i on coul d h ave the ef fe ct of de pr i vi ng the C our tof

j ur i s di c t i on due t o the a bs e nc e of a c ont i nui ng c a s e or cont rovers y, thatdevel op m entshou l d b e c al l ed t o the att ent i on of the C ou rt w i thoutde l a y . ” ) ; B y rne v. N e z ha t , 261 F . 3d 1075, 1117 n. 83 ( 11th C i r . 2001) (des cr i bi ng an att orney’ s duty of c ando r a s a“ cont i nu i ng du ty t o i nform the C ou rt of a ny de ve l opm e ntw hi c h m a y c onc e i va bl y a f f e c tthe out c om e of

l i t i ga t i on” ( i nt e rna l quot a t i on m a r ks a nd c i t a t i ons om i tt e d) ) ; M e r kl e v. G ua r di a ns hi p of Ja coby, 91 2 S o. 2d 59 5, 60 0 (F l a. 2d D C A 20 05 ) ( “ D uri ng the pend ency of an appe a l , the duty of

c a ndori m pos e s a n obl i ga t i on on c ouns e l t o not i f y the c our tof4

a ny de ve l opm e nttha tm a y c onc e i va bl y a f f e c tthe out c om e of

the l i t i ga t i on, i ncl ud i ng fa ct s thatm ay ra i se a quest i on of m oo tness . ”) ; 84 L um ber C o. v. C oo per, 65 6 S o. 2d 12 97 , 13 00 (F l a. 2d D C A 19 94 ) ( “ W e s trong l y e m ph as i ze , there fore , an att orney’ s e thi ca l ob l i gat i on , as an offi ce r of the court , t o i m m edi at el y r ai se before a tr ia l c o u r t th e f

u n d a m e n ta l is s u e o f

la c k o f s u b je c t m a tte rju r is d ic tio n , a f te rit becom es apparent. . . . ”) . W hatsa nct i on s, i f a ny, shou l d b e i m po se d o n M r. B ro o k s fo r th i s b eh av i o r i s a q u est i o n fo r an o th er d ay. T h e q u est i o n fo r t o d ay i s a pur e l y j ur i s di c t i ona l one : D i d the pa y m e ntof the or i gi na l j udgm e nta nd the f i l i ng o f a s a tis f a c tio n o f it m o o t th is ap p e a l a n d c r o s s - ap p e a l, th e r e b y s tr ip p in g th is C our tof j ur i s di c t i on t o e nt e ra de c i s i on on the m e r i t s ? T he que s t i on tur ns on the r e le v a n t e v e n ts a n d th e irc h r o n o lo g y . I. A f t e ra tw o- da y tr i a l a j ury f ound i n f a vorof the pl a i nt i f

f on the i s s ue of ove r t i m e a nd a w a r de d hi m $2, 100 i n da m a ge s . T he di s tr i c tc our te nt e r e d j udgm e nt a ga i ns tthe de f

e nda nt s ( e xc e ptthe one i ndi vi dua l de f e nda nt ) i n tha ta m ountbut d e n ie d th e p la in tif

f a n y liq u id a te d d a m a g e s . T h e d e f e n d a n ts w h o w e r e f

o u n d liab le the n appe a l e d f

r om tha tpa r tof

the j udgm e nt , a nd the pl a i nt i f f c r os s - appe a l e d f

r om the pa r tof

i tde ny i ng hi m l i qui da t e d da m a ge s ( a nd f i ndi ng the i ndi vi dua l de f e nda nt notl i a bl e ) . T he appe a l pr oc e e de d i n the us ua l w a y be f or e us . A f

t e rf ul l br i e f i ng,5

w e h e a r d o r a l a r g u m e n t o n O c to b e r9 , 2 0 0 7 . S hor t l y a f

t e ror a l a r gum e nt , c ouns e l f orthe pl a i nt i f

f c ont a c t e d c ouns e l f

or d efen d an t s, as h e d escri b es i t , “ t o d i scu ss [d efen d an t s’ ] l i ab i l i ty fo r i n t erest ac crui ng on the Judg m enti ss ued i n thi s m att erbecause i tw as cl ea r duri ng oral a r gum e nttha ta r e ve r s a l of the j ury ’ s ve r di c ti n thi s m a tt e rw oul d notbe f o r th c o m in g f

