In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ 

No. 22-1138 

GREGORY A. RUGGLES, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v.

JACQUELINE RUGGLES, Executor of the Estate of DONALD 

RUGGLES, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

____________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Central District of Illinois. 

No. 4:21-cv-04058 — James E. Shadid, Judge. 

____________________ 

ARGUED SEPTEMBER 13, 2022 — DECIDED SEPTEMBER 26, 2022 

____________________ 

Before FLAUM, BRENNAN, and SCUDDER, Circuit Judges. 

SCUDDER, Circuit Judge. Article III of the Constitution limits federal courts to deciding live Cases or Controversies. 

When a dispute becomes moot—when the court can no longer 

provide relief to the plaintiff—the federal court loses its authority to proceed further. That happened here. Greg Ruggles 

was upset by actions taken by his father, Don Ruggles, with 

their family company, so he went to court to stop Don’s 
2 No. 22-1138 

moves. But Don died while this dispute was on appeal, and 

his passing meant that Greg could no longer receive the relief 

he sought in this lawsuit. In these circumstances, we no longer 

have a Case or Controversy before us and have no choice but 

to order dismissal of the matter as moot. 

I 

For the last seven years Don and Greg Ruggles have been 

the only two shareholders of their family company, a closely 

held corporation called XPAC. Greg held all the nonvoting 

shares (totaling 99% of the company’s stock), and Don held 

all the voting shares (the remaining 1%). Under the terms of 

Don’s divorce agreement with Greg’s late mother, Don could 

only transfer his voting shares to Greg (or to Greg’s brother, 

but Greg bought the future interest in his brother’s voting 

shares in 2015). 

A corporate governance dispute arose last year after Don 

sought to increase his monthly salary by $10,000. Greg filed a 

motion in Illinois state court seeking a constructive trust over 

Don’s shares and an injunction preventing Don from voting 

his shares in a way that would adversely affect XPAC’s operations, including by increasing his own salary. Greg filed his 

motion in a long-dormant state court case that had started in 

2002 with Don’s divorce from Greg’s mother. 

That unusual procedural posture is what led to this appeal. Don removed the case to federal court, and Greg did not 

object. No one disputes that the basic requirements of federal 

diversity jurisdiction are met: the parties were diverse at the 

time of removal, with Don domiciled in Florida and Greg in 

Iowa, and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Even 

so, the district court remanded the case to state court because 
No. 22-1138 3

Don’s removal to federal court came well over a year after the 

initial divorce lawsuit began back in 2002. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1446(c)(1). Don appealed the district court’s remand order, 

which brought the case before us. 

But on April 9, 2022—in the middle of the briefing schedule in our court—Don died. This event is of legal consequence. Remember that Greg sought two forms of relief in the 

motion that led to this appeal: a constructive trust over Don’s 

voting shares in XPAC and an injunction to stop Don from 

voting his shares in a way that would adversely affect XPAC 

or Greg’s interest in the company. Don’s death renders these 

two forms of relief meaningless—in a word, it makes them 

moot. 

II

The mootness doctrine implements Article III’s Case or 

Controversy requirement by preventing federal courts from 

resolving questions that cannot affect the rights of the parties 

before them. See North Carolina v. Rice, 404 U.S. 244, 246 

(1971); see also Chafin v. Chafin, 568 U.S. 165, 171–72 (2013). 

This Article III limitation is not a one-and-done hurdle to 

clear. Rather, the “case-or-controversy requirement subsists 

through all stages of federal judicial proceedings, trial and appellate.” Lewis v. Cont’l Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477 (1990); see 

also Watkins v. United States Dist. Ct., 37 F.4th 453, 457 (7th Cir. 

2022) (“If intervening circumstances deprive the plaintiff of a 

personal stake in the outcome, ‘the action can no longer proceed and must be dismissed as moot.’” (quoting Genesis 

Healthcare Corp. v. Symczyk, 569 U.S. 66, 72 (2013))). When a 

question about mootness arises, federal courts have a constitutional obligation to address it—on our own if need be. See 

Watkins, 37 F.4th at 457. 
4 No. 22-1138 

A matter is moot if it becomes impossible for a federal 

court to provide “any effectual relief” to the plaintiff. Mission 

Prod. Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC, 139 S. Ct. 1652, 1660 

(2019) (quoting Chafin, 568 U.S. at 172). And neither of the two 

remedies that Greg sought in his motion—a constructive trust 

and injunctive relief—is “effectual relief” after Don’s death. 

It is easy to see why. The terms of Don’s divorce agreement with Greg’s mother require that Don transfer his XPAC 

shares to Greg and no one else. If Don’s shares pass to Greg 

(under Don’s will or otherwise), any need for a constructive 

trust evaporates; if Don has attempted to will the shares to 

someone else, the proper forum for challenging his will is in 

probate court in Florida, where Don lived at the time of his 

death. See Fla. Stat. § 733.101(1)(a). As for Greg’s requested 

injunctive relief, there is no longer a need to enjoin Don from 

taking any action that might adversely affect XPAC. And 

“once the threat of the act sought to be enjoined dissipates, 

the suit must be dismissed as moot.” Brown v. Bartholomew 

Consol. Sch. Corp., 442 F.3d 588, 596 (7th Cir. 2006). 

Of course, the fact that these particular requests for relief 

are moot does not mean that all disputes between the parties 

disappear going forward. At oral argument the parties suggested that Greg is considering a suit for monetary damages 

from Don’s estate. And given that Don’s estate is currently in 

probate, further disagreements—perhaps in one way or another relating to Don’s XPAC shares—might arise during the 

probate action. Any such disputes are not part of the matter 

before us, though, and only time will tell what disagreements 

(if any) will remain after Don’s estate is probated. All we can 

and need say for certain today is that the present appeal is 

moot. 
No. 22-1138 5

At oral argument we asked the parties whether Don’s 

death mooted this appeal. With admirable candor, both sides 

answered yes—even as they observed that other legal proceedings may prove necessary if the parties prove unable to 

iron out other disputes between them. We thank both parties 

for their forthrightness. 

For these reasons, we VACATE and REMAND with instructions to dismiss this matter as moot.