"Whether a live controversy exists depends on whether [the court] can grant effective relief in the event that [the court] decide[s] the matter on the merits." Indep. Living Center of Southern Cal. v. Maxwell-Jolly, 590 F.3d 725, 727 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). In the Third Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs seek various forms of relief. Among other things, Plaintiffs request "a preliminary and permanent injunction to return [Student] to full enrollment at HTA."
Rather, we may exercise our discretion to determine whether the case should be dismissed based on equitable and pragmatic considerations. See United States v. Payton, 593 F.3d 881, 885 (9th Cir. 2010); Indep. Living Ctr. of S. Cal., Inc. v. Maxwell-Jolly, 590 F.3d 725, 728 (9th Cir. 2009). Appellants' motion to dismiss the appeal as moot is effectively a motion to vacate a prior decision issued while there was a live case or controversy.
All. for the Wild Rockies v. Savage, 897 F.3d 1025, 1031 (9th Cir. 2018) (quoting Indep. Living Ctr. of S. Cal., Inc. v. Maxwell-Jolly, 590 F.3d 725, 727 (9th Cir. 2009)). FNW implicitly acknowledges that the case is moot because it argues only that its challenge falls under the "capable of repetition, yet evading review" exception to the mootness doctrine.
Indep. Living Ctr. of S. Cal., Inc. v. Maxwell-Jolly , 590 F.3d 725, 727 (9th Cir. 2009). Under Article III of the Constitution, "a live controversy [must] persist throughout all stages of the litigation."
Compare Robinson v. California, 371 U.S. 905, 83 S.Ct. 202, 9 L.Ed.2d 166 (1962) (denying, without opinion, motion to abate Court's judgment overturning appellant-defendant's state court conviction where the judgment had issued after appellant's death but before notice to the Court of appellant's death (with three justices dissenting)) and 13B Charles Alan Wright, et al., Federal Practice and Procedure§ 3533.1 (3d ed.) ("If a case actually is decided before the court learns of an event that mooted the dispute before decision, it is possible to vacate the decision, but this course is not uniformly followed."), with United States v. Juvenile Male, 564 U.S. 932, 131 S.Ct. 2860, 180 L.Ed.2d 811 (2011) (per curiam)(vacating judgment of Ninth Circuit on grounds that appeal had been rendered moot by events that occurred more than a year before decision issued, but were unknown to the court at time of issuance); see also Independent Living Center of Southern California, Inc. v. Maxwell-Jolly, 590 F.3d 725, 728 (9th Cir. 2009) (stating, in dicta , that, even where mooting event occurred before decision issued, but request to dismiss case for mootness was filed after decision issued, "dismissing an appeal after rendering our decision is an exercise within our discretion"); but see In re Pattullo, 271 F.3d 898, 902 (9th Cir. 2001) (stating that, where court learned of mooting event before mandate issued, "[w]e lack jurisdiction over this case and must accordingly vacate our memorandum disposition and dismiss this appeal"); Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Board of Trade of City of Chicago, 701 F.2d 653, 658 (7th Cir. 1983) (stating that "since mootness is jurisdictional," appeals court was "required" to consider whether suit was moot at the time that appeal court decision issued). We choose, however, to exercise our discretion to grant the respondent-appellant's motion for withdrawal of our July 5, 2017 opinion because the case is now moot.
"Whether a live controversy exists depends on whether [the court] can grant effective relief 'in the event that [it] decide[s] the matter on the merits.' " Indep. Living Ctr. of S. California, Inc. v. Maxwell-Jolly, 590 F.3d 725, 727 (9th Cir. 2009) (emphasis added) (quoting NASD Dispute Resolution, Inc. v. Judicial Council of Cal., 488 F.3d 1065, 1068 (9th Cir. 2007)). "A change in [controlling] case law coupled with evidence of [a defendant]'s compliance with that case law is an interim event that precludes further legal violations."
Indep. Living Ctr. of S. Cal., Inc. v. Maxwell-Jolly, 590 F.3d 725, 727 (9th Cir. 2009).
Independent Living Center of Southern California, Inc. v. Maxwell-Jolly, 590 F .3d 725, 727 (9th Cir. 2009). A moot action must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
“A claim is moot if it ‘has lost its character as a live controversy.'” All. for the Wild Rockies v. Savage, 897 F.3d 1025, 1031 (9th Cir. 2018) (quoting Indep. Living Ctr. of S. Cal., Inc. v. Maxwell-Jolly, 590 F.3d 725, 727 (9th Cir. 2009)). FNW implicitly acknowledges that the case is moot because it argues only that its challenge falls under the “capable of repetition, yet evading review” exception to the mootness doctrine.
A plaintiff's claims for damages for violation of his constitutional rights are not moot even if the disciplinary charges have been voided and his record expunged. See Independent Living Center of Southern California, Inc. v. Maxwell-Jolly, 590 F.3d 725, 728-29 (9th Cir. 2009) (when intervening legislation has settled a controversy involving only injunctive relief, but plaintiff also sought damages when filing suit, the controversy is not rendered moot as to claim for damages).