r o m th is C o u r t.” A p p e lle e ’s R e s p o n s e to th e R e h e a r in g P e titio n a t 6 . T hos e di s c us s i ons r e s ul t e d i n the de f e nda nt s pa y i ng the pl a i nt i f f notonl y the ori gi nal am ou ntof the j ud gm ent , $2 , 10 0, pl us i nt er es t , bu tal so tri al l evel a tt o rn e y ’ s f

e e s i n th e a m o u n to f

$ 2 9 , 0 9 9 . 2 9 , p l u s i n t e r e s t . R e h e a r i n g P e t i t i o n a tA1 & A - 2 . T w o s a tis f

a c tio n o f ju d g m e n t d o c u m e n ts , o n e r e f le c tin g e a c h p a y m e n t, w e r e “d r a f

te d a t th e r e q u e s t o f

c o u n s e l f

o r[ th e d e f

e n d a n ts ] a n d f

ile d u p o n h is re qu es t . ” A pp el l ee ’ s R es po nse t o R ehea ri ng P et i t i on at6. T ho se do cum ent s w er e s i gne d by c ouns e l f

orthe pl a i nt i f

f on O c t obe r22, 2007, a nd the y w e r e f i l e d i n the di s tr i c tc our tthe ne xtda y . R e he a r i ng P e t i t i on a tA - 1 & A - 2. T he de f e nda nt s ’ r e he a r i ng pe t i t i on, ur gi ng us t o di s m i s s the appe a l a nd c r os s - appe a l a s m oot , a s s e r t s tha t : “ N ot a bl y , [ the pl a i nt i f f ] di d notr e s e r ve hi s r i ght t o appe a l the pe ndi ng i s s ue s be f or e the C our tpr i ort o a c c e pt i ng pa y m e ntof the Judg m ent . ” T he pl ai nt i ff’ s r es po nse c ou nt er s that : “ T he P art i es agre ed that p a y m e n t a n d a c c e p ta n c e w a s b e in g m a d e w ith th e c o n d itio n th a t th e P a r tie s w o u ld6

m o v e f o rw a r d w ith th is ap p e a l a n d th a t th is C o u r t w o u ld r e n d e ra d e c is io n in th is appeal . . . . N ot abl y, [the defendant s] di d n otm ov e t o d i sm i ss thi s app ea l atthat t i m e a nd part i ci pat ed i n the appeal there af t er . ” W h atev erm ay b e s aid ab o u t th e f irst q u o ted se n ten ce fr o m th e p lain ti ff’s r e s p o n s e , th e l a s tq u o t e d o n e c e r t a i n l y i s a c c u r a t e . On Oc t o b e r2 4 , 2 0 0 7 , j u s ttwo days af t erpayi ng the pl ai nt i ff

and o ne day a ft erthe sa t i sf ac t i on of j ud gm entw as f i l e d, the de f

e nda nt s f i l e d w i th us a s uppl e m e nt a l l e tt e rbr i e f a ddr e s s i ng a que s t i on a boutthe m e r i t s tha tha d a r i s e n dur i ng or a l a r gum e nt . T he pl a i nt i f f’ s r e s pons i ve l e tt e rbr i e f

a ddr e s s i ng the s a m e i s s ue w a s f i l e d s e ve n da y s l a t e r . O n N ove m be r19, 2007 the pl a i nt i f

f f i l e d a s uppl e m e nt a l c e r t i f i c a t e of i nt e r e s t e d pe r s ons a nd corporat e di sc l osure s t at em entno t i fy i ng us thaton e of the defendant s had changed i t s c orpo ra t e nam e a nd sol d al l or near l y a l l of i t s a ss et s. T hati s w hatthe part i es di d i n thi s C ou rtaf

t erthe j ud gm enthad b ee n p ai d and a s at i sf ac t i on had b ee n fi l ed i n th e d i stri ctco u rt . T h ey act ed i n al l resp ect s as th o u g h th e ap p eal an d cro ssap p e a l w e r e a liv e a n d th a t th e y w e r e a w a itin g a d e c is io n f r o m u s . M ean w h i l e, tw o o th er F L S A l aw su i t s b ro u g h tb y d i fferen tp l ai n t i ffs ag ai n st the s e s a m e de f

e nda nt s r a i s i ng e s s e nt i a l l y the s a m e i s s ue s w e r e pe ndi ng i n the di stri ctcourt . O n January 4, 20 08 i n o ne of tho se re l at ed ca se s, and fi ve days l at er i n the ot her r el at ed ca se , the defendant s f i l ed i n the di stri ctcourta m ot i on t o st ay7

