Thornton v. Jacobs, 339 Conn. 495

Plaintiffs Thornton and Thornton sued 100 Emerald Beach, LC in Florida; Lamia Jacobs is the company’s sole owner and resides primarily in Connecticut.
The Florida court lacked personal jurisdiction to subpoena Jacobs in Florida and authorized plaintiffs to seek subpoenas in Connecticut instead.
Plaintiffs served a Connecticut subpoena to depose Jacobs; she moved to quash in Stamford Superior Court, which denied relief. Jacobs appealed to the Appellate Court.
The Appellate Court granted plaintiffs’ late motion to dismiss and dismissed Jacobs’ appeal as frivolous without opinion; Jacobs petitioned the Connecticut Supreme Court for certification, which was granted.
After the Appellate Court dismissed the appeal but before the Supreme Court decision, plaintiffs served Jacobs with a Florida subpoena while she was visiting Florida, and then withdrew the Connecticut subpoena without prejudice.
The Supreme Court held that the withdrawal rendered Jacobs’ certified appeal moot and vacated the Appellate Court’s judgment because plaintiffs’ unilateral action prevented Jacobs from obtaining review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether withdrawal of the Connecticut subpoena moots Jacobs’ certified appeal	Withdrawal does not moot appeal because plaintiffs may reissue the CT subpoena if Florida discovery is insufficient	Withdrawal moots the appeal; plaintiffs’ voluntary act cannot defeat review	Appeal dismissed as moot because plaintiffs’ withdrawal rendered the controversy nonjusticiable
Whether speculative possibility of reissuing subpoena prevents mootness	Possible reissuance saves appeal from mootness	Reissuance is speculative; voluntary unilateral withdrawal still produces mootness	Speculation insufficient to avoid mootness
Whether plaintiffs’ ability to seek sanctions preserves a live controversy	Plaintiffs may need the judgment to pursue sanctions for frivolous appeal	Any sanction claim arises from plaintiffs’ own withdrawal and does not preserve jurisdiction	Potential sanctions rooted in plaintiffs’ withdrawal do not save the appeal from mootness
Whether vacatur of the Appellate Court judgment is appropriate	Plaintiffs implicitly argue judgment should stand as precedent	Jacobs argues vacatur is equitable because plaintiffs caused mootness by unilateral withdrawal after prevailing below	Vacatur granted: plaintiffs’ voluntary action prevented Jacobs’ review, so Appellate Court judgment is vacated

State v. Charlotte Hungerford Hospital, 308 Conn. 140 (2013) (appeal challenging subpoena enforcement rendered moot when issuing party ceased to seek enforcement)
In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 574 F.2d 445 (8th Cir. 1978) (challenge to subpoena enforcement became moot after withdrawal of subpoena)
Boisvert v. Gavis, 332 Conn. 115 (2019) (parties cannot evade judicial review by unilateral voluntary actions)
United States v. Garde, 848 F.2d 1307 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (voluntary provision of information can render subpoena enforcement appeal moot)
Putman v. Kennedy, 279 Conn. 162 (2006) (collateral consequences can preserve jurisdiction when reasonably possible)
Commissioner of Motor Vehicles v. DeMilo & Co., 233 Conn. 254 (1995) (party seeking vacatur after mootness bears burden to show equitable entitlement)
Private Healthcare Systems, Inc. v. Torres, 278 Conn. 291 (2006) (vacatur is extraordinary relief; court balances public interest in precedent versus unfairness from unilateral mootness)
In re Emma F., 315 Conn. 414 (2015) (vacatur principles and equitable considerations)
State v. Boyle, 287 Conn. 478 (2008) (discussion of vacatur and precedent value)