FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC U IT OCT 3, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB 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

________________________ N o. 07- 15768 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 0 6 - 0 0 6 6 4 - CV - FTM - 2 9 - SPC C L I N T O N W . F I N S T A D , P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s STA TE O F FLO RI D A , D EPA RTM EN T O F BU SI N ESS A N D P R O F E S S I O N A L R E G U L A T I O N , B o a r d o f S u rv e y o r s & M ap p e r s , E R I C R . H U R S T , A s s is ta n t G e n e r a l C o u n s e l, D E N N I S E . B L A K E N S H I P , P r o f e s s io n a l L a n d S u rv e y o r , D e f e n d a n ts - A p p e lle e s .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om 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

_________________________ ( O c t ob e r 3, 2008)2

B efo re C A RN E S , B A R K E T T an d P R Y O R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: C l i nt on W . F i ns t a d appe a l s the di s m i s s a l of hi s pr o s e c om pl a i ntf

orl a c k of subj ec tm att erj uri sdi ct i on . F ed. R . C i v. P . 12 (b)( 1). T he di stri ctcourtconcl ud ed th a tFi n s t a d ’ s c o mp l a i n ti s mo o t . W e a f f i rm. W e r e v ie w d e n o v o th e d is m is s a l o f ac o m p la in t u n d e rR u le 1 2 ( b ) ( 1 ) . A s oc i a c i on de E m pl e a dos D e l A r e aC a na l e r av. P a na m aC ana l C om m ’ n, 329 F . 3d 1235, 1237–38 ( 11th C i r . 2003) . W e a l s o r e vi e w de novo i s s ue s of m ootne s s a nd s ubj e c tm a tt e rj ur i s di c t i on. D i m a i o v. D e m oc r a t i c N a t ’ l C om m . , 520 F . 3d 1299, 1301 ( 11th C i r . 2008) ; C r ow n M e di a , L L C v. G w i nne ttC ounty , G a . , 380 F . 3d 13 17 , 13 23 (11th C i r. 20 04 ). T he j ur i s di c t i on of

the f e de r a l c our t s i s l i m i t e d t o a c tua l c a s e s a nd controvers i es . C row n M edi a, 38 0 F . 3d at13 24 . A com pl ai ntbecom es m oo tw hen i tno l onge rpr e s e nt s a“ l i ve ” c ontr ove r s yorarul i ng on the i s s ue s w oul d ha ve no prac t i ca l si gn i fi ca nce. Id. “ T he st andi ng do ctri ne, l i ke the m oo tness do ctri ne, i s an as pectof the ‘ ca se or controvers y’ re qu i re m ent . ” S i m s v. F l a. D ep’ tof H i gh w ay S a f e ty , 8 6 2 F .2 d 1 4 4 9 , 1 4 6 4 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 8 9 ) ( e n b a n c ) . T o e s tab lis h s ta n d in g , a pl a i nt i f f m us ts a t i s f

y thr e e r e qui r e m e nt s : a n i nj ury i n f a c t , c aus a t i on, a nd r e dr e s s abi l i ty . T a nne rA dve r . G r oup, L . L . C . v. F a y e tt e C ounty , G a . , 451 F . 3d 777,3

791 ( 11th C i r . 2006) . A pl a i nt i f f c a n m a i nt a i n apr e - e nf

or c e m e ntc ha l l e nge t o a l a w i f he a l l e ge s e i the rtha t“ ( 1) he w a s thr e a t e ne d w i th pr os e c ut i on; ( 2) p r o s e c u tio n is lik e ly ; o r( 3 ) th e r e is ac r e d ib le th r e a t o f p r o s e c u tio n .” A m . C iv il L ib e r tie s U n io n v . T h e F la . B a r , 9 9 9 F .2 d 1 4 8 6 , 1 4 9 2 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 3 ) . F in s ta d ’s c o m p la in t is m o o t. F in s ta d , as u rv e y o r , c o m p la in s th a t h is r ig h ts un der the F i rs tA m endm entw er e vi ol at ed w hen the B oard of S urveyors char ged hi m w i th vi ol a t i ng as t a t e a dm i ni s tr a t i ve rul e tha tpr ohi bi t e d di s c l a i m e r s on s urve y s , butthe a dm i ni s tr a t i ve c om pl a i ntw a s l a t e rdi s m i s s e d by apa ne l of the B oa r d. S e e B urke v. B a rne s , 479 U . S . 361, 363, 107 S . C t . 734, 736 ( 1987) ( the pl a i nt i f f m us tha ve a“ l i ve ” c ontr ove r s y “ a tthe t i m e the f e de r a l c our tde c i de s the c a s e ; i ti s note nough tha tthe r e m a y ha ve be e n al i ve c a s e orc ontr ove r s y w he n the c a s e ” w a s f

