Opinion ID: 187362
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Mootness as to CTR and TI

Text: CTR and TI argue that the district court's findings relating to the likelihood they will commit future violations render the case against them moot. We agree. The MSA demanded the dissolution of both organizations. At the time of trial, CTR and TI only existed to wind up their respective affairs. The district court found no reasonable likelihood of future violations on the part of TI or CTR and consequently ordered no remedies against them. Philip Morris, 449 F.Supp.2d at 915. The court actually encouraged the government to reconsider proceeding against these entities as they seem to have no actual ability to continue alleged past RICO violations. Id. at 916 (quotation marks omitted). Federal courts lack jurisdiction to decide moot cases because their constitutional authority extends only to actual cases or controversies. Larsen v. U.S. Navy, 525 F.3d 1, 4 (D.C.Cir.2008) (quotation marks omitted). A case is moot when the challenged conduct ceases such that there is no reasonable expectation that the wrong will be repeated in circumstances where it becomes impossible for the court to grant any effectual relief whatever to the prevailing party. City of Erie v. Pap's A.M., 529 U.S. 277, 287, 120 S.Ct. 1382, 146 L.Ed.2d 265 (2000) (quotation marks omitted). For both CTR and TI these requirements have been met. The government nowhere disputes Defendants' claim that CTR and TI no longer exist. They cannot possibly commit future RICO violations. Accordingly, we vacate the judgment as to CTR and TI and remand with directions to dismiss.