Perficient, Inc. v. Thomas Munley, 973 F.3d 914

Perficient sued former employee Thomas Munley and his new employer Spaulding Ridge, alleging breach of restrictive covenants and trade-secret statutes and seeking injunctive relief.
After an expedited combined evidentiary hearing, the district court found Munley breached noncompete/non‑solicit/confidentiality covenants and entered a limited-duration permanent injunction (effective until May 1, 2020) against Munley and related relief against Spaulding.
Munley and Spaulding appealed the injunction but did not seek a stay; the injunction expired on its terms while the appeal remained pending.
The Eighth Circuit raised mootness sua sponte, noting an injunction that expires on its terms typically leaves nothing for appellate review.
The court concluded none of the mootness exceptions (voluntary cessation or capable-of-repetition-yet-evading-review) applied and dismissed the appeal as moot.
The court remanded to the district court for further proceedings, declined to order vacatur of the injunction, and explained the district court’s findings remain subject to later review or modification; each party bears its own costs.

Issue	Perficient's Argument	Munley/Spaulding's Argument	Held
Whether the appeal is moot because the injunction expired.	The district-court order and its findings retain continuing legal effect and may affect ongoing claims (e.g., damages/fees).	The injunction expired on its terms; no live controversy remains and appellate relief is unavailable.	Appeal dismissed as moot.
Whether mootness exceptions apply (voluntary cessation; capable of repetition yet evading review).	Arguably the dispute has continuing consequences warranting review.	No voluntary cessation by enjoined parties; no reasonable expectation the specific dispute will recur.	Exceptions do not apply.
Whether the court should vacate the district-court injunction under Munsingwear.	The injunction should remain to preserve the district court’s findings.	Vacatur is not warranted where appellants allowed the injunction to expire without seeking a stay.	Court declined to direct vacatur; remanded for district court to address vacatur/Rule 60(b) if appropriate.
Effect of dismissal and remand on further proceedings and reviewability of findings.	District-court findings should be available for related proceedings (damages/fees) and potential future appeal.	Appellants’ choice not to seek a stay limited appellate review now.	The injunction/order remains subject to modification or vacatur by the district court and review on a later appeal from a final judgment.

Stevenson v. Blytheville Sch. Dist. No. 5, 762 F.3d 765 (8th Cir. 2014) (Article III mootness/livable controversy requirement).
FIMCO, Inc. v. Funk, [citation="748 F. App'x 716"] (8th Cir. 2019) (expired injunctions typically moot).
Olin Water Servs. v. Midland Research Labs., Inc., 774 F.2d 303 (8th Cir. 1985) (no appellate review when injunction expires).
United States v. Munsingwear, 340 U.S. 36 (1950) (established practice to vacate and remand when mootness prevents review).
U.S. Bancorp Mortg. Co. v. Bonner Mall P'ship, 513 U.S. 18 (1994) (vacatur is discretionary; settlement mootness does not justify vacatur).
Moore v. Thurston, 928 F.3d 753 (8th Cir. 2019) (vacatur is equitable, not automatic).
Iowa Prot. & Advocacy Servs. v. Tanager, Inc., 427 F.3d 541 (8th Cir. 2005) (stay/avoidance of mootness).
Fauconniere Mfg. Corp. v. Sec'y of Def., 794 F.2d 350 (8th Cir. 1986) (vacatur of preliminary injunction when part of case remains pending).