Florence Surgery Center, L.P. v. Eye Surgery Center of Florence, LLC
121 So. 3d 386
Ala. Civ. App.2013Background
- This court withdrew its November 30, 2012 opinion reversing the CONRB's decision and substituted a new version.
- SHPDA and amici curiae supported rehearing; FSC and its affiliate appealed from the CONRB decision.
- FSC informed the court that its interest in the appeal was resolved and would not file further briefs.
- Court requested letter briefs on effect of the letter; SHPDA and amici argued mootness, ESC urged voluntary dismissal.
- Court found no public-interest basis to exception to mootness and concluded the appeal was moot because FSC no longer had a continuing controversy.
- Court withdrew and vacated the original opinion and dismissed the appeal, returning the parties to the status quo with the CONRB decision governing rights.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the appeal moot due to FSC resolving its interest? | FSC: mootness applies; no further relief possible. | SHPDA/amici: mootness warrants withdrawal of opinion; no live controversy. | Yes; mootness applies and appeal dismissed. |
| Does the public-interest exception to mootness apply here? | FSC argued broader issues might recur; public interest could justify review. | Public-interest exception not satisfied; issues unlikely to recur. | No; public-interest exception not met. |
| Should the court withdraw and vacate the November 30, 2012 opinion and dismiss the appeal? | FSC did not file further briefs; no continuing dispute. | Public and private interests favor vacatur to avoid misapplication of the opinion. | Yes; court withdrew, vacated, and dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Caldwell v. Loveless, 17 Ala.App. 881, 85 So. 307 (Ala. App. 1920) (appeal moot when no justiciable controversy remains; dismissible)
- Rothenberg v. Connecticut Mutual Life Insurance Co., 161 So.2d 875 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1964) (court may dismiss or let decision stand when settlement occurs before mandamus)
- U.S. Bancorp Mortg. Co. v. Bonner Mall P’ship, 513 U.S. 18 (Supreme Court 1994) (judicial precedents are presumptively correct but may be vacated for public interest)
- Alabama Nursing Home Ass’n v. Alabama State Health Planning Agency, 554 So.2d 1032 (Ala. Civ. App. 1989) (public-interest considerations in mootness context)
- Willis v. Buchman, 199 So. 892 (Ala. 1940) (public-interest exception recognized in mootness context)