United Moto. Assoc. v. Rogoff

Full title: United Motorcoach Association, Appellant v. Peter M. Rogoff…

Court: United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit

Date published: Dec 9, 2009

No. 09-5211 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 9, 2009)

Opinion

No. 09-5211.

Filed On: December 9, 2009.

BEFORE: Garland, Brown, and Kavanaugh, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam.

ORDER

Upon consideration of the motion for summary affirmance, the corrected opposition thereto, and the reply; and the motion to strike, the opposition thereto, and the reply, it is

ORDERED that the motion to strike be denied. It is FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for summary affirmance be granted. The merits of the parties' positions are so clear as to warrant summary action. See Taxpayers Watchdog, Inc. v. Stanley, 819 F.2d 294, 297 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (per curiam). The district court properly dismissed the complaint as moot because the controversy is too dependent on the specific facts of this case, including the timing of an amended regulation, to be likely to recur.See People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc. v. Gittens, 396 F.3d 416, 424 (D.C. Cir. 2005).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc.See Fed.R.App.P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.