749 F.3d 912
10th Cir.2014Background
- American Modern sought panel rehearing based on new evidence; City Center reassigned its postloss claim to Summit Bank on September 10, 2012, before the court’s decision.
- The panel’s prior decision reversed the district court and upheld the assignment of the claim from Heartland/Summit Bank to City Center West, LP.
- Because of the reassignment, the claim was effectively held by Summit Bank regardless of the panel’s ruling, mooting the appeal.
- City Center argued the reassignment was a nullity when executed and thus did not moot the case; the court rejected this, noting outcome depending on the panel’s ruling could differ.
- The panel granted rehearing, vacated its judgment, and remanded with directions to dismiss as moot; sanctions to be addressed separately.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the appeal moot due to City Center's reassignment? | American Modern | City Center | Yes; mootness vacated the panel’s judgment. |
| Should rehearing be granted based on newly discovered evidence arising from mootness? | American Modern | City Center | Rehearing granted; judgment vacated and remanded. |
| What is the proper effect of vacatur on res judicata and stare decisis? | American Modern | City Center | Order removes preclusive effects; district court to vacate judgment and dismiss as moot. |
Key Cases Cited
- Prier v. Steed, 456 F.3d 1209 (10th Cir. 2006) (Article III, mootness requires ongoing controversy; practical consequences required)
- Columbian Fin. Corp. v. BancInsure, Inc., 650 F.3d 1372 (10th Cir. 2011) (mootness requires real-world impact of resolution)
- Jordan v. Sosa, 654 F.3d 1012 (10th Cir. 2011) (controversy ceases to exist; mootness doctrine applies)
- Martinez v. Winner, 800 F.2d 230 (10th Cir. 1986) (vacated judgments may remove res judicata and stare decisis effects)
- Boyce v. Ashcroft, 268 F.3d 953 (10th Cir. 2001) (depublish discussion not necessary when vacating judgments)