CARTER

v.

MEADOWS

PER CURIAM.

Daniel K. Carter petitioned for a writ certiorari in this Court to quash the trial court’s order permitting the discovery of his psychotherapist-patient records in a child custody dispute. On January 25, 2023, after Carter sought certiorari relief in this Court, the parties entered into a settlement agreement “resolving all outstanding issues between.” Two days later, the trial court entered a supplemental final judgment based on the parties’ agreement.

This Court issued an order directing Carter to show cause why the petition should not be dismissed as moot and why sanctions should not be imposed for the failure to notify this Court promptly that the underlying matter had been concluded. See Fusari v. Steinberg, 419 U.S. 379, 390–91 (1975) (Burger, C.J., concurring) (noting that “all parties failed to inform us that after the District Court entered judgment the Connecticut Legislature significantly changed its unemployment compensation system,” agreeing “that this failure is ‘difficult to understand,” remarking that it “is disconcerting to this Court to learn of relevant and important developments in a case after the entire Court has come to the Bench to hear arguments,” and observing that the “Court must rely on counsel to present issues fully and fairly, and counsel have a continuing duty to inform the Court of any development which may conceivably affect an outcome”); Bd. of License Comm’rs of Town of Tiverton v. Pastore, 469 U.S. 238, 240 (1985) (reminding counsel of their continuing duty to keep the court informed “without delay” of any developments that could affect the Court’s jurisdiction or render a case moot); Merkle v. Guardianship of Jacoby, 912 So. 2d 595, 600 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (citing counsel’s duty of candor to the court under R. Regulating Fla. Bar 4–3.3, noting that “[d]uring the pendency of an appeal, the duty of candor imposes an obligation on counsel to notify the court of any development that may conceivably affect the outcome of the litigation, including facts that may raise a question of mootness,” and imposing sanctions for “failure to notify us immediately of the settlement he reached with the Department as required by rule 9.350(a)”); see also Fla. R. App. P. 9.350 (“When any cause pending in the court is settled before a decision on the merits, the parties shall immediately notify the court by filing a signed stipulation for dismissal.”).

Considering the response, we dismiss the petition as moot. See Godwin v. State, 593 So. 2d 211, 212 (Fla. 1992) (“An issue is moot when the controversy has been so fully resolved that a judicial determination can have no actual effect.”). And we discharge the order to show cause as to sanctions.

DISMISSED. ROWE, KELSEY and TANENBAUM, JJ., concur. _____________________________