The Honor abl e Sa ndra D ay O’ Conno r, As s oc i at e J us t i c e of  the Uni t ed S t at es Su pre m e Cour t( Ret
. ) , s i tting by de s i gna t i on p u rs u a n t to 28 U .S.C . § 2 9 4 (a ).



## In the 

# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 09

- 1107 P ARV ATI C OR PO RA T I ON, P laint if f-A ppell ant, v. C ITY OF O AK F O REST, I LLINO IS, an Il lin ois M u n icip al C or p or at ion , et a l., D efend a nts-A pp ellees.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 1:06- cv-01772

—A my J . St . E ve, Judge .
A RGUED M AY 19, 2010

— D ECI DE D D ECE MBE R 23, 2010

B efore O’C ON NO R, A ssoc ia te Justice, a nd W I L LI A MS  a nd S YKES, C ircu it Judges . S YKES, Cir cu i tJudg e . Thi s appe al ar i se s f r o m a zon i ng dis pu t e b e t we e n Pa r v a t i Co r po r a t i o n a nd the Ci t y o f2 N o. 09

- 1107 Oak Fores t, Il l i noi s, o vera hote l i n the ci ty that Parv ati own e d b ut wa nt e d t o s e l l

. I n 2 0 0 4 Pa r v a t i c o nt r acte d to se l l the pr o per tyt o Be th l eh em Ent er pr i se , I nc . , c o nt i ng en t up on the l att er ’ s s ecuring the C i ty’ s a pp ro valto con vert th e hot el into a sen ior- li ving f acili ty. T h e C ity’s Zoni ng Com m i ssi on deni ed a p prova l bec ause the pr opo se d us e was pr o hibi te d b y a r ec en tly e na ct ed zo ni ng or dinance. Par vatiand i ts buyerthen soughtj ud i ci al r e v i e w i n s t a t e c o u r t ; th e y a l s o a s s e r t e d o th e r c l a i ms f o r r el i efa g ains t th e Ci tya nd s ev eral of i ts o ffi ci al s. The sui t was r em ove d to federa l co urt, and o n Jul y 2 0, 20 07, a d ist ric t ju d ge u p h eld th e Z on in g C om m iss ion ’s d ec isio n . Th is re so lve d th e a d m in ist ra tiv e-r ev iew cla im

— w hi c h was dis m i sse d w i th prej ud i ce

—but l eft the o ther cl ai m s pending

. Par vatithen m ove d fo r vol untarydi smi s s a l o fi t s r e mai ningc l a i ms. T he mo ti onwa s g r a nt e d, and the j ud ge enter ed j ud gm ent t er m i nati ng the cas e. Ab o u ta y e a r l a t e r, P a r v a t i, a c t i n gw i th o u tB e th l e h e m, m o ve d f o r p o s tj u d g me n tr e l i e fu n d e r R u l e 6 0 ( b ) ( 3 ) o fthe Feder alRule s o f Ci vi l Pro cedure, cl ai m i ng tha t the Ci ty ha d m i sr epr es en te d m at er i alf ac ts dur i ngthe z o ni ng proce edi ngs. Par vatias ked the j ud ge to v ac ate her July 20, 2007 ord er affirm ing the Zon ing C om m issi on’s dec i s i o n. Bythi s t i me, h o we v e r, P a r v a t i n o l onge r o wne d the ho t e l ; i t ha d c o nv e y e d the pr o pe r t y t o i ts m or tg age l ender to re sol ve f or ecl osur e pr oce edi ngs i ni ti ate d a few m onths earl i er . I n the m eanti m e Par vati fi l ed a ne w l aws ui t r epl ea di ngthe c l ai m s itv o l untaril y d ism issed from this suit. T he j ud ge d en ied P arvati’s Rul e 60 ( b) ( 3) mo tio n, a nd i ts Rul e 59 ( e) mot i o n f o r r ec o ns i de r a t i o n a s we l l, a nd P a r v a t i a pp e a l e d.N o. 09

- 1107 3 W e c an n otrea c h th e m er its . B as ed on th e int er im d ev elopm ents w e hav e j ust descr ibed, thi s ca se i s no w m oo t. The re l i efPar va tiwants

— a d ecision vac ating th e cou rt’s July 20, 2007 ord er and rev ersing th e Zon ing C om m issi on’s acti on

