[PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 22-11977 ____________________

RJ’S INTERNATIONAL TRADING, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus CROWN CASTLE SOUTH, LLC,

Defendant-Appellee,

AT&T CORP.,

Defendant.

____________________ USCA11 Case: 22-11977 Document: 36-1 Date Filed: 04/15/2024 Page: 2 of 26

2 Opinion of the Court 22-11977

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 1:20-cv-25162-CMA ____________________

Before JORDAN, LAGOA, and MARCUS, Circuit Judges. LAGOA, Circuit Judge: This case involves a property and contract dispute between RJ’s International Trading, LLC (“RJI”), and Crown Castle South, LLC (“Crown Castle”). The central issue in this case is whether, under Florida law, a prevailing-party attorney’s fee provision can be interpreted as a real covenant such that it runs with the land and binds non-signatories. The district court concluded that it cannot, reasoning that an attorney’s fee provision does not touch and con- cern the land. RJI timely appealed that decision to this Court. The Florida Supreme Court, which is the final arbiter of Florida law, has not published a decision addressing this question, and the Florida intermediate appellate courts, in addressing analo- gous issues, have reached different conclusions. Given the uncer- tainty we face, principles of comity and federalism suggest that the Florida Supreme Court, and not this Court, should decide this issue of Florida law. See Steele v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 51 F.4th 1059, 1061 (11th Cir. 2022); WM Mobile Bay Env’t Ctr., Inc. v. City of Mobile Solid Waste Auth., 972 F.3d 1240, 1242 (11th Cir. 2020). We therefore respectfully certify the issues of Florida law discussed below to the Florida Supreme Court. USCA11 Case: 22-11977 Document: 36-1 Date Filed: 04/15/2024 Page: 3 of 26

22-11977 Opinion of the Court 3

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND To understand the dispute between RJI and Crown Castle, we must look back a few decades in the property’s history. In 1992, BellSouth Mobility, Inc., entered into a land lease agreement with Hidden Valley Corporation. Under their agreement, BellSouth agreed to use the property located at 9690 S.W. 170th Street, Mi- ami, Florida, (the “Property”) for the purpose of constructing, maintaining, and operating a communication facility. The lease provided “nonexclusive rights for ingress and egress . . . for the in- stallation and maintenance of utility wires, cables, conduits, and pipes over, under or along a twenty foot wide right of way.” In 1993, Hidden Valley executed, for BellSouth’s benefit, a Grant of Non-Exclusive Easement Agreement (the “Easement Agreement”) “for utilities and vehicular and pedestrian ingress and egress over, across[,] and upon the Easement Property,” and “over, across, and upon the Easement Property for the purpose of . . . [c]onstructing, maintaining, repairing and replacing paved areas for vehic