# United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604 Submitted February 21 , 2017 Decided March 1 , 2017 Before DIANE P. WOOD , Chief Judge JOEL M. FLAUM , Circuit Judge ILANA D. ROVNER , Circuit Judge No. 16

- 3462 GOODCAT, LLC , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v . DAVID COOK, et al

. , Defendants , CLOUDTOWN, LLC, et al ., Intervenor

- Defendants

- Appellants

. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana , Indianapolis Division

. No. 1:16

- cv - 01514

- RL Y

- DML Richard L. Young , Judge

.

O R D E R Intervenor

- Defendants Cloudtown , LLC; DB Vapes, LLC; DNM Ventures, LLC; Licensed E

- Liquid Manufacturing LLC; Vape IN g, LLC; and Vapor Bank E

- Liquid, LLC (collectively , “Intervenor

- Appellants”) appeal the district court’s decision to enjoin the enforcement of certain provisions of Indiana Code § 7.1

- 7

- 1

- 1 et seq . (the “Act”). In light of our decision in Legato Vapors, LLC v. Cook , — F.3d

— , No. 16

- 3071, 2017 WL 393265 (7th Cir. Jan. 30, 2017), we dismiss the appeal as moot. NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1No. 16

- 3462 Page 2 Appellee GoodCat, LLC is a Florida

- based manufacturer of e

- liquid s . 1 Before the Act, GoodCat supplied nearly 200 of Indiana’s retail outlets with e

- liquid products. In 2015, however, the Indiana legislature enacted the statute at issue , which in part required e - liquid manufacturers to obtain a permit from the Indiana Al cohol and Tobacco Commission by June 30, 2016, “before mixing, bottling, packaging, or selling e

- liquid to retailers or distributors in Indiana.” Ind. Code § 7.1

- 7

- 4

- 1(a). To secure a permit, in

- state and out

- of

- state manufacturers had to satisfy certain “ security requirements.” Id. § 7.1

- 7

- 4

- 1(d) (1)

– (3) . After multiple failed attempts to obtain a permit, GoodCat brought suit, alleging that the Act’s security requirements violated the dormant Commerce Clause in Article I, Section 8 of the United States Cons titution. Intervenor

- Appellants, in

- state and out
- of

- state e - liquid manufacturers that had successfully secured permit s , opposed GoodCat’s challenge to the Act. The district court held in GoodCat’s favor and enjoined enforcement of the Act ’s security requirements as applied to out

- of

- state manufacturers. Intervenor

- Appellants appealed. On January 30 , 2017, while the appeal was pending, this Court decided Legato Vapors . There, three different out

- of

- state e
- liquid manufacturers had also alleged that the Act’s security requirements “violate[d] the dormant Commerce Clause prohibition on extraterritorial state regulation of commerce,” as applied to out

- of

- state manufacturers. Legato Vapors , 2017 WL 393265, at *2. We agreed: From the perspective of t he dormant Commerce Clause, these are extraordinary provisions

... . As applied to out

- of

- state manufacturers, the security provisions of the Indiana Act violate the Commerce Clause
.... They operate as extraterritorial legislation, governing the services and c ommercial relationships between out
- of

- state manufacturers and their employees and contractors. Id . at *6

– 7. As a result, we ordered the district court to “declare the challenged provisions unenforceable against out

- of

- state manufacturers.” Id . at *10. Art icle III of the Constitution requires that federal courts decide only those disputes that present “actual, ongoing cases or controversies.” Lewis v. C ont ’l Bank Corp

. , 494 U.S. 472, 477 (1990) (citation omitted) . “In general a case becomes moot when the is sues presented are no longer live or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome.” Eichwedel v. Curry , 700 F.3d 275, 278 (7th Cir. 2012) (quoting Murphy v. Hunt , 455 U.S. 478, 481 (198 2 )). The mandate in Legato Vapors issued on February 21, 2017. See

1 E

- liquids are nicotine

- containing liquids used in vaping devices such as electronic cigarettes.No. 16

- 3462 Page 3 Fed. R. App. P. 41 advisory committee’s note to 1998 amendments (a court of appeals’ judgment or order is final upon issuance of the mandate; “at that time the parties’ obligations become fixed”). Thus, Legato Vapors rende rs the current appeal moot. At oral argument, Intervenor

- Appellants acknowledged that “ [t] he only way that this case isn’t moot is if one of two things happens” : (1) Indiana seeks certiorari review from the Supreme Court , and that review is granted ; or (2) this Court exercises its Circuit Rule 40(e) review and overturns Legato Vapors
. First, as noted above, an appellate judgment’s finality hinges on the issuance of the mandate, not on potential Supreme Court review. In any event, Indiana has not yet sought such review. S econd, because we conclude there is no reason to overrule Legato Vapors , circulation under Circuit Rule 40(e) is not required.

AFFIRMED.