— i s a r em edy thatcan benefi t o nl y the pro perty ow n er . B ec au se P ar va ti n o lon ge r ow n s t h e p ro p er ty , i t lacks stan d ing to cha ll en ge th e Zon ing C om m issi on’s d e c i s i o n . I t i s t r u e th a t P a r v a t i ’ s o th e r c l a i ms

— se ek i ng d am ag es from th e C ity an d se ve ra l m u n icip al off icia ls

— do no tde pe nd o n i t s c o nt i nu e d o wne r s hi p o fthe p r o pe r ty. B ut they w ere d is m issed at Parva ti’ s requ est an d are now the subj ect ofthe seco nd l aw sui t. To the exte nt that the J uly20 , 20 07 or der

— l ate r re du ced to a fi nal m er i ts j udg m en t

— h as p recl usi ve effect on Par vati ’ s e ff or t t o re su sc ita te th e d ism iss ed cla im s in th e s ec on d su it, t hat inj u ry is en tir ely s e l f

- i n flict ed ; i t is n otfairly tra c ea b le to the defendants’ co nd uct. A s s uch, the potenti alpre cl usi ve effect ofthe J u ly 20 or der doe s no t s uffi ce t o supp l y s tandi ng; st ate d differen tl y, i t doe s no t “ unm oo t” thi s ca se.

I . B a c kg r o und Pa r va tii s anI l l i no i s co r po r at i o n o wned b y Ba lkr i shna A m b ala l Pa te l an d h is w i f e N irm ala B alk ris h n a P at el. For s e v e r a l y e a r s P a r v a t i o wne d a nd o pe r a t e d a Ram ada I nn i n the Cityo fOak F or est. In M arch 200 4 Pa rvati agreed to sellthe h otel to Beth lehem En terp ris e, an I l l i noi s co rpor ati on o w ned by the Bethl ehem Te m po r ar y M i ss i o na r y Ba pti stChur ch

. The s al e o fthe ho te l was con ting en t upo n Be th l eh em r ec ei vingthe4 N o. 09

- 1107

T he exact n atu re o f the b u siness B eth l e h e m sou g ht to 1 op era te on the p ro p erty is no t entire ly c l e a r . T he p arties v ariou s l y r e f e r t o i ta s a s e ni or - li ving f a c i l i t y a nd a n e x t e nd e ds t ay hot el

. The di s t i nc t i on i s i rr el eva ntt o the di sp ositi on of thi s appe al ; we us e the t er m “s en i or - l i vi ng f ac i l i t y” thr oughoutthi s opi ni on. W e u se the term “C ity” to refer co llectiv ely to all d efend an ts 2 unles s the contex t r equire s otherwise

. C ity’s p erm issi on to op er ate th e prop erty as a sen iorl i vi ng f aci l i ty. 1 On Febr uary1, 20 06, the City ’ s Zoni ng Com m i ssi on h e l d a h e a r i n gt o c o n s i d e r whe th e r t o g r a n tB e th l e h e m a com m erc i albusi ness l i cense f orthi s purpose . A t that hear i ng Ci ty offi ci al s ex p lai ned that the Ci ty had re centl y e nacted Zoni ng Ordi nance 2 836, a n d under that or d in an c e a se n ior-liv in g fa c ility w a s n ota p er m iss ible use of the proper ty. On thi s basi s the C om m i ssi on denie d Bethle hem ’ s a pp l i cati on f ora busi ness l i cense. P ar v a t i a n d B et h leh em res p on d ed w ith th is law su it ag ain stth e C ity , th e Z on in g C om m i s s i o n , an d ce rt ain ci ty offi ci al s a l l eging a potpourr i o f fe d eraland sta tel aw c la i m s. The s ui t was fi l ed i n s ta te c o ur t an d 2 so u gh t jud icia l rev iew of th e Z on in g C om m iss ion ’s d ec is i o n p u r s u a n tt o th e I l l i n o i s A d min i s t r a t i v e R e v i e w L a w, see 735 I LL . C OM P . S T AT . 5/3- 110, as wellas m oney dam age s f orvi ol ati on o f42 U .S. C. §§ 1981 and 198 2; th e Fa i r H ousi ng Act, 42 U
. S. C. §§ 3601 ets eq . ; a n d t he guar antee s o fequalpro tect i on an d d ue pro cess underN o. 09

