[PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 16

- 10552

________________________ D.C. Docket No. 1:03

- cv - 22046

- KMW JUAN A. SALINAS, LUCILA FUENTES, Plaintiffs

- Appellants,

versus SUE ANN RAMSEY, HILDA RAMSEY, Defendants

- Appellees.

________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida

________________________ ( May 2 , 2017) Before WILLIAM PRYOR and MARTIN, Circ uit Judges, and DUFFEY, ∗ District Judge

. MARTIN, Circuit Judge:

∗ Honorable William S. Duffey, Jr., United States District Judge for the Northern District of Georgia, sitting by designation.

Case: 16-10552 Date Filed: 05/02/2017 Page: 1 of 62 A federal jury found Sue Ann Ramsey violated the Fair Labor Stan dards
Act , 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. , by not paying Juan Salinas and Lucila Fuentes time and a half for overtime work. On the day of the verdict , September 23, 2004, t he District Court entered a money judgment against Ms. Ramsey in favor of Mr. Salinas and Ms. Fuentes. The clerk of the court then issued two wri ts of execution on the judgment s , the first on November 24, 2004, and the second on April 6,
2005. Then nothing happened in the case for over ten years. On May 15, 2015, Mr. Salinas and Ms. Fuentes came back to the federal

c ourt where they got the judgment, and filed a motion to compel post

- judg ment discovery , which the District Court denied as untimely. In doing so, the court relied on Balfour Beatty Bahamas, Ltd. v. Bush , 170 F.3d 1048 (11th Cir. 1999)

. This C ourt held in Balfour that a request for post

- judgment discovery m ade almost

s even ye ar s after the judgment was entered was barred by the five

- year limitations period established in Fla. Stat. § 95.11(2)(a)

. Id. at 10 49, 10 51. The facts here a re nearly identical to those in Balfour

. In s eeking a different outcome than the judgment holder got in Balfour , Mr. Salinas and Ms. Fuentes tell us t hat since this C ourt decided Balfour , a Florida intermediate appellate court has affirmatively stated that Balfour was wrongly

Case: 16-10552 Date Filed: 05/02/2017 Page: 2 of 63 decided

. 1 See Burshan v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of P ittsburgh , Pa. , 805 So. 2d 835 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). And Mr. Salinas and Ms. Fuentes are not the first to make our C ourt aware of the Florida court ’s criticism of Balfour

. Indeed even before Burshan w as decided, this C ourt sought the aid of the Florida Supreme
Court in deciding which Florida statute set the statute of limitations in this circumstance. First, i n Leasco Response, Inc. v. Wright , 99 F.3d 381 (11th Cir. 1996) (per curiam) , a panel of this Co urt asked the Florida Supreme Court (by way of cer tified question) which Florida statute set the limitations period for an action to enf orce a judgment brought in the federal district c ourt located in Florida, where the judgment originated. Id

. at 383

. However, the parties in Leasco settled their disput e before the Florida Supreme Court could answer the question we certified.
See Balfour , 170 F.3d at 1050. Then i n Buse v. Kuechenberg , 325 F.3d 1249 (11th Cir. 2003 ), vacated , 337 F.3d 1250 (11th Cir. 2003) , a panel of this C ourt acknowledged the conflict between our C ourt’s decision in Balfour and the Florida District Court of Appeal ’ s discussion of why our Balfour decision was wrong. Id. at 1251

– 52. Again, we certified a question to the Florida Supreme Court , seeking guidance about how to
prop erl y enforce statutes of limitations set by Florida law

. See i d. at 1252. But

1 Our C ourt rule requires us to follow prior panel precedent, but there is an exception for when a state appellate court tells us we interpreted its state law incorrectly. EmbroidMe.com, Inc. v. Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. of Am. , 845 F.3d 1099, 1105 (11th Cir. 2017).

