Christy Galenza, et al. v. 6420 Roswell Road., Inc., et al., No. 17-10625 (11th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
USCA11 Case: 17-10625 Date Filed: 05/20/2022 Page: 1 of 4 In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 17-10625 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ CHRISTY GALENZA, ALEX ANDRIA ROWE, PORTIA RUSSELL, Plaintiffs-Appellees, versus 6420 ROSWELL RD., INC., d.b.a. Flashers, HARRY FREESE, Defendants-Appellants. USCA11 Case: 17-10625 2 Date Filed: 05/20/2022 Page: 2 of 4 Opinion of the Court 17-10625 ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 1:16-cv-03453-RWS ____________________ Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, WILSON and BRASHER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: A Georgia corporation, 6420 Roswell Rd., Inc., doing business as Flashers, appealed on its behalf and that of its president, Harry Freese, an order compelling them to arbitrate former employees’ claims for back pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 216. See 9 U.S.C. § 4. We dismiss the appeal as moot. We are obligated sua sponte to inquire into subject-matter jurisdiction whenever it may be lacking. Univ. of S. Ala. v. Am. Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d 405, 410 (11th Cir. 1999). The jurisdiction of the federal courts is limited to actual cases and controversies. U.S. Parole Comm’n v. Geraghty, 445 U.S. 388, 395 (1980). “This caseor-controversy limitation serves” to “limit[] the business of federal courts to questions presented in an adversary context and in a form historically viewed as capable of resolution through the judicial process . . . .” Id. at 395–96 (internal quotation marks omitted). An appeal becomes moot “when the issues presented are no longer ‘live’ or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the USCA11 Case: 17-10625 20-14688 Date Filed: 05/20/2022 Opinion of the Court Page: 3 of 4 3 outcome.” Id. at 396. A federal court cannot resolve a dispute unless “[t]he requisite personal interest that . . . exist[s] at the commencement of the litigation (standing) . . . continue[s] throughout its existence (mootness).” Id. (quoting Monaghan, Constitutional Adjudication: The Who and When, 82 Yale L.J. 1363, 1384 (1973)). The situation changed after Roswell Rd. and Freese filed their appeal. Roswell Rd. petitioned for bankruptcy, and we stayed the appeal. Later, Freese also petitioned for bankruptcy. While the bankruptcy cases were pending, Freese died. Roswell Rd. has been administratively dissolved and liquidated. We reinstated the appeal and ordered the parties to address whether the appeal was moot due to Freese’s death and the Roswell Rd. bankruptcy and whether Freese had a personal representative to substitute as a party in the appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 43(a). Bankruptcy counsel for Freese and his corporation filed the only response. Counsel states that the appeal is moot because Roswell Rd. is no longer a going concern, Freese and his appellate counsel have died, counsel for the former employees has died, and there is no known representative to substitute in the appeal. This appeal is moot. The interest that Roswell Rd. and Freese had in overturning the order compelling arbitration has extinguished. And they apparently have no representative to assume their interests. See id. Because the appellants’ lack of a continuing interest in the outcome of this appeal divests this Court of jurisdiction, we dismiss the appeal as moot. USCA11 Case: 17-10625 4 Date Filed: 05/20/2022 Opinion of the Court APPEAL DISMISSED AS MOOT. Page: 4 of 4 17-10625
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