- 1107 5

The f e de r a l c i v i l

- r i g h t s c l a i ms a l l e g e d di s c r i mi n a t i o n on 3 the b asis of race a nd ethn icity. T he P atels are of Ind ian d escen t; the pas t or s an d m em ber s of the Bethl eh em Te m por ar y M i s s i onar y Bapt i s tChur c h a re bl ac k. B y ag reem en t of the p arties, the d istrict cou rt also d is- 4 m i s s ed a l l clai m s ag ai ns tthe Zoni ng Co m m i s s i on with pr ej udice. the F ou rt ee nth A m endm ent a nd 42 U
. S. C. § 1 983. 3 T h e d efe n d an ts rem ov ed th e c as e t o fe d er al c ou rt . In an order d ated J uly 2 0, 2007, the d istri ct cou rt affi rm ed the Zoni ng Com m i ssi on’ s deci si on and dism i sse d th e sta te
- l aw a dm i ni st r at i ve - r ev i ew c l ai m . Pa r va tia nd Bethl ehem the n mov ed f o r v o l unt ar y di smi ss alo fthe const i tuti onaland sta tutor y c l ai m s. On Septe m ber28 , 2007, the d i str i ct c ourtgr anted the m oti on, di sm i sse d the r e mai ningc l a i ms wi tho utp r ej ud i c e , a nd e nt er ed a j ud gm ent t er m i nati ng the cas e. 4 I n early 2008 P a r v a t i claim s to hav e d iscovered i nformat i o n s ug g e s t i ngtha tthe Ci ty and i t s o ffi c i a l s mi s r e pr es en te d m at er i al facts a t th e he ar i ngb efo r e th e Zoni ng Com m i ssi on a nd i n t h eirfi l i ngs in the dist ri ct c ou rt . Sp ec ifica lly, P ar va ti m ain ta in s t h at cit y off i c i a ls m i sr epr es en te d the v al i di tyo fOr di na nc e 28 36 kno wi ng that the Ci ty had fa iled t o fol l ow the pro per l ega l pro cedu r e s wh e n e na c t i ngthe ordi na nc e . P a r v a t i c o nt e nd s that becaus e ofthes e pr oce du ra l ano m al i es, Ordi nance 2836 i s a nul l i ty and Bethle hem ’ s l i cense appli cati on sh o ul d ha ve b ee n e valuate d unde r the pr i o r z o ni ng or dinance.6 N o. 09

- 1107

Bethl eh em i s no l onge r i nt er es t ed i n pur c has i ng the pr ope rty. 5 A ccor dingl y, Par vati

— a c t i n gw i th o u tB e th l e h e m, w hi ch i s no l onge r a par ty to the c ase

— mov e d f or post
5 j u d gm en t re lief u n d er R u le 6 0(b )(3) alleg in g “ fra u d

. . . , m i sr epr es en ta ti o n, or m i sc o nduc t bya n o ppo sing p ar ty .” T h is m ot ion w as filed on Ju ly 1 4, 20 08 , ne ar ly a y ea r afte r the di str i ct c ourtente re d i ts J uly20 , 20 07 o r dera ffi r m i ngthe Zo ni ngCo m m i ss i o n’ s dec i si o n. Parv atias ked the di stric t cour t t o vacat e i ts J uly20 , 20 07 or der a nd r eev al uate the Zoni ng Com m iss ion’s acti on und erthe pri orzo ni ng o rdi nance. The Ci tyr es po nde d t o the Rul e 60 ( b) ( 3) m oti o n o n the m er i ts , b uta l so mai nt aine d tha t Pa r va til ac k ed st an di ng to reo p en t h e a d m in ist ra tiv e-r ev iew cla im be c au se it had tra nsfer re d ow n er shi p ofthe proper ty to M utual Bank, i ts m or tgage l ender, a few m onths ear l i er . M utual Bank had i ni ti ate d fo re cl osur e pr oce edi ngs a gai nst Pa r v a t i, a nd o n M a r c h 1 8 , 2 0 0 8 , the p a r t i e s e nt er ed i nto an “Agree m ent in L ieu o fFo re cl osur e” w here by Parv aticon ve yed the proper ty to the b ank in exchange f o r a r e l e a s e fr o m i t s o b l i g a t i o n s a r i s i n gu n d e r th e t e r ms o fmo r t g age . Tha ts a me da yP a r v a t i a l s o e xe c ut e d a w ar ra nty dee d to the pr oper ty i n f avo r ofM utual Bank. The dist ri ct cour t ackno w l edged that Parv ati ’ s con vey ance o fthe proper ty cal l ed i nto questi on i ts sta nd i ng to pur s ue p o s tj ud g men tr e l i e fo n the a dmi ni s t r a t i vereview clai m . Parva ti’ s inj ury