the proceedi ng s i n tho se ca se s pendi ng ou r dec i si on i n thi s c as e. A p p ellee’s R e s pons e t o R e he a r i ng P e t i t i on, E xhi bi tA & B . I n both of thos e m ot i ons , the defe nd ant s r epre se nt ed t o the di stri ctcourtthatthe i ss ues r ai se d i n tho se tw o cas es w e r e i de nt i c a l t o the one s w e w e r e goi ng t o de c i de i n thi s c a s e , a l though the a m o u n t o f

d a m a g e s c la im e d w e r e d if f e r e n t. I d . I n th e irm o tio n s th e d e f e n d a n ts u r g e d th a t: In o rd er t o av o i d i n co n si st en tj u d g m en t s, u n n ecessary li t i g at i o n co st s, a tto rn e y ’s f

e e s a n d to c o n s e r v e th e ju d ic ia l r e s o u r c e s o f th is C o u r t, D e f e nda ntr e s pe c t f

ul l y r e que s t s tha tthe C our te nt e ra s t a y of the in s ta n t m a tte ru n til th e E le v e n th C ir c u it is s u e s its d e c is io n in P e r e z . W hen P er ez i s dec i ded, t o the ext entany di sput e r em ai ns, the st ay s h o u ld b e p r o m p tly lif

te d a n d th e p a r tie s s h o u ld b e r e q u ir e d to f ile m em o ra n d a to ad d re ss th e e ff ec t th at th e E lev en th C ircu it ’s di s pos i t i on of

P e r e z ha s on thi s l i t i ga t i on. A p p e lle e ’s R e s p o n s e to R e h e a r in g P e titio n , E x h ib its A & B a t 2 . O n e o f th o se m o tio n s w a s d e n ie d o n J a n u a ry 9 , 2 0 0 8 a n d th e o th e ro n J a n u a ry 1 6 , 2 0 0 8 . O n J a nua ry 29, 2008 w e i s s ue d ouropi ni on i n thi s c a s e , w hi c h a f f i r m e d the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s j udgm e nti ns of a ra s i tgr a nt e d j udgm e ntf orthe i ndi vi dua l de f

e nda nt a nd a ga i ns tthe othe rde f e nda nt s ; w e r e ve r s e d the j udgm e nti ns of a ra s i tde ni e d the p la in tif f’s m o tio n f

o rliq u id a te d d a m a g e s . P e r e z , 2 0 0 8 W L a t * 1 7 , F .3 d a t . E x c e p t f o rth e in d iv id u a l d e f

e n d a n t, th e r e s u lt w a s a c le a n s w e e p f o rth e p la in tif

f . O n F ebruary11 , 20 08 , the defendant s f i l ed a pet i t i on for r ehea ri ng . In that pe t i t i on f orthe f i r s tt i m e the y not i f

i e d thi s C our ttha tthe y ha d s a t i s f i e d the8

unde r l y i ng j udgm e ntm onths e a r l i e r . T he y c ont e nd tha ts a t i s f a c t i on of the j ud gm entre nd er ed the ca se m oo tand o ust ed thi s C ou rtof j uri sdi ct i on t o i ss ue a d e c is io n , a n d o n th a t b a s is a s k u s to v a c a te o u ro p in io n . II. T he S upr e m e C our tr e

j e c t e d a s i m i l a ra r gum e nti n U ni t e d S t a t e s v. H ougha m , 364 U . S . 310, 81 S . C t . 13 ( 1960) . T he r e the gove rnm e ntha d f i l e d a c om pl a i nta ga i ns ts e ve r a l de f e nda nt s w ho ha d a l l e ge dl y vi ol a t e d the S urpl us P r ope r ty A c t . I d. a t311, 81 S . C t . a t15. T he di s tr i c tc our tf ound tha tthe d e f e n d a n ts w e r e g u ilty o f

f r a u d a n d a w a r d e d th e g o v e rn m e n t $ 8 ,0 0 0 in d a m a g e s . Id. T he defendant s app ea l ed cont endi ng thatthe cl ai m s a gai nstthem w er e barre d by the st atut e of l i m i t at i on s, and t he go vernm entcr oss- appeal ed cont endi ng that th e a w a r d o f

