mature claim for review.” Id. at 7. The ASB Defendants contend that the Plaintiffs failure "to diligently pursue their available state law remedies establish that no mature case or controversy exists.” Id. (citing Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 88 S.Ct. 1942, 20 L.Ed.2d 947 (1968); and, Miller v. F.C.C., 66 F.3d 1140 (11th Cir.1995), cert. denied, 517 U.S. 1155, 116 S.Ct. 1543, 134 L.Ed.2d 647 (1996)). 32 . ASB Defendants contend that the ASB informal Advisory Opinion and Canon 7(b)(1) are constitutional. (Doc. 15 at 10). 33 . This Court does not at this time reach the questioned constitutionality of the Advisory Opinions themselves or the constitutionality of the Canons, as that is not at issue. 34 . See e.g., O’Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488, 497, 94 S.Ct. 669, 38 L.Ed.2d 674 (1974), (<HOLDING>). See also International Society for Krishna
holding that plaintiffs claim was moot because there was no standing because the supreme court considered plaintiffs claims to have drifted into the area of speculation and conjecture  so that there was no cognizable injuryinfact and hence no case or controversy upon which jurisdiction could stand holding that district court has no jurisdiction to take further action where there was no remand order holding that a negligent retention claim was properly dismissed when there was no underlying tort upon which it could have been based holding that contract failed for indefiniteness because there were essential terms upon which there was no agreement holding a case becomes moot when a ruling will have no practical effect upon the existing controversy