recent opinion of the United States Supreme Court in Cardegna into consideration. On its own motion, the trial court held a hearing to determine what effect, if any, the Cardegna decision had on this court’s mandate. The trial court found as follows: As to the supplemental authority provided by Charles Boyd Construction, Inc., the argument advanced by defendant that the recent ruling in Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna, 546 U.S. 440, 126 S.Ct. 1204, 163 L.Ed.2d 1038 (2006), has an effect on the Fifth District Court of Appeal’s mandate is not one that the trial court can accede to because the Fifth District Court of Appeal’s ruling that this court must determine the enforceability of the contract is law of the case. See Brunner Enter. v. Dep’t of Revenue, 452 So.2d 550 (Fla.1984) (<HOLDING>). The trial court pointed out that the subject
holding that when highest court of state has not decided particular issue of substantive law federal court faced with this issue in diversity must make an erie guess as to how highest court would rule holding that law of the case acts as a bar only when the issue in question was actually considered and decided by the first court recognizing that a lower court cannot change the law of the case as decided by the highest court hearing a case holding that when there is no ruling by the states highest court it is the duty of the federal court to determine as best it can what the highest court of the state would decide holding that a court is not bound by a lower tribunals decision under the law of the case doctrine