d a m a g e s w a s in a d e q u a te . I d . T h e c o u r t o f ap p e a ls a f

f ir m e d . I d . B ef ore the S up re m e C ou rt , the defendant s a rgued t hatthe ent i re cont rovers y w as m o o tan d th atth e g o v ern m en tw as est o p p ed fro m p u rsu i n g i t s cro ss-ap p eal b ecau se i tha d a c c e pt e d f

r om the de f

e nda nt s pr om i s s or y not e s i n the a m ountof $8, 000 b e f o r e th e j u d g me n th a d b e e n a f f i r me d b y th e c o u r to f

ap p e a l s . I d . a t3 1 2 , 8 1 S. C t. a t 1 5

– 1 6 . T h e S u p r e m e C o u r t r e

je c te d th e d e f

e n d a n ts ’ m o o tn e s s a r g u m e n t in H ou gh am , st at i ng that“ [i ] ti s ageneral l y a cc ept ed rul e of l aw thatw here a9

j ud gm enti s app ea l ed on the grou nd thatthe dam ages aw ar ded are i nadequ at e, a c c e p ta n c e o f

p a y m e n t o f

th e a m o u n t o f

th e u n s a tis f

a c to ry ju d g m e n t d o e s n o t, st andi ng al on e, am ou ntt o an accord and sat i sf ac t i on of the ent i re cl ai m . ” I d. at 31 2, 81 S . C t . at16 . T he C ou rtthen l oo ked t o the ci rc um st ance s t o see i f there w er e other r ea sons thatthe paym entm i gh tbe deem ed t o h ave e nd ed the ent i re ca se . S ee i d. at31 2– 13 , 81 S . C t . at16 . O ne ci rc um st ance i n H ou gh am w as that th e d e f e n d a n ts th e m s e lv e s h a d p r o p o s e d p a y m e n t o f th e u n d e r ly in g ju d g m e n t, w hi l e the gove rnm e nt“ di d nothi ng m or e i n the e nt i r e tr a ns a c t i on tha n a c c e ptthe no t es and execut e the re qu es t ed re l ea se . ” I d. at31 2, 81 S . C t . at16 . A no ther w as tha tthe l a ngua ge of

the r e l e a s e i n tha tc a s e appl i e d t o onl y s om e of the go vernm ent ’ s c l ai m s a gai nstthe defendant s. Id. F i nal l y, the C ou rtre as on ed that

“ s i nc e the tr a ns f

e rof the not e s oc c ur r e d pr i ort o the de c i s i on of the C our tof A ppe a l s , i ti s c l e a rtha tne i the rof the pa r t i e s r e ga r de d tha ttr a ns f e ra s a n a c c or d a nd sa t i sf ac t i on of the ent i re cont rovers y f or bo th p ursued thei r app ea l s i n thatcourt . ” I d. a t312–13, 81 S . C t . a t16; s e e a l s o i d. a t313, 81 S . C t . a t16 ( “ T hus re spon dent s’ cont ent i on here i s t ot al l y i ncon si st entw i th thei r posi t i on i n the C ou rt of A ppe a l s w he r e the y s oughtt o a voi d a l l l i a bi l i ty t o the G ove rnm e nt , i nc l udi ng l i a bi l i ty f orthe $8, 000 the y ha d a l r e a dy pa i d. ” ) . U nde rthos e c i r c um s t a nc e s , the S upr e m e C our the l d tha tpa y m e ntof the unde r l y i ng j udgm e ntdi d notr e nde rtheSee B onner v. Pricha rd, 661 F .2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc) (adoptingas 1 binding prece dent in the Eleventh Circuit all decisions of the for mer F ifth Circuit announce d prior to October 1, 1981). 10 appe a l m oot . I d. a t313, 81 S . C t . a t16. A s th e H o u g h am d eci si o n t each es, th e factth atth e p l ai n t i ff i n o u r case soug htand o bt ai ned p ay m entof the i ni t i al j ud gm enthe w as chal l engi ng as i n a d e q u a t e i s n o te n o u g h b y i t s e l f t o r e n d e rth e ap p e a l mo o t . Se e i d . a t3 1 2 , 8 1 S. C t . a t16. N ordo w e thi nk i te nough tha tthe l a ngua ge of the s a t i s f

a c t i on i s not l i m i t ed t o o nl y partof the j ud gm ent . Inst ea d, w e l oo k t o the m osti m po rt antfa ct or, w hi c h i s the pa r t i e s ’ obj e c t i ve m a ni f e s t a t i ons of