— i ts i nabi l i tyt o s el l the proper ty to Bethl ehem

— coul d no l on ger be r edres sed by the s or t o fr el i efaff or ded byadm in istrat i ve re vi ewN o. 09

- 1107 7 of the Z onin g C om m issi on’s ac t io n. Bu t the cou rt de term i ne d tha t Pa r va tiha d s ta ndi ngb y v i r tu e o fotheri nter veni ng devel opm ents
. On J anuary31 , 20 08, Par vati had fi l ed a new l aw sui t r eas ser ti ng the c lai m s i t had vol untari l y di sm i sse d in the fi rs t s uitand adding a few o ther s. The co urt hel d that the pote nti alpre cl usi ve effect ofthe J uly20 , 20 07 or der on the cl ai m s Par vati w as att em pti ng to as ser t in the seco nd suit gav e Par vati sta nd i ng to se ek re l i effro m the j ud gm ent in the fi rs t. The cour t then p rocee ded to the m er i ts and rea ffi rm ed its Ju ly 2 0, 20 07ord er . M or e s p ec ifica lly, th e c ou rth eld th atthe a l l eg ed m is r epr es en ta ti o ns di d no t pr ev en t Parv atifro m “full y a nd f ai rl y pr ese nti ng it s ca se” because ea rl y o n i n the l i ti gat i on Par vat i’s a tto rney s had in th eir p ossess ion all th e relevan t d ocu m e n t s n eces sary to al er t th em t o the pos sibl e inval i dity o fthe or dinance. A s su ch , Parva ti could hav e ad van ced a l egal theory chal l engi ng the o rdi nance a t an y ti m e whil e the cas e w as pend i ng. Because Rule 60(b) m ay not be use d to p ro pound new le galtheo ri es that coul d have be en ra ise d p rior to e n t r y of j u d gm en t, s e ePr ovi de ntSa v. Bank v . P opo vich , 7 1 F
. 3d 69 6, 6 98 ( 7th Ci r . 1 99 5) , the c o urt denie d Parva ti ’s m oti on f orpostj ud gm ent r el i ef

. Par vati m ove d fo r re consi derat i on under Rul e 5 9( e) , wh i ch wa s a l s o de ni e d.

I I . Discussi on Ou r fi rs t quest i on i n thi s a pp eal

— and as it tu rns out, our l ast

— i s whethe r Pa r va tiha s st an di ngt o pu rs ue th e par ti cul arr el i efi t r eque st s. Art i cl e I I I of th e Con st i tu
-8 N o. 09

- 1107 ti on co nfines the federa l co u rt s to adj ud i cating ac tual case s or con troversies, U
. S. C O NST . ar t. I I I, § 2 , a nd the r equi r ement s ofArt i cl e I I Ic as e- o r - co nt r o ve r sys ta ndi ng ar e th re efo ld : (1) an inju ry in-fa c t ; ( 2) fa irly t ra c ea b le to the de fe nd a nt ’ s a c t i o n; a nd ( 3 ) c a pab l e o f b e i ng r ed re ss ed by a fav or ab le d ec isio n from th e c ou rt
. Lujan v. Def e n de rs o f Wi l dlif e , 5 04 U .S. 55 5, 56 0-6 1 (1 99 2); All e n v . Wr ight, 468 U
. S. 737, 751 (1984 ). T he asserted i njury m ust be bo th ( a) co nc re te and parti cul ar i zed and ( b) ac tu al or im m in en t, n otco nj ec tu ra l or h yp ot h e t i c al. Lujan , 504 U
. S. at5 60
. M o r eo ver, a pl aint i ffmustde m o nstr ate st anding separ ate l y for each f or m o fr el i efso ught. Fri ends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw E nvtl. Se rvs . (TO C ), Inc. , 52 8 U. S
. 16 7, 18 5 ( 20 00 )
. F i na l l y, s ta ndi ngmustb e pr es en t at all st ag es of th e litig at ion , in c l u d i n g o n ap p ea l. See Korczak v
. Se de m an , 427 F.3d 4 1 9 , 4 20 (7th C ir. 2005). W h en a p ar ty w ith st an d in g a t t h e in c ep ti on of th e litigation loses it d u e to i nt erven ing even ts, th e inqu iry i s r eal l y o ne o fm oo tness
. Se e Fri ends of the Earth , 52 8 U .S . at 1 89 . M oo tn es s is “t h e d oc tr in e o f st an d in g s et in a t i m e fra m e: The r equi si te perso nal i nt er es t that m ust exi st at the c om m encem ent o fthe l i ti gat i on ( sta nd i ng) m u st co n tin u e t h ro u gh ou t it s e x ist en c e (m oo tn es s).” Id. ( qu otation m arks om itted ). The r e is n o ques ti o n tha t when th i s l i ti g at i o n b eg an, Pa rvati ha d s ta ndi ngt o s ee kj udi ci alr ev i ew o fthe Zoni ng Com m i ssi on’ s deci si on. Ito w ned the pro perty in qu e s t ion , and the C om m issi on’s d en ialof B eth lehem ’s ap p lica tio n for a lice n se to op er at e a se n ior-liv in g fa c ili ty on the pro pertyscutt l ed the Parv ati

