Case Name: Roy COMMER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DISTRICT COUNCIL 37 and Local 375, Defendants-Appellees, THE CITY OF NEW YORK, Defendant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-05-13
Citations: 96 F. App'x 777
Docket Number: No. 03-7970
Parties: Roy COMMER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DISTRICT COUNCIL 37 and Local 375, Defendants-Appellees, THE CITY OF NEW YORK, Defendant.
Judges: PRESENT: FEINBERG, CABRANES, Circuit Judges and KRAVITZ, District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 96
Pages: 777–777

Head Matter:
Roy COMMER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DISTRICT COUNCIL 37 and Local 375, Defendants-Appellees, THE CITY OF NEW YORK, Defendant.
No. 03-7970.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
May 13, 2004.
Roy Commer, Staten Island, NY, for Appellant, pro se.
Irwin Bluestein (Hanan B. Kolko), Meyer, Suozzi, English & Klein, P.C., New York, NY, for Appellee, of counsel.
PRESENT: FEINBERG, CABRANES, Circuit Judges and KRAVITZ, District Judge.
The Honorable Mark R. Kravitz, of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
SUMMARY ORDER
Roy Commer appeals from a judgment of the District Court dismissing his claim that District Council 37 violated the Labor Management and Disclosure Act of 1959 ("LMRDA"), 29 U.S.C. § 401 et seq. The District Court concluded that the claim is moot.
For substantially the reasons stated by the District Court, we agree that the dispute between the parties has dissolved. Because Commer seeks only to enjoin ratification and enforcement of contracts that have already expired, it is no longer possible to grant him the relief he seeks. See Russman v. Bd. of Educ., 260 F.3d 114, 118-19 (2d Cir.2001). Moreover, because a subsequent dispute involving another agreement between District Council 37 and the City of New York could be fully litigated prior to the expiration of that agreement, this dispute is not capable of repetition yet evading review. See id. at 119.
We have considered all of plaintiffs claims on appeal and we hereby AFFIRM the judgment of the District Court.