i nt e nt . S e e M c G ow a n v. K i ng, Inc. , 61 6 F . 2d 74 5, 74 6 (5t h C i r. 19 80 ) (c i t i ng H ou gh am and n ot i ng thata pl ai nt i ff 1 w ho ha d a c c e pt e d pa y m e nton a n unde r l y i ng j udgm e ntw a s “ f or e c l os e d f

r om t a ki ng thi s appe a l onl y i f the pa r t i e s m utua l l y i nt e nde d a f i na l s e tt l e m e ntof

a l l the c l a i m s i n di s put e a nd a t e r m i na t i on of the l i t i ga t i on” ) ; s e e a l s o G a ds de n v. F r i pp, 3 3 0 F .2 d 5 4 5 , 5 4 8 ( 4 th C ir . 1 9 6 4 ) . H e r e , th e p a r tie s ’ a c tio n s s p e a k lo u d ly e n o u g h to d r o w n o u t a n y la n g u a g e in the s a t i s f a c t i on. I n thi s c a s e , a s i n H ougha m , a f t e rthe pa y m e nt s w e r e m a de a nd th e s a tis f a c tio n w a s f

ile d in th e d is tr ic t c o u r t, b o th p a r tie s c o n tin u e d to p u r s u e th e ir appe a l s . B oth f

i l e d s uppl e m e nt a l l e tt e rbr i e f s a ddr e s s i ng the m e r i t s , a nd the pl a i nt i f f f i l e d a n a m e nde d c e r t i f

i c a t e of i nt e r e s t e d pa r t i e s t o i nf or m us of

a c ha nge11

i n s t a tu s i n v o l v i n g o n e o f th e d e f e n d a n t s . W e b e l i e v e h e r e , j u s ta s th e Su p r e me C our tdi d i n H ougha m , tha t“ i ti s c l e a rtha tne i the rof the pa r t i e s r e ga r de d [ the paym ent ] as an ac cord and sat i sf ac t i on of the ent i re cont rovers y f or bo th p ursued thei r app ea l s. ” H ou gh am , 36 4 U . S . at31 2– 13 , 81 S . C t . at16 . W e bel i eve here , j u stas th e S u p rem e C o u rtd i d th ere, th atth e d efen d an t s’ co n t en t i o n o f m o o tn ess

“ i s t ot al l y i ncon si st entw i th thei r posi t i on i n the C ou rtof A pp ea l s w here they s o u g h t to a v o id a ll liab ility to th e [ p la in tif f ], in c lu d in g liab ility f

o rth e [ a m o u n t] th e y h a d a lr e a d y p a id .” I d . T he defendant s i n thei r r ehea ri ng pet i t i on do no tm ent i on the H ou gh am de c i s i on. I ns t e a d, the y r e l y pr i m a r i l y on ourde c i s i on i n F i de l c orM or t ga ge C orp. v . I n s u r a n c e C o . o f

N o r th A m e r ic a , 8 2 0 F .2 d 3 6 7 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 8 7 ) , to s u p p o r t th e ir m oo tness ar gu m ent . Iti s notst ou tenou gh t o d o so. In F i del cor a ft erthe pl ai nt i ff f i l e d a not i c e of

appe a l , the de f

e nda nte xe c ut e d a s a t i s f a c t i on of the unde r l y i ng ju d g m e n t. I d . a t 3 6 9 . T h e d e f e n d a n t th e n f

ile d a m o tio n to d is m is s th e ap p e a l, w h ic h w e g r a n te d . I d . a t 3 6 9

– 7 0 . W e n o te d th a t th e p la in tif f’s s u b je c tiv e in te n t to c ont i nue w i th the appe a l w a s i rr e l e va nta nd tha t , w he n the pl a i nt i f f e xe c ut e d the sa t i sf ac t i on of the j ud gm ent , i tfa i l ed t o i ncl ud e are se rvat i on al l ow i ng i tt o p roce ed w i th i t s appe a l . I d. a t370; s e e a l s o T e s s m e rv. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 328 F . 2d 306, 307 ( 5 th C ir . 1 9 6 4 ) ( h o ld in g th a t a n ap p e a l w a s m o o t w h e r e a n a tto rn e y im m e d ia te ly12

