Jacobs v. Catlin

Oct 2, 2026
25-14053
Reporters:
Before:
Jordan, Kidd, Ed Carnes (per curiam)

PER CURIAM:

After this appeal was taken under consideration but before any opinion was released, the attorney for all three appellants notified this Court that the state court had in a July 23, 2026 order quashed the charging instrument and dismissed the state criminal proceedings against Appellants Hilary Jacobs and Philip Jacobs. That action raises mootness issues that the district court is in the best position to address in the first instance.

The district court‘s November 5, 2025 order denying the plaintiff-appellants’ motion for preliminary injunctions, granting in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss the claims for injunctive and declaratory relief, staying the damages claims pending the resolution of state criminal proceedings, and denying the motion to amend the complaint are vacated, and the case is remanded to the district court for it to determine if the actions it took and the issues decided in those actions are moot as to some or all of the three plaintiffs because of the state court order dismissing the charges or for any other reason.

The district court should decide the mootness issues, including the capable of repetition yet evading review exception, as to all of those actions and issues, and enter an appropriate order or orders. If there is an appeal, the Clerk of this Court is directed to assign that appeal to the same panel as before.

VACATED AND REMANDED.