Opinion ID: 771682
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Arguments Against Mootness By Colorado and Amici

Text: 9 Colorado and Amici insist that live controversies persist with respect to 103(12), 104, 105, and 106(2). Colorado contends that the claims are not moot because Plaintiffs may eventually seek attorneys' fees as prevailing parties, and because there are or may be prosecutions under the repealed provisions. Amici Common Cause and the League of Women Voters claim that Common Cause's lawsuit challenging the validity of H.B. 00-1194's passage has placed the Act in jeopardy of being invalidated, thereby leaving the constitutionality of the pre-amendment statute still very much in controversy. We find all three arguments to be without merit.
10 According to Colorado, the appeals regarding 103(12), 104, 105, and 106(2) are not moot because the plaintiffs may eventually seek attorneys' fees. There is substantial Supreme Court and Tenth Circuit precedent to the contrary. 11 As the Secretary correctly notes, the general rule is that an interest in attorney's fees is insufficient to create an Article III case or controversy where a case or controversy does not exist on the merits of the underlying claim. In re Western Pac. Airlines, Inc., 181 F.3d 1191, 1196 (10th Cir. 1999) (quoting Cox v. Phelps Dodge Corp., 43 F.3d 1345, 1348 n.4 (10th Cir. 1994) (citing Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp, 494 U.S. 472, 480 (1990))). The Secretary argues that this case falls under an exception to the general rule for fees already incurred, relying heavily on the following language in Dahlem v. Board of Education: While a claim of entitlement to attorney's fees does not preserve a moot cause of action, the expiration of the underlying cause of action does not moot a controversy over attorney's fees already incurred. 901 F.2d 1508, 1511 (10th Cir. 1990) (citations omitted, emphasis added). This language means only that a plaintiff may still recover (and a defendant may still contest) fees even when the merits have been rendered moot. Id. The quote does not mean that an otherwise moot issue is revived whenever a prevailing party requests or might request fees. See Lewis, 494 U.S. at 480 (cautioning lower courts to be sure that mooted litigation is not pressed forward, and unnecessary judicial pronouncements on even constitutional issues obtained, solely in order to obtain reimbursement of sunk costs). 12 With respect to Colorado's arguments regarding the merits of whether the plaintiffs are entitled to fees, we note that a joint motion was filed in district court to stay all proceedings concerning attorneys' fees pending appeal, and that no fee request has been filed. Our jurisdiction is based on our power to review final decisions of district courts. 28 U.S.C. 1291. Without a final decision from the district court as to whether Plaintiffs are entitled to fees, the question is not before this court.
13 The Secretary also argues that the case is not moot because there is an outstanding state case involving a prosecution under the prior statute. Colo. Resp. Br. re: Mootness at 6 (June 19, 2000) (citing League of Women Voters v. Davidson, No. 2000-CA-000216 (ROA filed in Colo. Ct. App. on May 22, 2000)). League of Women Voters, however, does not involve any of the repealed provisions. Instead, it relates to 103(7), (10), (11), and 107, all of which were unaffected by H.B. 00-1194. 14 The Secretary also claims that the challenges to 104 are not moot because the State may, at some indefinite point in the future, begin prosecuting persons or organizations for pre-repeal violations, thereby having a residual effect on persons who violated the limits before the district court issued its injunction. Resp. Br. re: Mootness at 6 (June 19, 2000). We agree with the Eighth Circuit that an allegation of collateral consequences in a separate lawsuit . . . does not fall within any exception to the mootness doctrine . . . . Nebraska v. Cent. Interstate Low-Level Radioactive Waste Compact Comm'n, 187 F.3d 982, 987 (8th Cir. 1999); accord United States v. Balint, 201 F.3d 928, 937 n.2 (7th Cir. 2000) ([T]he defendants' vulnerability to a future civil suit for contribution by a third party not before us does not preserve this appeal.). The Seventh Circuit case cited by the State, Charles v. Daley, 749 F.2d 452 (7th Cir. 1984), is not inconsistent with these holdings. Although the court in that case found the possibility that the plaintiffs would be prosecuted under pre-amendment statutes to be insufficiently speculative to moot their challenges, id. at 457, it also noted the basic principle that federal courts are without power to decide questions that cannot affect the rights of the litigants in the case before them . . . . Id. at 456 (quoting North Carolina v. Rice, 404 U.S. 244, 246 (1971)). In this case, our decision to vacate the district court's orders regarding the repealed sections does not extinguish the State's right to investigate and prosecute pre-repeal violations, nor does it impair the rights of potential defendants' to challenge the constitutionality of the old statutes when and if such prosecutions actually occur. Cf. Two Guys from Harrison-Allentown, Inc. v. McGinley, 366 U.S. 582, 589 (1961) (agreeing with lower court that if threat of prosecution under arguably superseded state statute arose, and if a state court decided that the statute was still applicable, that would be time enough to consider that statute's validity). Thus, Colorado's potential prosecutions argument fails. 15
16 Amici Common Cause and the League of Women Voters raise one additional argument against mootness: that Amicus Common Cause has a pending lawsuit in state court challenging the validity of H.B. 00-1194's passage under Colorado's Open Meetings Act. Colo. Common Cause, Inc. v. Colorado, No. 00-CV-4156 (filed June 22, 2000). According to Amici, H.B. 00-1194 is thus in jeopardy of being invalidated, thereby leaving the constitutionality of the repealed provisions still very much in controversy . . . . Amici Br. in Opp'n to Mootness at 2-3 (June 26, 2000). At least one circuit has summarily rejected this argument as allowing parties to play off one court system against another. Miller v. Benson, 68 F.3d 163, 164-65 (7th Cir. 1995) (Whatever the outcome of the state case, this federal case . . . lacks any continuing significance.). Of course, the amici are not parties, but it is noteworthy that Common Cause's state lawsuit was filed only four days before its brief was filed in this court more than three months after the allegedly defective passage of H.B. 00-1194. Even if the timing of Common Cause's lawsuit is purely coincidental, we do not believe that the mere filing of a lawsuit is sufficient to resurrect Article III jurisdiction over the repealed statutes. 4