pai d h i s c on t em ptfi ne, and t hen fi l ed a not i ce of appeal the fol l ow i ng day) ; cf . A s s ’ n f orD i s a bl e d A m s . , I nc . v. I nt e gr a R e s or tM gm t . , I nc . , 387 F . 3d 1241, 1243 ( 11th C i r . 2004) ( de ny i ng a m ot i on t o di s m i s s the appe a l a s m ootw he r e the appel l ant s a cc ept ed paym entof the un derl yi ng j ud gm ent , bu tspec i fi ca l l y r es erved the i rr i ghtt o appe a l a nd the r e w a s no “ e vi de nc e of s om e i nt e ntt o e nd the litig a tio n ” ) . O urF i de l c orde c i s i on m us tbe r e a d i n l i ghtof the S upr e m e C our t ’ s de c i s i on i n Ho u g h a m , wh i c h i s a n o th e rwa y o f s a y i n g th a twe wi l l n o ts t e e ro n e o f o u ro wn de c i s i ons i nt o a c ol l i s i on w i th S upr e m e C our tpr e c e de nt . N othi ng i n the F i de l c or opi ni on i ndi c a t e s tha tthe pa r t i e s ha d obj e c t i ve l y m a ni f e s t e d a n i nt e ntt o pur s ue the appe a l i n tha tc a s e . T he opi ni on doe s noti ndi c a t e tha ta f t e rpa y m e ntof

the j udgm e ntha d be e n pr of f e r e d a nd a c c e pt e d the pa r t i e s f i l e d appe l l a t e br i e f

s on the m e r i t s . N othi ng i ndi c a t e s tha tboth pa r t i e s i n tha tc a s e i nt e nde d t o a w a i ta de c i s i on on appeal . Inst ea d, i n the F i del cor c as e am ot i on t o d i sm i ss the appeal w as fi l ed b e f o r e th e c o u r t o f

ap p e a ls is s u e d a d e c is io n . S e e F id e lo c o r , 8 2 0 F .2 d a t 3 6 9

– 7 0 . T ha ti s notw ha tw e ha ve he r e . I n thi s c a s e , the obj e c t i ve m a ni f e s t a t i ons of both pa r t i e s c l e a r l y i ndi c a t e tha tthe y i nt e nde d t o pur s ue the i rpos i t i ons i n the appeal and cross -app ea l . Inst ea d o f f i l i ng a m ot i on t o d i sm i ss the appeal as soon as a s a t i s f a c t i on w a s f

i l e d i n the di s tr i c tc our t , both pa r t i e s c ont i nue d t o l i t i ga t e theThe de fenda nts also contend in their rehearing petition that bec ause heacc epted 2 pay ment for the judgment, the plaintiff lac ks standing to pur sue the c ross-appe al. That contention depends on the proposition that both sides int ended f or the pa y ment of the judgment to settle the controversy, which wereje ct for therea sons we havealre ady explained. 13 c a s e in th is C o u r t a s th o u g h n o th in g h a d c h a n g e d . No to n l y th a t , b u tth e d e f e n d a n t s i n th i s c a s e a l s o f i l e d m o t i o n s i n two re l at ed ca se s pendi ng i n the di stri ctcourtthatca nn otbe i nt erpret ed i n any w ay e x c e p t a s m a n if

e s tin g th e irin te n t to p u r s u e th e irap p e a l in th is c a s e to its co n cl u si o n o n th e m eri t s. O th erw i se, i tw o u l d h av e m ad e n o sen se fo r th em t o ask th e d is tr ic t c o u r t to s ta y th o s e tw o r e la te d c a s e s u n til w e d e c id e d th is ap p e a l. O n ly if th e d e f e n d a n ts w e r e c o n tin u in g to p u r s u e a b in d in g d e c is io n in th is c a s e c o u ld w ai t i ng for i tpo ss i bl y hel p “ t o avo i d i ncon si st entj ud gm ent s, un nece ss ary l i t i gat i on cost s, att orney’ s f ee s a nd t o con se rve the j ud i ci al re source s of [ the di stri ct court ] ” a s they prom i se d i n thei r m ot i on s, w hi ch ca m e m ore than t w o m on ths af t er th e s a tis f a c tio n w a s f

ile d . B e c a us e the appe a l i s notm oot , the pe t i t i on f orr e he a r i ng i s due t o be de ni e d. 2 P E T I T I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG DE NI E D.