- Be th leh em deal and prevent ed the sal e. This w as a concr ete , actuali nj ury,N o. 09

- 1107 9

The r ec or d co nt ai ns a c opy o fthe “Agr ee m en t i n Li eu of 6 For ec l os ur e” m em or i al i zi ng P ar vat i ’ s pr om i s e t o c onve y the p r o p erty to M u tu al B an k , as w ell as a cop y of the w arr an ty d eed reflecting tha t Pa r v a t i i n fact co nv ey ed the p ro p erty to the bank on M arch 18, 2008. Pa r v a t i n o t e s th a tu n d e r I l l i n o i s l a w th e g r a n t e e mu s ta c c e pt 7 a deed b ef ore the conveyance i s eff ec tiv e, see Seibertv. Sei bert, 41 N
. E.2d 544, 547 ( Il l. 1942) , and rais es t h e p o ssibili ty that M utual Bank m ight not have acc epted the c on veyan ce. T his i s c onj ec t ur e, an d i n a ny eve nti s c ont ra di c t ed by the doc um en t a r y e vi de nc e . Th e “ Agr e e m e nti n Li e u o fF or e c l os ur e” a n d th e w a r r a n t y d e e d c o n v i n c i n g l y e st a b l i sh th a tP a r v a t i ’s conveyan ce w a s effect ive; the re i s nothing i n the rec ord to s ugg es t otherw is e. tr ac eabl e to the Ci ty ’ s con ducta nd r edr es sabl e bythe r eq ue st ed ad m inistrative relief

. B ut a fte r t he d i s t r i c tc o u r ti s s ue d i t s o r d e r a ffi r mi n gth e Z o n i n gC o mm i ss i o n’ s dec i si on and th er ea fte r e nt er ed j udg m en t di smi ss i ngthe c as e, Pa r va tit r an sfer r ed o wners hi p o fthe proper ty to i ts m or tga ge l ender i n l i eu o ff or ecl osur e. 6 Because Par vatin o l onge r own s the pro perty, i t l ost st an d in g t o c h alle n ge th e Z on in g C om m iss ion ’s d ec isi on. The type of re l i ef avai l abl e on th e a d m i ni str ati ve-

7 re vie w cla im

— an o rderdi re cti ng the Zoni ng Com m i ssi on to i ssue a l i cense for a se ni or - l i vi ng f aci l i ty

— cannot h e l p P a r v a t i n o w. T he distr ict cou rt found a differen t basis for Pa rvati’s stan d ing: the potenti alpre cl usi ve effect ofthe J uly20 , 2007 or der on the seco nd l aw sui t Parv ati fi l ed ag ainst th e Ci ty
. The ne w sui t r ea ss er te d the c o ns ti tu ti o na l a nd10 N o. 09

