Hollywood Mobile Estates Limited v. Mitchell Cypress , 464 F. App'x 837 ( 2012 )

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
No. 11-13482 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
Non-Argument Calendar MARCH 22, 2012
________________________ JOHN LEY
CLERK
D.C. Docket No. 0:09-cv-60016-WPD
HOLLYWOOD MOBILE ESTATES LIMITED,
a Florida Limited Partnership,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
MITCHELL CYPRESS,
Chairman, Seminole Tribe of Florida,
RICHARD BOWERS,
Vice-Chairman, Seminole Tribe of Florida,
MAX B. OSCEOLA, JR.,
ROGER SMITH, and
DAVID CYPRESS,
Council Members, Seminole Tribe of Florida,
CHIEF OF POLICE WILLIAM R. LATCHFORD,
Seminole Tribe of Florida,
DIRECTOR FRED HOPKINS,
Real Estate Services Department,
Seminole Tribe of Florida,
in their official capacities,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellants.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(March 22, 2012)
Before CARNES, BARKETT, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Various officials of the Seminole Tribe of Florida appeal the district court’s
grant of a preliminary injunction to Hollywood Mobile Estates, Ltd. They contend
that the underlying cause of action is only for breach of a lease agreement and thus
does not fit within the limited exception to tribal sovereign immunity created by
Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 28 S.Ct. 441 (1908).
I.
Hollywood Mobile Estates operated a mobile home park on land it leased
from the Seminole Tribe. In 2008 the Seminole Tribe ejected Hollywood Mobile
Estates from the leased property and began collecting rent from sublessees.
Hollywood Mobile Estates filed suit seeking restitution of the lost rent and an
injunction compelling the Seminole Tribe to return possession of the land to it.
The district court dismissed the suit for lack of jurisdiction, concluding the claims
were barred by the Seminole Tribe’s sovereign immunity.
2
On appeal, we affirmed the dismissal as to the restitution claim. Hollywood
Mobile Estates, Ltd. v. Cypress, 415 F. App’x 207, 209 (11th Cir. 2011)
(unpublished). But we reversed and remanded as to the request for injunctive
relief, holding that the relief was not barred by the Seminole Tribe’s sovereign
immunity because it was prospective and did not implicate special sovereignty
interests. See id. at 209–211. On remand, Hollywood Mobile Estates moved for a
preliminary injunction ordering the Seminole Tribe to restore to it the leased
property. The district court granted that motion and issued the requested
injunction. The Seminole Tribe now appeals from that order.
II.
We review only for an abuse of discretion a district court’s decision to issue
a preliminary injunction, but review de novo the legal conclusions upon which an
injunction is based. Grizzle v. Kemp, 634 F.3d 1314, 1320 (11th Cir. 2011). A
district court may grant a preliminary injunction if the moving party shows that:
(1) “it has a substantial likelihood of success on the merits”; (2) it will be
irreparably injured unless the injunction issues; (3) the threatened injury to it
outweighs whatever harm the proposed injunction may cause to the opposing
party; and (4) “if issued, the injunction would not be adverse to the public
interest.” KH Outdoor, LLC v. City of Trussville, 458 F.3d 1261, 1268 (11th Cir.
3
2006).
The Seminole Tribe’s attack on the district court’s order is merely an effort
to relitigate the sovereign immunity question we decided one year ago. It argues
that the injunction does not fit within the Ex parte Young exception to tribal
sovereign immunity because it is issued to remedy an alleged breach of a lease and
not a violation of the Constitution or federal law. But we have already held that
injunctive relief in this case fits within the Ex parte Young exception. See
Cypress, 415 F. App’x at 211 (“Instead, we hold, based on this record and these
parties, that [Hollywood Mobile Estate’s] request for an injunction restoring it to
the premises is not barred by tribal sovereign immunity.”). That is the law of the
case and binding. See Ash v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 664 F.3d 883, __ (11th Cir.
2011) (“Under the law of the case doctrine, the district court and this Court are
bound by findings of fact and conclusions of law made by this Court in an earlier
appeal of the same case.”)
AFFIRMED.
4