Opinion ID: 164972
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: cross-appeal challenging the grant of a permanent injunction

Text: 56 Despite our conclusion that the claims for prospective relief against Wichita Transit's driver-discretion policy are now moot, we need not vacate the district court's grant of an injunction against that policy. When a portion of a case becomes moot while on appeal, this court generally vacates the relevant portion of the judgment below and remands with a direction to dismiss. See Boullioun Aircraft Holding Co. v. Smith Mgmt. (In re Western Pac. Airlines, Inc.), 181 F.3d 1191, 1197 (10th Cir.1999). Vacatur, however, is an equitable remedy, and a key consideration in determining its appropriateness is whether the party seeking vacatur caused the mootness through voluntary action. Id. (citation omitted). The Supreme Court has cautioned that it is far from clear that vacatur ... would be the appropriate response to a finding of mootness on appeal brought about by the voluntary conduct of the party that lost in the District Court. Laidlaw, 528 U.S. at 194 n. 6, 120 S.Ct. 693. Wichita has not presented any equitable consideration which would justify vacatur despite the fact that mootness was brought about by Wichita Transit's voluntary compliance. Therefore, this court declines to vacate the district court's injunction against Wichita Transit's driver-discretion policy.