- 1107 sta tutor y c l ai m s f orm oney d am age s that Par vatihad vo l untari l y di sm i sse d i n the fi rs t s uit, as wellas o ther cl ai ms s t e mm i ngfr o m t he s a me s e to ff a c t s . T he se claim s d o not d e p e n d on Pa rvati’s continu ed ow ne rshi p of the proper ty. I f the cour t w er e to vacat e th e jud gm en t in the fi rs t s uitand re vi si t a nd r eve rs e the J uly20 , 20 07ord er , th e t h re at of cla im or iss u e p r e c l u sio n in the pa r a l l e l c a s e wo ul d b e r e mov e d. T he c o ur th e l d t hat the “ potenti alnega ti ve i m pact o fthe Ju ly 20, 20 07 O r d e r o n th e 2 0 0 8 c a s e i s s u ffi c i e nt l y c o n c r e t e a n d i mm i nent” t o supp l y s tandi ng. Bu tthe r e i s a no the r r e qu i r e men tf o r s t a nd i ngthat the c ourtd i d not a dd re ss: The i nj ury m ust be f ai rl y t ra cea b l e t o th e c o n d u c to fth e d e fe n d a n t
. U n d e r th e c i r c u msta nces here , the potenti al f or precl usi on w as cr eat ed en ti r ely b y Pa r va ti ’ s l i ti g at i o n con d uct, no t bya ny ac tio n of th e C ity or its offic ials . A fte r failin g t o w in re ver salo fthe Zoni ng Com m i ssi on’ s decisi on, Par vati m ove d to dism i ss i ts re m ai ni ng cl ai m s ratherthan press o n w ith th e litig at ion . Th e d ist ric t c ou rtgra n te d th is m otio n . A lthou gh the d ism issal of the statu tory an d c o ns ti tu ti o na l c l ai m s w as wi th o utpr ej udi ce , the si m ul ta n e o u s e n t r y o fa fi n a l me r i t s j u d g me n to n the adm i ni str ati ve- re vi ew cl ai m had obv i ous pr ecl u sio n i m pli cati ons f orany subsequent eff or t t o refi l e those c laim s. N ow th at P ar va ti has r efi l ed them

— al ong w i th s o me p r e v i o u s l y u n fi l e d c l a i ms a r i s i n gfr o m th e s a me cor e o fo perati ve f acts

— the doct rine o fpre cl usi onN o. 09

- 1107 11

As i ttur ne d out, the d i s t ri c tc our tr el i ed o n pr ec l us i on 8 d o ct ri n e t o d ism iss so m e o f th e p re v io u sly u n file d cla im s, i.e., thos e tha tP a r va t i a s s e r t e d f orthe fi r s tt i m e i n the s e c on d cas e. S ee Parva tiC orp. v. C i ty of O ak F orest, N o. 08-cv -070 2 (N .D
. Ill. Se pt
. 17, 20 09 ) ( or der di s m i ssing c er t ai n c l ai m s )
. I ti s no t clear w hy t h e p reclu sion d efense is b eing raised p iecem eal; cl aim s thatare voluntaril y d is m is se d w ithout prej ud ic e d o n o t n ec e s s a ri ly esc a p e a p re cl u sio n b a r. SeeM uham m ad v. O l i ver, 54 7 F
. 3d 8 74 , 87 6- 78 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08 ) ( a p arty ’ s dec i s i on to v olu nta rily d ism iss claim s in on e case d oe s no t nece ss ar il y r es er ve a r i ghtt o r ea s s er tthos e c l ai m s i n a s ubs equen t ca se aft er th e c o u rt re n d er s a fin a l ju d g m en t in th e fir st). hover s o verthe l ate r- fi led cas e. Seegene rally H -D 8 M ich., I n c. v. To p Q uality Serv., Inc. , 496 F. 3d 755, 76 0 ( 7th Ci r. 20 07) ( col l ate ra l e stopp elappli es w here a l i ti g at ed i ss ue , e ss en ti alt o the f inal j udg m en t i n the ear l i ercas e, i s assert ed aga i nst a party who had the o pp or tu ni ty to l i ti gat e the i ssue i n the ear l i erpro c ee d in g); H ighway J Ci t ize ns Gr oup v. U .S. D ep’ tof Tran sp . , 4 5 6 F
. 3 d 7 3 4 , 74 1 ( 7 th Ci r . 2 0 0 6 ) ( r e s j ud i cata appli es w here a cl ai m co ncer ns the sa m e c or e of o perati ve f acts , i nvol ves the s am e par ti es, and i m pli cate s a p revious final j ud gm en t on th e m erits). T h is sor t o fpro cedural“i nj ury, ” ho w eve r, i s no t t ra ceab le t o t h e C ity ’s a lleg ed u n law fu l co n d u c t. It is en tirel y self-i nfli cted , resulting s o lel y fr om Parva ti’ s d ec isio n to sp lit its cla im s. Se ePe t r o- Che m Pr oc e s s i ng, Inc . v. EPA , 86 6 F .2d 43 3, 43 8 (D .C . C ir. 19 8 9) (G in sb u rg, R.B ., J.) ( se l f

