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-RLY-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; VapeINg, 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NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION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. 32.1
No. 16-3462 Page 2

Appellee GoodCat, LLC is a Florida-based manufacturer of e-liquids.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 Alcohol 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 Constitution. Intervenor-Appellants, in-state and 

out-of-state e-liquid manufacturers that had successfully secured permits, 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 the 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 

commercial 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.

Article III of the Constitution requires that federal courts decide only those 

disputes that present “actual, ongoing cases or controversies.” Lewis v. Cont’l Bank Corp.,

494 U.S. 472, 477 (1990) (citation omitted). “In general a case becomes moot when the 

issues 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 (1982)). 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 renders 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. Second, because we conclude there 

is no reason to overrule Legato Vapors, circulation under Circuit Rule 40(e) is not required.

AFFIRMED.