NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 08a0305n.06 F iled: May 29, 2008 No. 07-4089 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
NORTHERN OHI O CHAPTER OF ASSOCI ATED BU I L DERS & CONTRACTORS, I NC., I N D U ST RIA LE N E RG Y SY ST E M S, I N C. , T O WN CENTER CONSTRUCTI ON, L L C, MI CHAEL DR AG I CS, a

nd TH E B L AC K C ON TRA CTO RS GR OU P, Pla int if fs -A pp e lla nts , v. ME TRO HE AL TH SYS TE M, e t a l. De fe nd ants -A

pp e lle e s.

__________________________________________ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEAL F RO M THE UN I TE D ST AT ES D I STR I CT CO UR T F O R

T H E N OR TH ERN D IS T R IC T O F O H IO

B EF OR E: KENN ED Y, B AT CH EL DE R, a nd GR I F F I N, Cir c uit

Judg e s. PER CU RI AM
. This case re gar ds challeng es to labor a g ree ments involving seve ral loca l gove rnment construction proje cts in Cuy ahog a County , Ohio. Plaintiffs arg ue that the labor agreements ar e illega lly broad and are pree mpted by fede ral law . The district cour t ruled that the proje cts had e ither been c ompleted, or that the c ontrac t terms had bee n amen d e d to u n a mb iguously

confor m with feder al law. Ac cording ly , the district court dismissed plaintiffs’ clai m s for lac k of an a ctive ca se or controve rsy . We affir

m for the r easons state d below. I.No. 07-4089

No. Ohio Chap. of Ass oc. Builders &Contractors, Inc. v. Me troHealth System, I nc.

- 2 - P l ai n tiffs cha lleng e the leg ality of three construction proje cts in Cleveland, Ohio. Two of these proje cts (the “ South C ampus” proje ct and the “ Hamann” projec t) invol v e M et roHealth, a public teac hing hospital, a nd the t hird involves the county jail. Plaintiffs object to the “pr oject labor ag ree ments” (“ PL As”) a ssociated with these projec ts. The PL As require that “all work be perf ormed by Em plo y e rs wh o a

re or be c ome bo un d by a c oll e c tiv e ba rg a ini ng a g re e me nt w iththe a pp ro pr ia te
c ra ft un ion sig nator y to t his Ag re e me nt. ” Thus , an y con tr act or , w he the r u nio nize d o r n ot, c ou ld submit a bid. But if the bidder w as not a union contra ctor, it would nee d to become one for the duration of the projec t. Plaintiffs a rg ue that the PL As in this case a re ope n-ende d, but conce de that projec t-sp ec i fi c P L As are permissible as desc ribed by the Supreme Court in Bu ild ing & Con str
. Trades Council of the Metro. Dist. v. Associated B uilders & Contractors of Mass./ R.I., Inc

. , 5 07 U. S. 218 (1993). Acc ording to plaintiffs, once an employ er assents to one of these PL As, the employ er has ef fec tively become a union shop for the duration of the pr oject and f or all future projec ts. The district cour

t dismi ssed the case for lack of jurisdiction. I t noted that the South Campus projec t ha d been completed, a nd thus it could not gra

nt relief to plaintiffs. Reg ardingthe Hama nn projec t, the district court noted that the M etroHe alth Boa rd of Trustee s expli citly limit ed the sc ope of the PL A t o th e duratio n o f the pr oje c t – t hu s r e mov ingany

a mbi g uit y a bo ut i ts p ro

je c t- sp e c if

ic duration. The district court also dismiss ed the claim ag ainst the Boa rd of County

Commi ssioners (“B OCC”) re g ardingthe jail projec t after the B OCC notified t h e d i s t rict cour t that the jail project did not have a PL A associated wit h it and that there wer e no county construction proje cts containing such a PL A. Plaintiffs timely appea led.No. 07-4089

No. Ohio Chap. of Ass oc. Builders &Contractors, Inc. v. Me troHealth System, I nc.

- 3 - II. Me tr oH e a lth Pla int if fs argue tha

t be c a us e Me tr oH e a lthha d u se d th e a lle g e dly inv a lid PL As in t

he pa st,
and be c a us e an inva lid

PL A w a s st ill in ef

fe c t du ri ngthe on g oin g c on str

uc tio n f or the Sou th P ro

je c t, MetroHe alth had a history of illeg al conduc t, and MetroHe alth’s re cent c onduct is merely a vo lu nta ry
c e ssatio n o f t

he pr e vio us ill e g a l c on du c t in an a tte mpt to moo t th e c a se . T his argume nt l a c ks me ri t. Me tr oH e a lthha s c le arl y

ind ic a te d it s d e sir e to co mpl y wi th exa c tly wh a t pla int if fs are se e kin g in t

his
case ; MetroHe alth has passed a new resolution requiring future PL As to mandate that the underlying collective ba

