DEBORAH LAUFER
v.
ARPAN LLC
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the case was moot at the time of its prior decision because the appellee had dissolved its LLC, rendering redress impossible.
[1] A case is moot when the defendant has dissolved its limited liability company, thereby eliminating any possibility of redress.
[2] An appellate court must vacate its prior decision when the case is moot at the time the decision was issued.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant informed the court that the case was moot at the time of the court's prior decision. The appellee confirmed it had dissolved its LLC sev…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
BY THE COURT:
Some fifteen months after we issued our opinion in this case, see Laufer v. Arpan LLC, 29 F. 4th 1268 (11th Cir. 2022), [fn 1] Appellant informed us that our case was moot—and, indeed, that it had been moot at the time of our decision. Appellee has since confirmed that, yes, it had dissolved its limited liability company seven weeks before we decided the case, thereby eliminating any possibility of redress.
We aren't happy about being left in the dark for so long; we expect more from litigants and, in particular, their lawyers. Even so, we must agree that the case was moot at the time we issued our opinion. Accordingly, Appellant's motion to dismiss the appeal is GRANTED, and the panel's March 29, 2022 opinion is VACATED. See IAL Aircraft Holding, Inc. v. F.A.A., 216 F. 3d 1304, 1306–07 (11th Cir. 2000) ("[T]his court was without jurisdiction when the original decision and mandate issued. Under these circumstances, we are compelled to recall the mandate and vacate our earlier decision.").
The panel's March 31, 2023 order staying the issuance of the mandate is likewise VACATED, and this appeal is DISMISSED AS MOOT.
[fn 1]: And conspicuously, within three days of filing a similar motion to dismiss at the Supreme Court in a related case. On August 10, 2023, the Supreme Court denied that motion and carried the mootness issue with the merits.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Consumers' Research v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 88 F.4th 917 (11th Cir. 2023)…esident" and "instrumental ones"— specifically, the risks inherent in giving enforcement power to those not "subject to political and legal constraints.” Laufer v. Arpan LLC, 29 F.4th 1268, 1294–95 (11th Cir. 2022) (Newsom, J., concurring), vacated, 77 F.4th 1366, 2023 (11th Cir. 2023); accord Sierra v. City of Hallandale Beach, 996 F.3d 1110, 1133 (11th Cir. 2021) (Newsom, J., concurring) ("From [Article II's] explicit vesting, it follows that the 'executive Power' can't be exercised by private parties.").…
-
Johnson v. Mayor, City of Jacksonville (11th Cir. 2026)…ourt’s precedent in Sierra v. City of Hallandale Beach, 996 F.3d 1110 (11th Cir. 2021), as well as our now-vacated decision in Laufer v. Arpan LLC, 29 F.4th 1268 (11th Cir. 2022), opinion vacated and appeal dismissed as moot, 77 F.4th 1366 (11th Cir. 2023). We take the cases in reverse order. Though we disagree with Johnson’s Laufer argument, we need not consider it because, as this Court has explained, vacated opinions “have no legal effect whatever” and…
Authorities Cited
- Laufer v. Arpan LLC, 29 F.4th 1268 (11th Cir. 2022)
- IAL Aircraft Holding, Inc. v. Fed. Aviation Admin., 216 F.3d 1304 (11th Cir. 2000)