Case: 16-10552 Date Filed: 05/02/2017 Page: 3 of 64 this time too , the parties in Buse settled and the ir appeal was dismissed before the Florida Supreme Court could answer our question. 337 F.3d at 125 0

– 5 1

. Now the appeal brought by Mr. Salinas and Ms. Fuentes gives us yet another chance to seek guidance from the Florida Supreme Court on this subject

. Of course the lower Florida courts are routinely called upon to apply the various statutes of limitations set by Florida law . For example, in Kiesel v. Graham , 388 So. 2d 594 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980) , the holders of a judgment obtained in federal court came to Florida state court seeking a writ of mandamus to aid in collection of their judgment that was more than five years old. I d. at 595. T he Kiesel court was presented with the question of which limitations period from Fla. Stat. § 95.11 applied

. Id. As relevant here , § 95.11 says: Actions other than for recovery of real property shall be commenced as follows: (1) Within twent y years.

— An action on a judgment or decree of a court of record in this state. (2) Within five years.

— (a) An action on a judgment or decree of any court, not of record, of this state or any court of the United States, any other state or territory in the United States, or a foreign country. Fla. Stat. § § 95.11(1)

– (2 ) (a). T he Kiesel court concluded the five

- year statute of limitations governed. 388 So. 2d at 59 6. In Balfour , our C ourt “adopt[ed]” the holding from Kiesel

. See Balfour , 170 F.3d at 1051

.

Case: 16-10552 Date Filed: 05/02/2017 Page: 4 of 65 After this Court signed on to the rationale of Kiesel , another Flo rida District
Court of Appeal (the Fourth) set out why we were both wrong. Burshan , 805 So. 2d at 843

– 44. It said that neither limitations period in § 95.11 applied. Id. at 843. Rather, the Burshan court reasoned that the limitations periods established by § 95.11 apply to a n “ action on a judgment

. ” Id. at 840. The court opined that under common law, “action on a judgment” referred to a new action filed by a judgment c reditor , which would restart the limitations clock on his judgment without having to relitigate the merits of the original cause of action. Id. at 84 0

– 4 1

. The Burshan court relied on the Florida Supreme Court ’s ruling in Young v. McKenzie , 46 So. 2d 184 (Fla. 1950) , which held that § 95.11 did not apply to certain post

- judgment discovery proceedings because those proceedings were meant to help the holder of an existing judgment execute that judgment , and not “to bring new life to the judgment itself.” Id

. at 185 ; see also Burshan 805 So. 2d
at 84 2

– 43. Burshan and Kiesel show that, even among Florida courts , there are differing views about which limitations period applies in which cases.

“ W hen substantial doubt exists about the answer to a material state law question ,” a federal court should “ avoid making unne cessary state law guesses and [] offer the state court the opportunity to explicate state law. ” Forgione v. Dennis Pirtle Agency, Inc. , 93 F.3d 758, 761 (11th Cir. 1996) (per curiam)

. T he conflict between our precedent and the Florida appellate court ’s decision in Burshan

Case: 16-10552 Date Filed: 05/02/2017 Page: 5 of 66 creates “substantial doubt” about the meaning of §§ 95.11(1) and 2(a). See i d. In order to resolve it, we certify the following question to the Florida Supreme Court: What limita tions period , if any, applies to a request for post

- judgment discovery brought in federal district court in Florida on a judgment entered by that same federal district court? We appreciate the assistance of the Florida Supreme Court with this question. N either o ur presentation of the issue, nor the phrasing of our question are intended to restrict the Florida Supreme Court’s analysis of this or any other issue it chooses to address. See City of Marietta v. CSX Transp., Inc. , 196 F

. 3d 1300, 1309 (11th Cir . 1999); Edmonds v. Bronner , 864 F.2d 752, 753

– 54 (11th Cir. 1989). W hile we hope the Florida Supreme Court will answer our question, we also recognize that it has no obligation to do so. That said, “we would greatly prefer to hear from the state’s highe st court on this unsettled and important area of state law.” Butler v. The Ala. Judicial Inquiry Comm’n , 245 F.3d 1257, 1266 (11th Cir. 2001). QUESTION CERTIFIED. Case: 16-10552 Date Filed: 05/02/2017 Page: 6 of 6