263 So. 3d 698
Ala.2018Background
- Trussville sought to fill its classified position of Police Chief II; the Jefferson County Personnel Board (the Board) issued a certified list of 10 eligibles in January 2017 based on an eligibility register created in 2014.
- Paul Irwin was on that certified list and interviewed by Trussville but was not selected; Trussville returned the list and asked the Board to administer a new test.
- The Board expired the January eligibility list and authorized a provisional chief until a new exam and list were produced.
- Irwin sued the Board and Trussville seeking only injunctive relief to halt the new examination and to force appointment from the January 2017 list. He moved for a TRO and a preliminary injunction.
- While the case was pending, Irwin accepted another municipality’s police-chief job; the trial court denied injunctive relief, granted defendants’ motions to dismiss with prejudice, and Irwin appealed.
- After entry of final judgment and during the appeal, Trussville appointed a permanent police chief (not on the January 2017 list), rendering Irwin’s requested injunctive relief impossible to grant.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Enabling Act requires an appointing authority to appoint from a certified list | Irwin: once a certified list is issued the appointing authority "shall" choose one of those certified | Board/Trussville: Board rules permit only that an appointing authority "may" appoint from the list and may let the list expire | Trial court: Board rules reasonably construe the Enabling Act; no unconditional duty to appoint from list; dismissal proper |
| Whether the appeal is timely | Irwin: appealed final judgment after postjudgment denial | Defendants: appeal from denial of injunction was untimely | Court: appeal from final judgment was timely (interlocutory denial of preliminary relief is not the final judgment) |
| Whether the case remains justiciable on appeal (mootness) | Irwin: remains a qualified candidate and wants the Trussville job despite accepting other employment | Defendants: appointment of a permanent chief not on Jan. list makes injunctive relief impossible and moot | Court: claims for injunctive relief are moot; appeal dismissed |
| Whether court should reach merits despite mootness | Irwin: sought relief for loss of opportunity (non-monetary harm) | Defendants: events make relief impossible; no response by Irwin in appellate court | Court: will not decide merits of a moot claim; refusal to address merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Momar, Inc. v. Schneider, 823 So.2d 701 (Ala. Civ. App. 2001) (orders denying TRO or preliminary injunction are interlocutory)
- Case v. Alabama State Bar, 939 So.2d 881 (Ala. 2006) (mootness requires a live controversy to confer jurisdiction)
- Chapman v. Gooden, 974 So.2d 972 (Ala. 2007) (an action becomes moot if subsequent events eliminate the justiciable controversy)
- South Alabama Gas Dist. v. Knight, 138 So.3d 971 (Ala. 2013) (court will not consider merits of moot claims)
- Woods v. SunTrust Bank, 81 So.3d 357 (Ala. Civ. App. 2011) (injunctive relief to prevent an event is moot after the event occurs)