i l e d) . A l though F i ns t a d a r gue s tha tthe B oa r d di s m i s s e d the c om pl a i nt vo l un t ar i l y t o avo i d sui t , se e T roi ano v . S up ervi sor of E l ec t i on s i n P al m B ea ch C ou nty, F l a. , 38 2 F . 3d 12 76 , 12 82 –8 3 (11 th C i r. 20 04 ), the panel concl ud ed that th e a d m in istrativ e ru le d o es n o t p ro h ib itth e c o n d u ct alleg ed inF in stad ’s c o m p la in t. T h e p a n e l in s te a d c o n c lu d e d th a t th e c u rr e n t ru le p e rm its as u rv e y o rto use “ expl anat ory not es ” on a survey . S ee A m . C i vi l L i bert i es U ni on , 99 9 F . 2d at 1492. F i ns t a d’ s c om pl a i nta l s o doe s notf a l l w i thi n the e xc e pt i on t o the doc tr i ne of4

m oo tness for r epet i t i ou s harm s thatevade re vi ew because nothi ng i n the re cord s u g g e s t s th a tFi n s t a d i s l i k e l y t o f a c e p r o s e c u t i o n f

o rv i o l a t i o n o f

th e s a me a dm i ni s tr a t i ve rul e . S e e M urphy v. H unt , 455 U . S . 478, 482, 102 S . C t . 1181, 1 1 8 3 ( 1 9 8 2 ) . A lth o u g h E r ic H u r s t, A s s is ta n t G e n e r a l C o u n s e l o f th e S ta te D epartm entof B usi ness and P rofe ss i on al R egul at i on , sugg es t ed thatthe B oard w o u ld p r o m u lg a te aru le to p r o h ib it d is c la im e r s , H u r s t’s s ta te m e n t is s p e c u la tiv e . A com pl ai ntabou tthe adop t i on of thatpo t ent i al rul e i s notri pe. C f. A t l ant a G as L i gh tC o. v. U . S . D ep’ tof E nergy, 66 6 F . 2d 13 59 , 13 70 (11th C i r. 19 82 ) ( pree nf or c e m e ntc ha l l e nge t o c ons t i tut i ona l i ty of S e c t i on 402 of

F ue l U s e A c tw a s not r ip e w h e n s ta te s h a d n o t a d o p te d la w s to e n f o r c e th e s e c tio n ) . F i ns t a d’ s r e m a i ni ng a r gum e nt s a l s o f a i l . F i ns t a d a s s e r t s tha thi s c orpor a t i on a nd othe rs urve y or s f

a c e pr os e c ut i on f

orthe us e of

di s c l a i m e r s , buthe l a c ks s t a ndi ng t o pur s ue c l a i m s on be ha l f of a n e nt i ty ora nothe rpe r s on. S e e W ol f f v. C a s h 4 T i t l e s , 351 F . 3d 1348, 1357 ( 11th C i r . 2003) . F i ns t a d c om pl a i ns , f orthe f i r s tt i m e on appe a l , tha tthe s t a t e vi ol a t e d hi s r i ght s unde rthe F our th, F i f th, a nd F our t e e nth A m e ndm e nt s a nd the B oa r d a c t e d unde ra n i nva l i d gr a ntof l e gi s l a t i ve au th o ri ty, b u tth ese arg u m en t s are n o tp ro p erl y b efo re th i s C o u rt . S ee A ccess N ow , Inc. v. S ou thw es tA i rl i nes C o. , 38 5 F . 3d 13 24 , 13 31 (11th C i r. 20 04 ). T h e d i sm i ssal o f F i n st ad ’ s co m p l ai n ti s AF F I RME D.