City of Deer Lodge v. Tim Fox, 2017 MT 129

The Montana Department of Justice (DOJ) gradually reassigned functions from the Deer Lodge Title and Registration Bureau (TRB) office over ~20 years as part of a TRB “modernization.”
By June 17, 2016 the Deer Lodge TRB had 35 employees; the Department informed staff that the office would be closed and positions relocated to Helena.
Plaintiffs (City of Deer Lodge, mayor, council member, and citizen) sued, alleging the Department violated Title 2, ch. 3, MCA and the public’s constitutional right to know and participate by failing to provide required notice and opportunity for public input before closing the office.
The district court treated cross-motions as cross-motions for summary judgment and entered judgment for the Department; Plaintiffs appealed but did not seek a stay of the judgment.
Before and during appeal, the Department completed relocation of staff and operations to Helena and reorganized TRB functions, such that the former Deer Lodge office space was no longer under DOJ control.
The Montana Supreme Court concluded changed circumstances prevent effective relief and dismissed the appeal as moot.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the suit challenging DOJ’s failure to provide public notice and participation before closing the Deer Lodge TRB office is justiciable or moot	The closure decision violated public notice/participation requirements and the court can remedy this by voiding the decision or ordering the Department to provide the required notice and opportunity for input	The relocation and reorganization are complete; changed circumstances make effective relief impossible, rendering the claim moot	Moot: because DOJ completed relocation and reorganizing, the Court cannot grant effective relief and thus dismissed the appeal

Reichert v. State, 365 Mont. 92, 278 P.3d 455 (2012) (describing justiciability and standards for justiciable controversies)
Alexander v. Bozeman Motors, 367 Mont. 401, 291 P.3d 1120 (2012) (mootness as threshold justiciability issue; changed circumstances can moot an appeal)
Henesh v. Bd. of Comm’rs, 340 Mont. 239, 173 P.3d 1188 (2007) (appellate mootness when relief becomes impracticable due to changed circumstances)
Povsha v. City of Billings, 340 Mont. 346, 174 P.3d 515 (2007) (appellate mootness where changed circumstances prevent effective relief)
Bryan v. Yellowstone Cnty. Elem. Sch. Dist. No. 2, 312 Mont. 257, 60 P.3d 381 (2002) (remedying violations of public notice/participation; court may void decisions to ensure opportunity for public input)
Turner v. Montana Eng’g & Constr., Inc., 276 Mont. 55, 915 P.2d 799 (1996) (principles on mootness when circumstances change during appeal)