I honestly hope Utah responds to Florida Judge's bizarre attempt to order another District Court to do something, despite not being an appellate court, by just saying "Fuck you, Florida Judge, we ain't doing shit! You're not my real dad anyway!"
This really is the obvious solution. The Utah District Court telling the Florida district court to pound sand. The Docket was transferred at ECF 97. Notice was submitted at ECF 100. Florida court accepted transfer at ECF 109. Final decision by Utah Court at ECF 111.
If the Florida District Court is confused as to what final order means, then the Utah Court can just repeat the order at ECF 111 and close the case again. Can go for extra snark by giving the Florida judge 90 days to submit for a Writ of Mandamus in her own name as plaintiff, in the 10th circuit to compel the Utah Court to enforce their order. Sadly this won't happen, but it should be strongly implied.
Chaos theory, I think the Utah Court is going to sit on this for 90 days because that is the hard limit for the Florida Judge to file for a writ in her own name as a plaintiff against the District of Utah, with the 10th circuit Court of Appeals, to get her order enforced. Once she lets the time limit elapse by not taking this step and thus waiving her rights, the Utah Court is going to tell her to fuck off. This case is not ours, its yours, and you have no power here.
This is some really inside baseball shit, but its also what makes lolsuit's fun. Simply put for people who don't know how this work, a ruling in one federal district is not binding on another federal district. It is a lesser standard of citation called "persuasive". Meaning, another district can be informed of the decision, but it has no obligation to obey it.
This is especially true with district level decisions. Another district judge doesn't even have compelling authority on another judge in the same appellate circuit. Let alone a district judge in a completely different circuit. They are at best equal authorities, in the same way that ambassadors from two different countries get to sit at the same table at a state dinner.