rg aining ag ree ments be projec t-specif ic. W hi le it is tr

ue tha t Me tr oH e a lthc ou ld a lw ay s p a ss a no the r r e so lut ion

and re tur n to its purportedly

illega l way s, that is not a rea son to c onsider this a live case . I n De

ja V u o f Cin c inn ati

, L.L. C. v . U

nio n To wns hip Bd

. o f Tru ste es e t al

. , 411 F.3d 777, 782 ( 6th Cir. 2005) (e n banc) , the
mun ic ipa lity

did no t modi fy its c on du c t unti l af te r t he a pp e a l w a s f

ile d: “ Whil e the a

pp e a l and c ro ssappea l w ere pending [i n our Court] , Union Township enac ted Resolution No. 00-22 to amend and repla ce Re solution No. 99-15, thereby eliminating those pr ovisions that t h e district cour t had [already ] determined wer e li kely to be held unconstitutional.” The plaintiffs in that ca se asse rted that the claims re g ardingthe orig inal provisions should st ill be adjudicate d beca use t he defenda

nts had
mere ly voluntarily cea sed their illega l a ctivity
. 411 F.3d at 795. Howeve r, we disag ree d, stating that “[t] his [ situation] is in contra st to the m ore ty pical si tuation
. . . in which the municipality amende d its ordinance only

afte r ce rtain provisions wer e voided by the distri ct co u rt , and whe re theNo. 07-4089

No. Ohio Chap. of Ass oc. Builders &Contractors, Inc. v. Me troHealth System, I nc.

- 4 - mun i ci p al i t y

repe atedly

expressed its intention to reenac t those portions of the Ordina nce judg ed unconstitutional at the ear liest opportunity .” Id. (quotation marks a nd ellipsis omi tted). De ja V u’ s holding is consistent with Ke ntu c k yRi gh t to Life

, I nc . v . Te rry , 10 8 F .3 d 63 7 ( 6th Cir. 1997). I n that case , Kentucky had enacted various campaig n financ e laws to c ombat widespre ad
corr uption of public officia ls. Te rry , 108 F.3d at 639. The lawwas then c halleng ed as violative of the Fir st Amendment. Id . A ft e r t he su it w a s f

ile d, and mos t lik e ly “ in d ir e c t r e sp on se to p la int if fs ’ suit,” the Kentuc ky

leg islature ame nded the statute to re move the languag e and te rms plaintiffs had challeng ed. Id. at 643 & n.14. Kentucky there fore argued that most of plaintiffs’ c laims had bee n mooted, while plaintiffs ass er t ed that their c laims were not moot because “the Ke ntucky Gene ral Assembly rema ins free to ree nact the pr ior statutor y s ch em e.” Id . at 64 4. On a pp e a l, w e ru le d in fa vo r of the state , hold ing that the vo lun tary c e ssatio n e xce pti on

to m oo tne ss “ pr op e rl y

a pp lie s o nly when a rec alcitra nt leg islature cle arly

intends to reena ct the challeng ed re g ulation.” Id
. a t 6 4 5
. We did not believe this standard was met beca use “[t] he rec ord befor e us [wa]s devoid of any expressed intention by

the Kentuc ky

Gene ral Asse mbly

to ree nact the pr ior leg islative scheme.” Id
. The narr owness of the voluntary cessation ex ception wa s also expressed in Brandywine, Inc

. v. City of Richmond , KY

, 3 59 F .3 d 83 0 (6 th Cir
. 20 04 ). L e ss tha n on e mon th a ft e r pla int if

fs fi le d s uit challeng ing a city ordinanc e, the city modified the ordinance a nd remove d much of what plaintiffs had cha lleng ed. Brandywine , 3 59 F .3 d at 833- 34 . We state d th a t, “ [p]la int if fs a sk thi s c ourt

to de c lare un c on sti tut ion a l th e zon ingsc he me a s it e xiste d w he n the ir lic e ns e wa s r e vo ke d a nd to e njo in Richmond from enfor cing that scheme .” Id. at 836. We then ruled that a cour t “ca n neither de clar eNo. 07-4089

No. Ohio Chap. of Ass oc. Builders &Contractors, Inc. v. Me troHealth System, I nc.

- 5 - unconstitutional nor enjoin the enfor ceme nt of a provision that is no longe r in eff ect.” Id. We d id
no t f ind the vo lun tary

c e ssatio n e xce pti on

to b e pr e se nt b e c a

us e the re wa s “ [n]o s uc h thre a t” to
ree nact the of

fendingleg islation and passag e of the alterations wer e taken as “suf ficient a ssuranc e that the [offending leg islation] will not be re-e nacte d.” Id. Th e se ho ldi ng s ma

ke c le ar t hat pla int if

fs have no c la im a g a ins t Me tr oH e a lth . M e tr oH e a lth ha s e na c te d a

ne w p oli c y that sp e c if

ic a lly state s it wi ll do e xac tly wh a t pla int if fs so ug ht i n th is s uit , namely require that the unions ag ree to provide a pr oject-spe cific c ollective bar g aining ag ree ment to the contra ctors. Plaintiffs’ cla ims ag ainst MetroHe alth, there fore , are moot. III
. Cuy ahog a County

