FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T MARCH 22, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NO T PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 13 48 2 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 0 :0 9- cv -6 00 16 -WPD

HOLLYW OOD MOBILE ESTATES LIMITED, a Fl or id a Lim it edPart ne rs hi p, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pl ai nt iff - App el le e,
ver su s MITCHELL CYPRESS , Ch ai rm an , Sem in ol e Trib e o f Fl or id a, RICHAR D BOW ERS, Vice -Ch ai rm an , Sem in ol e Trib e o f Fl or id a, MAX B. OSCEOLA, JR., ROGER SMI TH, and DAVID CYPRESS, Co un ci l M em

be rs , Sem in ol e Trib e o f Fl or id a, CHIEF OF POLICE WILLIAM R. LATCHFORD, Sem in ol e Trib e o f Fl or id a, DIRECTOR FR ED HOPKINS, Rea l Es ta te Serv ic es Depa rtment, Sem in ol e Trib e o f Fl or id a, in th ei r of fic ia l capa ci ti es , ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen da nt s - Ap pe ll an ts
.__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t forth e So ut he rn Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Ma rch 22 , 20 12 ) Befo re CARNES, BAR KETT, an d ANDERSON, Ci rcu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: Vari ou s o ffi ci al s o f th e Sem in ol e Trib e o f Fl or id a ap pe al th e d is tri ctco urt’s gr an t o f a p rel im in ary in

jun ct io n t o Ho ll ywoo d M ob il e Est at es , Ltd . They co nt en d th atth e und erl y in g c au se of a ct io n i s o nl y forbre ach of alea se ag reem en t an d t hu s do es no t fi t wi th in th e li m it edex cep ti on to tri ba l s ov erei gn im m un it y crea te d b y Ex p art e You ng , 20 9 U.S. 1 23 , 28 S.Ct . 44 1 (1 90 8)

. I. Hol lywoodMo bi le Est at es op erat eda m ob il e h om e p arkon lan d i t l eas ed fro m th e Sem in ol e Trib e. In20 08 th e Sem in ol e Trib e eject edHol lywoodMo bi le Est at es fro m

th e le as edpro pe rty andbe ga n c ol le ct in g re ntfro m subl es se es . Hol lywoodMo bi le Est at es fil edsu itsee ki ng res ti tu ti on of t he lo stren t an d an in jun ct io n c om

pe ll in g the Sem in ol e Trib e to return p os se ss io n o f th e la ndto it

. The di st ric t co urt d is m is se d t he su itforlac k o f juri sd ic ti on , con cl ud in g t he cla im s were b arre d b y

th e Sem in ol e Trib e’s so ve rei gn imm un it y . 2On ap pe al , we affi rm edth e d is m is sa l as to th e res ti tu ti on cla im . Hol lywood

Mo bi le Est at es , Ltd . v. Cypres s, 4 15 F. App ’x 20 7, 2 09 (11 th Cir . 20 11 ) (u np ub li sh ed ). Bu t we re ve rs edan d re m an de d a s t o t he reque stforin jun ct iv e rel ie f, ho ld in g tha t the rel ie f was no t b arre d b y th e Sem in ol e Trib e’s so ve rei gn imm un it y be cau se itwas p ro sp ect iv e an d d idno t i m pl ic at e sp eci al so ve rei gn ty in te res ts . See i d. at20 9– 21 1. On rem an d, Ho ll ywoo d M ob il e Est at es m ov edfora pr el im in ary in

jun ct io n o rd eri ng th e Sem in ol e Trib e to res to re t o i t t he lea se d pr op erty . The d is tri ctco urt g ran te d t ha t m ot io n a ndis su edth e req ue st ed in jun ct io n. Th e Sem in ol e Trib e n ow ap pe al s fr om th atord er. II. W e rev ie w on ly for an ab us e o f di sc ret io n adi st ric t co ur t’s d eci si on to is su e a p rel im in ary in

jun ct io n, b utrev ie w de n ov o t he leg al co nc lu si on s upo n wh ic h a n in jun ct io n i s b as ed . Grizz le v. Kem p, 6 34 F.3d13 14 , 13 20 (11 th Cir . 20 11 ). A di st ric t co urt m ay

gra nta pr el im in ary in

jun ct io n i f th e m ov in g p art y sh ows th at : (1 ) “ itha s a s ub st an ti al li ke li ho odof s uc ces s o n t he m eri ts ”; (2) itwil l b e irr ep arab ly inju redun le ss th e in jun ct io n i ss ue s; (3) th e th reat en edin jury to i t

ou twei gh s wh at ev er h arm th e p ro po se d i nju nc ti on m ay cau se to th e o pp os in g pa rty; an d (4 ) “ if i ss ue d, t he in jun ct io n wo ul d n otbe ad ve rs e to th e p ub li c in te res t.” KH Out do or , LLC v. Ci ty of Tru ss vi ll e, 45 8 F .3d12 61 , 12 68 (11 th Cir

. 320 06 ). The Sem in ol e Trib e’s at ta ckon th e d is tri ctco ur t’s o rd er i s m erel y aneffo rt to rel it ig at e th e so ve rei gn imm un it y qu es ti on we de ci de d o ne y ear a go . It arg ue s th atth e in jun ct io n d oe s n otfitwit hi n t he Ex p art e You ng ex cep ti on to tri ba l

so ve rei gn imm

un it y be cau se itis is su edto rem edy anall eg edbre ach of alea se an d

no t a v io la ti on of t he Co ns ti tu ti on or f ed eral law. Bu t we h av e al read y he ldth at in jun ct iv e rel ie f in th is cas e fi ts wit hi n t he Ex p art e You ng ex cep ti on . See Cy pr es s, 4 15 F. App ’x at 2 11 (“ In st ead , we ho ld , bas edon th is reco rdan d t he se pa rti es , th at[Hol lywoodMo bi le Est at e’s] requ es t fo r an in jun ct io n re st or in g i t t o th e p rem is es is no t b arre d b y tri ba l s ov erei gn im

m un it y .”). Thatis th e la w of the

cas e an d b in di ng . See As h v . Ty so n F oo ds , Inc ., 66 4 F .3d88 3, _ _ (1 1t h C ir. 20 11 ) (“ Und er t he law o f th e cas e d oc tri ne , th e d is tri ctco urt an d t hi s C ou rt a re bo un d b y fin di ng s o f fac t an d c on cl us io ns of l aw m ad e b y th is Co ur t i n a n e arl ie r ap pe al of t he same case .”) AFFIRMED.

4