FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T H C IR C U IT J UNE 2, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 06- 1419 1

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 4- 00 57 4- CV-T-2 4- MAP TERMINIX INTERNATIONAL COMPANY, LP, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us PALMER RANCH LIM ITED PARTNERSHIP, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll ee.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the Mi ddl e D istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 06- 1419 0

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 4- 00 57 4- CV-T-2 4- MAP IN RE:Honora ble Richard Mills, United States District Court J udg e for the Central District of * I llinois , sitti ngby

desig nation. Terminix also filed a petition for a wr it of mandamus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1651. 1 We c on so lid ate d T e rm ini x’s p e tit ion , N o. 06 -1 41 90 , a nd a pp e a l, N o. 06 -1 41 91 . T he pe tit ion is de nie d a s mo ot.
2

TERMINIX INTERNATIONAL COMPANY, LP, P e t i t i o n e r .

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- On Pe tition for Writ of Mandam us to th e U nited States District C ourt fo r the Mi ddl e D istri ct

of F lor ida

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - (J un e 2, 200 8) Before TJO FL AT and KRA VI TC H, Circuit Judges, and MIL LS , District Judge. * PE R CU RIA M: On re m and, w ith ou r instructions to grant Ter m inix’s m otion to com

pel ar bitratio n be fo re it , se e T er m ini x I nt’ l C o. v. P al m er Ranc h L td. P’ shi p, 432 F . 3d 1327 , 1333 (11th Cir. 2005) (T erm inix I), the district court granted Pa lm er Ranc h’ s m oti on t o di sm iss T er m ini x’ s m oti on t o c om

pe l arb itr at ionf

or la ck of subject m atter j urisdictio n. T erm inix app eals, and we reverse . 1 A tr ial court, upon rece iving the m andate of an appellate c ourt, m ay not a lte r, a m en d, or

e xam ine the m an da te , or giv e any f urthe r re lie f or re vie w , but

m ust e nte r anor de r in s tr ic t c om pli an ce w iththe m an da te [, ] . . . im

ple m en t[ ing ] both th e le tte r an d th e spi ri t of the3

m an da te , takin g in to a cc ount the appe llate c ourt’ s op ini on and the ci rc um stanc es it

e m br ac es . A lth oughthe tr ia l c ourt i s f re e to a ddr es s, as am atte r of

f ir st i m pr es sio n, tho se iss ue s no t di spos ed of on a ppe al , it is bou nd to follo w the a ppellate court’ s hold ings, both expressed an d im pli ed . Piam bino v. Ba iley , 757 F. 2d 11 12, 1119 (11t h Cir. 1985 ) (e n banc) (internal citations om itted) (em

phasis add ed). W e ar e “ obl igate d to inquir e int o su bj ec t- m atte r j ur isd ic tio n su a spon te w he ne ve r it m ay

be la ck ing . ” Ch ac on- Bo te ro v. U . S. A tt’ y G en . , 427 F . 3d 9 54, 956 (1 1thCi r. 200 5) ( int er na l qu otatio n m ar

ks and c itatio n om itt ed ). I n T er m ini x I, we noted without objec tion th at T erm inix h ad alleged feder al subjec t m atter j ur isd ic tio n ov er

it s m oti on t o c om

pe l arb itr at ion“ba se d ondiv er sity of ci tiz en shi p. ” T er

m ini x I , 432 F . 3d at 13 29. W e the n he ld tha t “ the de ci sio n of the dis tr ic t c ourt de ny ing T er m ini x’ s m oti on t o c om

pe l arb itr at ionand s tay

the unde rl y ing state -c ourt pr oc ee din gs i s r ev er se d, and the c as e is r em an de d w ith ins tr uc tio ns t o gr an t tha t m oti on and s tay the se pr oc ee din gs. ” I d. a t 13 33. Ane ce ssary

im pli catio n of

our opi nio n inT er

m ini x I , and the re fo re part of our m andate, w as that we fulfilled our oblig ation to con sider feder al subjec t m atter j ur isd ic tio n su a spon te . S ee S kil le rn ’ s E x’ rs v. May ’ s E x’ rs , 10 U . S. ( 6 C ranc h) 267, 3 L. Ed. 220 (181 0) (“ It appearing that the m erits of this cause had been fi na lly de ci de d inthi s c ourt, and tha t i ts m an da te r equir ed onl y the e xe cu tio n of

it s4

decree , it is the opinion of this court that the circuit court is bou nd to carry that de cr ee int o e xe cu tio n, a lth oughthe j ur isd ic tio n of that c our t be not a lle ge d inthe pleadings .” ) (internal quotation m arks om itted). T he district court was ther efore boun d to denya challenge to subjec t m atter j urisdictio n over an issue we had expr es sly a ddr es se d, and c om

ply w ithour m an da te to gr an t T er

m ini x’ s m oti on t o co m pe l arb itr at ion . Fo r the f or eg oin g r ea sons , the or de r of the dis tr ic t c ourt di sm iss ing T er m ini x’ s m oti on t o c om

pe l arb itr at ionis RE V E RS E D , and the c as e is RE MA N D E D w ithins tr

uc tio ns t o gr an t tha t m oti on and s tay the se pr oc ee din gs. SO ORDERED.