Boa rd of Commissioners Pla int if fs argue that th e vo lun tary c e ssatio n e xce pti on

to m oo tne ss s ho uld

a pp ly in t he ir c a se
a g a ins t th e B OC C be c a

us e the B OC C had an est a bli sh e d pra c tic e of us inga lle g e dly ill e g a l PL As
. As evidenc e of this established p ra ct i ce, pla intiffs point to t he B OCC’s ge nera l resolution
e s t a b l i s h i n g t h e o b

j e c t e d

- t o t e r

m s , a s w e l l a s t o t h e B O C C ’ s i n c l u s i o no f ana l l e g e d l y

i l l e g a l P LA in the bidding doc uments for the Jail Project. The district court erre d in ruling a g ainst plaintiffs on this arg ument. At the time of the district court’s ruling , R es o l u t ion 050501 was still in effec t. The re solution established that the
a lle g e dly no n- pr oje c t- sp e c if

ic PL As we re pr e su mpt ive ly a pp rop ri a te fo r c on str

uc tio n p ro

je c ts exceeding$250,000. After the dis t ri ct co urt’s dec ision, however, the BO CC rescinded the
re so lut ion . Wh ile the dis tr ic t court wa s inc or re c t at th e tim e be c a

us e the g e ne ra l r e so lut ion wa s st illNo. 07-4089

No. Ohio Chap. of Ass oc. Builders &Contractors, Inc. v. Me troHealth System, I nc.

- 6 - in effe ct, the resolution has now be en re peale d, and we can a cknowledg e and c onsider that fa ct when
we c onsider mootness on appe al. See, e .g. , De Fu nis v . O de

ga ar d , 416 U.S. 312, 316-17 (1974). Given the f

act s at the time of this appea l, plaintiffs’ ar g uments ag ainst mootness fail. As de ta ile d in

the c a se s ana ly

zed wi th r e sp e c t to Me tr oH e a lth , th e volun tary c e ssatio n e xce pti on

is exceeding ly

narr ow. The B OCC asserts, without pr oof to the contra ry , that a PL A was in fa ct neve r used on any projec t to date. Additionally , the B OCC has, after the district court’s de cision, resc inded the g e ne ra l r e so lut ion

to w hic h p la int if

fs ob je c te d. Th e B OC C has ne ve r expr e sse d an int e nti on to
a t any po int re turn to us in g th e a lle g e dly ill e g a l PL As . T he vo lun tary c e ssatio n e xce pti on

to mootness, theref

ore, doe s not apply

in this case.

I V. Othe r A rgume nts Re g ard ingB oth De fe nd a nts The o n ly o th e r p o te n ti a l ar g u me n t f o r p la inti f

f s to w it h s ta n d mo o tn e s s is a r e qu e st for damag es. See, e .g. , As hc ro ft v . M att is , 431 U.S. 171, 171-72 (1977). Plaintiffs would then only have to prove a

past instance of

alleg edly illega l conduct that injured them, rather than an ong oing purportedly

illega l prac tice. Da

mag es ar e a r equest f

o r re t ro s p ective relief, a

nd past instances of
a lle g e dly ill e g a l c on du c t w ou ld s uf fi c e to e sta

bli sha liv e c a se or

c on tr ov e rs y . Pl a int if

fs ass e rt in their brief that they would like an “aw ard [of] damag es.” Plaintiffs f urther asser

t that e ven if they do not have a ctual dama g es, nominal damag es should still be aw arde d. Pla int if fs , how e ve r, c ann ot re ly

on thi s a rgume nt. I n th e ir

c omp la int , p la int if

fs on ly re qu e st

“ inj un c tiv e and

de c larator

y re lie f. ” I n the se c tio n e nti tle d “ Re qu e sts fo r Re lie f, ” pla int if fs on ly a skNo. 07-4089

No. Ohio Chap. of Ass oc. Builders &Contractors, Inc. v. Me troHealth System, I nc.

- 7 - fo r d e c larator

y jud g me nt, a s w e ll a s dif

fe re nt sor ts of inj un c tio ns . Th e on ly re qu e st fo r m on e y is a reque st for “attorney s’ fe es and c osts,” which does not c onstitut e a r equest for damag es. See Ste el Co. v. Citiz ens for a Better Env ’t , 523 U.S. 83, 107-08 (1998). V. W e a r e n o t p e r s u a d e d

b y p l a i n t i f f s ’ ar g u m e n t s t h a te x c e p t i o n s t o t h e m o o t n e s s d o c t r i n e a p p l y. For these re asons, we c onclude that ther e is n o active c ase or controve rsy , and we aff irm the judgme nt of the district court.