Case Name: INTIMATE IDEAS, INC., a Michigan corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CITY OF GRAND RAPIDS, a Michigan municipal corporation, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-03-16
Citations: 90 F. App'x 134
Docket Number: No. 03-1090
Parties: INTIMATE IDEAS, INC., a Michigan corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CITY OF GRAND RAPIDS, a Michigan municipal corporation, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 90
Pages: 134–135

Head Matter:
INTIMATE IDEAS, INC., a Michigan corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CITY OF GRAND RAPIDS, a Michigan municipal corporation, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 03-1090.
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
March 16, 2004.
Gregory F. Lord, Lord & Legghio, Sterling Heights, MI, Allan S. Rubin, Law Office of Allan S. Rubin, Southfield, MI, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Janice F. Bailey, Catherine M. Mish, City Attorney’s Office for the City of Grand Rapids, Grand Rapids, MI, Scott D. Bergthold, Scottsdale, AZ, for Defendants Appellant.
Before MARTIN, CLAY, and CUDAHY, Circuit Judges.
The Honorable Richard D. Cudahy, Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
ORDER
In this action, the plaintiff challenged Article 25 of the zoning ordinance adopted by the City of Grand Rapids. Article 25 regulated the operation of adult bookstores. The district court entered a preliminary injunction enjoining the enforcement of Article 25, and the City brought this appeal. The plaintiff now advises that it has permanently ceased its business within Grand Rapids. Both the plaintiff and the City agree that as a result this appeal now is moot. The City further states that any future business that the plaintiff might commence would be governed by a new ordinance.
There is no longer a case or controversy between these parties. When a controversy becomes moot on appeal, the proper course is to vacate the order and to remand to the district court with instructions to dismiss the complaint. United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U.S. 36, 39, 71 S.Ct. 104, 95 L.Ed. 36 (1950); United States v. Taylor, 8 F.3d 1074, 1077 (6th Cir.1993).
Therefore, the order on appeal is VACATED. The district court is instructed to dismiss the complaint as moot.