Opinion ID: 474501
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Timing of Dismissal

Text: 49 Having concluded that dismissal was proper, we next consider whether its timing was correct. More specifically, defendants June Pickering Nurses Registry, Michael Schwartz, and Charles Peters contend on their cross-appeals that they were entitled to a judgment of dismissal on the merits before the jurisdictional issue was reached, because of their exoneration by a medical malpractice tribunal and Pallazola's failure to post the bonds necessary to continue the action. The defendants also argue collectively that the district court erred in referring the action to a state court rather than entering an immediate judgment of dismissal upon its finding that subject matter jurisdiction was lacking. Pallazola replies that the propriety of the referral to state court is a nonjusticiable issue and that the district court acted properly, in any event, when it referred this action to the state court.
50 On October 9, 1985, the district court refused to entertain the requests of defendants Pickering, Schwartz, and Peters for separate entry of judgment in their favor. They sought a judgment on the merits--rather than the judgment based on the absence of subject matter jurisdiction to which all defendants were entitled--because of their exoneration by a medical malpractice tribunal and plaintiff's subsequent failure to post the bonds necessary to continuing her action against them. 51 The district court, refusing to enter separate judgments, stated: 52 Now, you see, you're asking me to issue a judgment that would determine the merits. That's what you're asking me to do. And if I do not have diversity jurisdiction, I cannot enter a judgment that adjudicates the merits.... When I later ... determine [that I was without jurisdiction], I have to enter an order that has the effect of wiping out any adjudication I made ... while under the erroneous understanding that I had diversity jurisdiction. 53 This was a correct statement of the law. Even though the court had previously ordered dismissal of the action as to Peters, Schwartz, and Pickering, 602 F.Supp. at 464, judgment had not yet been entered. Before separate judgments could be entered, the court determined that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. In the absence of subject matter jurisdiction, the court was required immediately to dismiss the action 29 --on jurisdictional grounds, not on the merits. Thus, the district court could not have entered separate judgments on the merits in favor of Pickering, Schwartz, and Peters. 30
54 A more troubling question is whether the district court erred in referring the action to a state court and, if it did, what can be done about the error. Under the case or controversy requirement of article III of the Constitution, a case is moot when the issues presented are no longer 'live' or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome. Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 496, 89 S.Ct. 1944, 1950, 23 L.Ed.2d 491 (1969). See Berskshire Cablevision of Rhode Island, Inc. v. Burke, 773 F.2d 382, 384 (1st Cir.1985). Stated otherwise, federal courts are without power to decide questions that cannot affect the rights of litigants in the case before them. North Carolina v. Rice, 404 U.S. 244, 246, 92 S.Ct. 402, 404, 30 L.Ed.2d 413 (1971) (per curiam). After the Massachusetts court accepted the referral and the district court dismissed the federal action, the lawsuit left our bailiwick. 31 Given this situation, the question arises whether there is a live case or controversy for us to decide. 55 If we were to adopt the defendants' suggestion and hold that the referral was error, the most we could do is order the district court to vacate its order of referral. Whether or not this would have an effect on the Massachusetts courts is impossible to know, since the state courts could decide that, as a matter of state law, they nevertheless retain jurisdiction. Thus, a decision that the district court erred would be no more than an advisory opinion, which we are powerless to issue. See id.; Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 96, 88 S.Ct. 1942, 1950, 20 L.Ed.2d 947 (1968); Muskrat v. United States, 219 U.S. 346, 351-53, 31 S.Ct. 250, 251-53, 55 L.Ed. 246 (1911); accord Aetna Life Insurance Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227, 241, 57 S.Ct. 461, 464, 81 L.Ed. 617 (1937) (controversy must admit of specific relief through conclusive decree, as opposed to opinion advising what the law would be upon hypothetical state of facts). 56 Withal, a matter may not be moot, provided it is capable of repetition, yet evading review. See, e.g., Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 125, 93 S.Ct. 705, 712, 35 L.Ed.2d 147 (1973); Southern Pacific Terminal Co. v. ICC, 219 U.S. 498, 515, 31 S.Ct. 279, 283, 55 L.Ed. 310 (1911). In the absence of a class action, however, this exception to the mootness doctrine requires two predicates: (1) the challenged action was in its duration too short to be fully litigated prior to its cessation or expiration, and (2) there was a reasonable expectation that the same complaining party would be subjected to the same action again. Weinstein v. Bradford, 423 U.S. 147, 149, 96 S.Ct. 347, 348, 46 L.Ed.2d 350 (1975) (per curiam) (emphasis added). Thus, [t]he possibility that other persons may litigate a similar claim does not save [a] case from mootness. Lane v. Williams, 455 U.S. 624, 634, 102 S.Ct. 1322, 1328, 71 L.Ed.2d 508 (1982) (emphasis added). 57 The defendants' contention is that, upon its finding that subject matter jurisdiction was lacking, the district court should have dismissed the action rather than referring it to state court. The possibility that the defendants will someday find themselves in the same situation is so remote that this is not a case capable of repetition, yet evading review; hence, the second element of the Weinstein v. Bradford test cannot be met. Cf. DeFunis v. Odegaard, 416 U.S. 312, 319, 94 S.Ct. 1704, 1707, 40 L.Ed.2d 164 (1974) (per curiam) (petitioner will never again run the gantlet of law school admission process); Flynt v. Weinberger, 762 F.2d 134, 135 (D.C.Cir.1985) (per curiam) (no reasonable expectation that controversy regarding prohibition of press coverage of Grenada invasion would recur). 32 Accordingly, the cross-appeals, insofar as they challenge the referral of the federal action to state court, must be dismissed as moot, and we express no view on the propriety of the referral.