Case Name: JACKSONVILLE PROPERTY RIGHTS ASSOCIATION INC., a Florida nonprofit corporation, Horton Enterprises, Inc., a Florida corporation, d.b.a. The New Solid Gold, Hartsock Enterprises, Inc., a Florida corporation, d.b.a. Doll House, Plaintiffs-Appellants, E.M.R.O. Corporation, Inc., etc., et al., Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA, a Florida municipal corporation, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-11-13
Citations: 496 F. App'x 956
Docket Number: No. 12-11197
Parties: JACKSONVILLE PROPERTY RIGHTS ASSOCIATION INC., a Florida nonprofit corporation, Horton Enterprises, Inc., a Florida corporation, d.b.a. The New Solid Gold, Hartsock Enterprises, Inc., a Florida corporation, d.b.a. Doll House, Plaintiffs-Appellants, E.M.R.O. Corporation, Inc., etc., et al., Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA, a Florida municipal corporation, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before TJOFLAT, MARCUS and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 496
Pages: 956–956

Head Matter:
JACKSONVILLE PROPERTY RIGHTS ASSOCIATION INC., a Florida nonprofit corporation, Horton Enterprises, Inc., a Florida corporation, d.b.a. The New Solid Gold, Hartsock Enterprises, Inc., a Florida corporation, d.b.a. Doll House, Plaintiffs-Appellants, E.M.R.O. Corporation, Inc., etc., et al., Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA, a Florida municipal corporation, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 12-11197
Non-Argument Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
Nov. 13, 2012.
G. Randall Garrou, John H. Weston, Weston, Garrou & Mooney, Los Angeles, CA, Lawrence G. Walters, Walters Law Group, Longwood, FL, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
Cindy Ann Laquidara, Craig Dennis Feiser, Carol Mirando, Adina Teodorescu, Office of General Counsel, Jacksonville, FL, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before TJOFLAT, MARCUS and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
In Jacksonville Property Rights Ass'n, Inc. v. City of Jacksonville, 635 F.3d 1266, 1277 (11th Cir.2011), we dismissed the parties' appeals, vacated the District Court's judgment, and remanded the case to the District Court "with instructions to dismiss this action." Following the issuance of our mandate, appellants moved the District Court for leave to amend their complaint and for other relief. The District Court, following the mandate rule, see Piambino v. Bailey, 757 F.2d 1112, 1120 (11th Cir. 1985), dismissed the case , "reserv[ing] jurisdiction to consider any timely filed motions for attorneys' fees and costs."
Appellants now appeal the District Court's ruling. The District Court did precisely what our mandate instructed it to do, i.e., dismiss the action. We accordingly affirm.
AFFIRMED.
. We construe the dismissal to be without prejudice, since the basis for our disposition of the parties' appeals was that the case was moot.