United States v. N.Y.C. District Council of N.Y.C. & Vicinity of United Brotherhood of Carpenters
709 F. App'x 60
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Patrick Nee and Levi Messenetti (pro se) were removed by a court-appointed Review Officer (RO) from officer/delegate positions in Local Union 157 of the District Council of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters.
- They petitioned for review in the Southern District of New York; the district court denied their petitions on September 20, 2014.
- This Court previously vacated and remanded for the district court to consider extrinsic evidence about the RO’s removal authority; on remand the district court again denied the petitions, including on mootness grounds.
- The appellants argue relief could include back pay under the UBC Constitution and that removal might bar future candidacy for District Council office.
- The Government contends the case is moot because the appellants’ terms have expired and any prospective relief is speculative.
- The Second Circuit affirmed, holding the removal challenge moot and rejecting exceptions to mootness (capable-of-repetition and voluntary cessation).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the challenge to removal is justiciable or moot | Nee/Messenetti: relief (including back pay under UBC Constitution) and future office consequences justify review | Government: terms expired; relief speculative; no live controversy | Moot: terms expired; no live redressable injury |
| Whether back pay is recoverable here | Appellants: UBC Constitution allows back pay for officers suspended without pay | Government: appellants were removed (not suspended) by RO, not union; back pay inapplicable | Back pay unavailable where removal (not suspension) by RO was at issue |
| Whether removal bars future candidacy such that relief remains relevant | Appellants: a successful challenge could affect eligibility or monitor evaluations for future office | Government: appellants do not allege intent to run; any effect on future evaluation speculative | Speculative future harm insufficient to avoid mootness |
| Whether exceptions to mootness apply (capable of repetition; voluntary cessation) | Appellants: case fits capable-of-repetition but evading review; may seek relief under exceptions | Government: no reasonable expectation of repetition; expiration moots rather than voluntary cessation | Exceptions do not apply: no reasonable expectation of recurrence; cessation resulted from term expiration, not voluntary action |
Key Cases Cited
- County of Suffolk v. Sebelius, 605 F.3d 135 (2d Cir. 2010) (mootness determinations reviewed de novo)
- Mhany Mgmt., Inc. v. Cty. of Nassau, 819 F.3d 581 (2d Cir. 2016) (party asserting mootness bears the burden)
- United States v. Juvenile Male, 564 U.S. 932 (2011) (plaintiff must have injury traceable and redressable)
- Shi Liang Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 494 F.3d 296 (2d Cir. 2007) (mootness when relief is too remote or speculative)
- United States v. Blackburn, 461 F.3d 259 (2d Cir. 2006) (limits on adjudicating moot disputes)
- Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83 (1998) (courts lack authority to decide moot cases)
- Video Tutorial Servs., Inc. v. MCI Telecomms. Corp., 79 F.3d 3 (2d Cir. 1996) (elements of capable-of-repetition-yet-evading-review exception)
- Kingdomware Techs., Inc. v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1969 (2016) (defining the two-part capable-of-repetition exception)
- Dennin v. Conn. Interscholastic Athletic Conference, Inc., 94 F.3d 96 (2d Cir. 1996) (mere speculation does not satisfy reasonable-expectation requirement)
- Van Wie v. Pataki, 267 F.3d 109 (2d Cir. 2001) (failure to show likelihood of recurrence defeats capable-of-repetition claim)
- Am. Freedom Def. Initiative v. Metro. Transp. Auth., 815 F.3d 105 (2d Cir. 2016) (voluntary cessation exception applies when a defendant voluntarily discontinues challenged conduct)