[PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
MAR 20, 2009
THOMAS K. KAHN
No. 07-10521
CLERK
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 06-00084-CV-J-32-MCR
JACKSON-SHAW COMPANY,
a Texas corporation,
Plaintiff–Appellant,
versus
JACKSONVILLE AVIATION AUTHORITY,
a body politic and corporate,
Defendant–Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
_________________________
(March 20, 2009)
Before BIRCH and BARKETT, Circuit Judges, and KORMAN,* District Judge.
*
Honorable Edward Korman, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of New
York, sitting by designation.
PER CURIAM:
Jackson-Shaw Company appealed from a final judgment, after a bench trial,
in favor of the Jacksonville Aviation Authority (“JAA”) on Jackson-Shaw’s suit
seeking a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief. In its Complaint, Jackson-
Shaw alleged that a development agreement (“Agreement”) between the JAA and
a private entity, Majestic Realty Company (“Majestic”),1 violated article VII,
section 10 of the Florida Constitution. Specifically, Jackson-Shaw alleged that the
Agreement made the JAA a “joint owner” with Majestic and required the JAA to
pledge to Majestic its public credit, both of which are prohibited by article VII,
section 10 of the Florida Constitution. We certified to the Florida Supreme Court 2
the questions of whether the provisions of the Agreement made the JAA a “joint
owner” or required it to pledge to Majestic its public credit. The Florida Supreme
Court answered in the negative. Jackson-Shaw Co. v. Jacksonville Aviation
Auth., 2008 Fla. LEXIS 2398 (Dec. 18, 2008). Accordingly, because the
Agreement did not violate the Florida Constitution, the final judgment of the
1
The Agreement at issue in this case is between the JAA and Woodwings East
Development, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company formed by Majestic.
2
The Florida Constitution permits us to certify a question to the Florida Supreme Court if
it “is determinative of the cause and for which there is no controlling precedent of the supreme
court of Florida.” Fla. Const. art. V, § 3(b)(6); see also Stevens v. Battelle Memorial Inst., 488
F.3d 896, 904 (11th Cir. 2007).
2
district court is
AFFIRMED
3