Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Civil Procedure – Mootness

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//February 12, 2015//

Civil Procedure – Mootness

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//February 12, 2015//

Listen to this article

U.S. Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Civil

Civil

Civil Procedure – Mootness

The court need not vacate the lower court rulings when an appeal becomes moot.

“The appellees note that, when an appeal becomes moot, we ordinarily vacate the underlying rulings in the case. See United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U.S. 36, 39 (1950). This rule is meant ‘to ensure that a decision carries no precedential force after mootness prevents further review.’ Van Straaten v. Shell Oil Prods. Co., 678 F.3d 486, 491 (7th Cir. 2012); see In re Smith, 964 F.2d 636, 637 (7th Cir. 1992). Here, however, applying this rule would lead to the odd result that, by rejecting the Rinaldis’ argument against mootness, we would give them exactly the relief that they seek.”

“There is a solution to this strange result. We have long recognized an exception to the rule in Munsingwear for situations where a losing party causes an appeal to become moot in order to avoid the preclusive effect of an unfavorable ruling. See Gould v. Bowyer, 11 F.3d 82, 84 (7th Cir. 1993); In re Smith, 964 F.2d at 637; Harris v. Bd. of Governors of the Fed. Re-serve Sys., 938 F.2d 720, 724 (7th Cir. 1991); CFTC, 701 F.2d at 657; cf. Karcher v. May, 484 U.S. 72, 82–83 (1987) (refusing to vacate judgment when losing party’s actions caused moot-ness of appeal). This appeal is a good candidate for that exception. As the district court explained, by the time the Rinaldis reached that court, they had already presented their arguments ‘before two separate courts in three separate proceedings.’ Then, once the district court rejected the Rinaldis’ arguments and refused to reconsider, the Rinaldis indicated in dismissing their bankruptcy case that they wanted to proceed to challenge their mortgage again in state court. We refuse to indulge this type of gamesmanship by depriving the sound decisions of the bankruptcy court and district court of preclusive effect.” Affirmed.

13-3865 & 14-1887 In re Rinaldi

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Stadtmueller, J., Tinder, J.

Full Text

Polls

Should Steven Avery be granted a new evidentiary hearing?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests