Opinion ID: 78257
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: jurisdictional question

Text: The district court's March 25, 2008 Order granted the following relief to the Appellees: (1) dismissal of the complaint; (2) an injunction against the Appellants, enjoining them from filing future lawsuits against the Appellees in that court based on the facts underlying the case without first obtaining a court order; (3) a fine in the amount of $1,000; and (4) an order of attorney's fees in an undetermined amount. On March 26, 2008, the Appellants appealed. In response, we presented the following Jurisdictional Question to the parties, addressing only the order of attorney's fees: Whether the district court's March 25, 2008, order is final and appealable to the extent that it awarded sanctions but directed Defendants to submit proof of their reasonable attorney fees, and, [i]f not, whether the notice of appeal is premature with respect to Plaintiffs' counsel. On May 1, 2008, the Appellants submitted their Appellants' Statement Regarding Jurisdictional Questions, in which they assert that we retain jurisdiction over the entirety of the March 25, 2008 Order. The Appellees did not file a response. Subsequent events to the issuance of the jurisdictional question and the Appellants' statement have rendered moot any question with respect to the jurisdictional question. On May 14, 2008, the district court quantified the amount of attorney fees and costs, ordering the Appellants to pay $9,717. In response to that order, the Appellants filed a second notice of appeal on May 28, 2008. On June 13, 2008, the Appellants filed Appellants' Motion to Consolidate Appeals, which this Court granted on August 20, 2008. Because the Appellants filed a second notice of appeal as to the May 14, 2008 Order and subsequently consolidated that appeal with the first appeal, the jurisdictional question as to the appealability of the March 25, 2008 Order as to the undetermined amount of attorney's fees and costs is now moot.