NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

__________

No. 11-3533

_____________

PRESERVATION PITTSBURGH,

 Appellant

v.

MARY CONTURO, Executive Director, Sports and Exhibition Authority of Pittsburgh 

and Allegheny County; ROB STEPHANY, Executive Director, The Urban 

Redevelopment Authority of Pittsburgh; LUKE RAVENSTAHL, Mayor of Pittsburgh; 

DAN ONORATO, County Executive Allegheny County; RAY LAHOOD, Secretary, 

United States Department of Transportation; VICTOR M MENDEZ, Administrator, 

Federal Highway Administration; RENEE SIGEL, Pennsylvania 

Division Administrator, Federal Highway Administration

__________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. No. 2-11-cv-00889)

District Judge: The Honorable David S. Cercone

Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)

*April 18, 2012

BEFORE: SCIRICA, AMBRO, and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges

(Filed: April 27, 2012)

__________

OPINION OF THE COURT

__________

PER CURIAM.
2

Appellant Preservation Pittsburgh appeals the District Court’s decision dismissing 

its complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We will dismiss the appeal as moot. 

Preservation Pittsburgh requested that the District Court enjoin the Federal 

Highway Administration (“FHWA”), the Sports & Exhibition Authority of Pittsburgh 

and Allegheny County (“SEA”), and other local defendants from demolishing the Civic 

Arena and otherwise proceeding with construction plans for the site until they comply 

with three federal statutes: National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), National Historic 

Preservation Act (NHPA), and Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act 

(DOTA). 

Once home to the Pittsburgh Penguins, the Civic Arena was in use until 2010, 

when a new adjacent arena opened. After the preparation of a report regarding options 

for the use or demolition of the Arena, and public comment, the SEA determined that the 

only viable economic option was to demolish the Arena. The District Court dismissed 

the appeal based on its finding that Preservation Pittsburgh had failed to demonstrate the 

requisite level of federal involvement to invoke federal jurisdiction. 

At the time of briefing, demolition had begun on the interior of the Arena. 

Asbestos abatement of the roof also had begun. As of today, all that remains is 

demolition debris and the Arena’s semi-demolished concrete base. See Exhibit A, 

attached. 

II.

We routinely dismiss appeals requesting injunctive relief as moot when the alleged 

harm has passed and there is no feasible means to provide relief. See e.g., County of 
3

Morris v. Nationalist Movement, 273 F.3d 527, 533-34 (3d Cir. 2001 (dismissing as moot 

a declaratory judgment appeal regarding the constitutionality of municipal policies 

regarding a July 4th rally after the rally had taken place); In re Cantwell, 639 F.2d 1050, 

1054 (3d Cir. 1981) (“Thus, where, pending appeal, an act or event sought to be enjoined 

has been performed or has occurred, an appeal from the denial of the injunction will be 

dismissed as moot.”).

It is obvious that the demolition of the Arena has rendered this appeal moot. Now 

that the Arena has been demolished, Preservation Pittsburgh has suffered whatever harm 

that conceivably could result from the challenged agency actions. It can no longer claim 

an imminent threat of a “concrete and particularized” injury. Moreover, we cannot 

fashion meaningful relief because we cannot reconstruct the Arena. The appeal, at the 

very least, is prudentially moot.

Preservation Pittsburgh did request broader relief than an injunction halting the 

demolition. The broader relief it requests, however, is based on claims that are highly 

speculative. Any future injury that Preservation Pittsburgh may suffer is too contingent 

to fulfill the “case or controversy” requirement. 

With the demolition of the Arena complete, Preservation Pittsburgh no longer has 

a “concrete and particularized” interest in the outcome of the appeal. We cannot grant 

meaningful relief. The appeal will be dismissed as moot. 
4

Exhibit A.