- i nfl i ct ed i nj ur i es b r ea kthe c au sa l c ha i n l i nk i ng the defendant’s co nd uct t o the a sse rt ed i nj ury) ; 13 A12 N o. 09

- 1107 C HA RLES A. W RI GHT & A RTHU R R. M IL LER, F EDERAL P RAC TICE AND P ROCEDURE § 3531
. 5, at 362 (3d ed

. 2008) (sam e); see also D ia m o n d v . C ha rles , 476 U
. S. 54 , 70

- 71 ( 1986 ) ( a par ty’ s l i abi l i ty f orat torney’ s fe es w as a co nsequence o fi ts o wn dec i si o n t o i nt er ve ne in the c as e an d th er efo re co u ld n otbe fairly tra c ed to th e la w ch allen ge d ); P enn sylv a nia v. New Jersey, 426 U
. S. 66 0, 664 ( 19 76 ) ( i nj ur i es t o pl aint i ffs tates ’ fi sc s wer e “s el f

- i nfl i ct ed,” a nd “ [ n] o S ta te c anb e he ar d t o c o m pl ain abo ut d am age infli cted by i ts ow n h an d ”). H ad Parv atinot v olu ntar i l y di sm i sse d i ts cl ai m s f or m o ne ta r y r el i efi n the fi r stc as e, it woul d ha ve f ac ed no r i sko f p re cl us i o n; the di st r i ctc o ur t woul d ha ve c o nsi der ed al l o fPa r va ti ’ s grie va nc es i n o ne l aws ui t. S o l o ng as Pa r va ti m aint aine d st an di ng to as se r t th e cl aim s ( an d as w e hav e no ted, Par vati n eed noto w n the proper ty to ben efi t from a m one tary rem ed y), th e d is trict court w oul d have be en fre e t o re vi si t the zo ni ng d et er m inati on i n the continuing l iti gat i on. A nd o fco urse the propri et y of the di str i ct c ourt ’ s r uling o n the adm i ni str ati vere vi ew cl ai m c ou ld have b een t ake n up on an a pp eal f ro m a fi nal j ud gm ent in the case . B u t Parv atichos e t o accept i ts l oss o n the adm i ni str ati ve- re vi ew cl ai m , di sm i sse d its cl ai m s f ordam age s, and perm i tte d final j ud gm ent t o be e nter ed on t h e m er i ts o fth e z oni ngc ha l l en g e. Now tha t i t no l o ng ero wns the pr o per ty, Pa r va til ac ks st an di ngt o r eo penthe j udg m en t o n tha t cl ai m . Thi s i s so r eg ar dl es s o f ho w tha t j udg m en t m ay affect the re l ate d l i ti gat i on. Ifthe potent i alpre cl usi ve e ffe c to fa j ud g men ti n a s ub s e qu e ntc a s e we r e e no ug hN o. 09

- 1107 13 to avo i d m oo tness , then n o c ase w oul d everbe m oo t. See C o m m o dity F utu res Trad ing C o m m ’n v . B d. o f Tr a de, 70 1 F .2d 65 3, 65 6 (7 th C i r . 1 9 83 ). Su c h a ru le w ou ld i m p a ir j u d icia l ec on om y, see M uh a m m a d v . O liv er, 547 F. 3d 87 4, 877 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08) , and cr eat e a n i m perm i ssibl e e nd

- run ar ound the cas e- or - contr ove rs y r equi re m en ts of A rt icle III. H er e, th e p os sib ility of p re c lu sio n is n ot an i nj ury f ai rl y t ra ceabl e t o the Ci ty’ s co nd uct o r the c onduct ofi ts offi ci al s. I nstea d, i t was br ought on by Parv ati ’ s l i ti gat i on deci si ons. A ccor din gly , f orthe f or ego i ng r eas ons, we V ACATE th e o rd ers of th e d istri ct cou rt de ny ing Pa rvati’s Rul e 60( b) ( 3) a nd Rul e 59 ( e) mot i o ns o n the mer i ts a nd R EMA ND with instr ucti ons to D ISMISS th em forl ack of j ur i sdi ct i o n.

12- 23- 10