Opinion ID: 6329941
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: This appeal has a mootness problem

Text: {¶ 7} To be sure, Niesen and White advance serious arguments that a TRO that acts as a prior restraint on speech should be immediately appealable. But before this court can address the merits of their appeal, we must be sure that there remains an “actual controvers[y],” Fortner v. Thomas, 22 Ohio St.2d 13, 14, 257 N.E.2d 371 (1970); see also Ohio Constitution, Article IV, Section 1 (limiting this court’s authority to the “judicial power”). If the controversy has come and gone, then this court must dismiss the case as moot. See Travis v. Pub. Util. Comm., 123 Ohio St. 355, 175 N.E. 586 (1931), paragraph two of the syllabus; Miner v. Witt, 82 Ohio St. 237, 238-239, 92 N.E. 21 (1910). {¶ 8} The requirements for and scope of a TRO are governed by Civ.R. 65(A). That rule provides that a TRO shall expire by its terms within such time after entry, not to exceed fourteen days, as the court fixes, unless within the time so fixed the order, for good cause shown, is extended for one like period or unless the party against whom the order is directed consents that it may be extended for a longer period. The reasons for the extension shall be set forth in the order of extension. (Emphasis added.) {¶ 9} The TRO in question was entered on July 24, 2020. The common pleas court did not issue an order to renew the TRO until August 13, 20 days after the TRO was first entered. But by that time the TRO had already expired, and under the plain terms of Civ.R. 65(A), the court lacked authority to extend the TRO. A TRO may only be extended “within the time so fixed” by the original TRO. (Emphasis added.) Id. The TRO did not include an expiration date, but its duration 4 January Term, 2022 could not exceed 14 days from the entry. See id. Thus, the TRO expired on August 8, 2020. And even if one accepts the dubious premise that the trial court’s August 13 order somehow extended a TRO that had already expired, the extended TRO would have expired on August 27, 2020. {¶ 10} Courts do not review cases that no longer present live controversies. Tschantz v. Ferguson, 57 Ohio St.3d 131, 133, 566 N.E.2d 655 (1991). Because the TRO at issue is no longer in effect, the appeal of the TRO is moot. See State ex rel. Pfeiffer v. Columbus Inn & Suites, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 14AP-132, 2014Ohio-4358, ¶ 40 (“Once the TRO expired, the controversy surrounding the entry of that order became moot”); see also State ex rel. Celebrezze v. Allen Cty. Bd. of Cty. Commrs., 32 Ohio St.3d 24, 26, 512 N.E.2d 332 (1987), fn. 2. B. This appeal does not fall under any of the exceptions to the mootness doctrine {¶ 11} None of the exceptions to the mootness doctrine save this appeal from dismissal. The closest any exception comes to being applicable is the one for issues that are capable of repetition yet evading review, but it too does not apply. An issue is capable of repetition yet evading review if “ ‘(1) the challenged action is in its duration too short to be fully litigated prior to its cessation or expiration, and (2) there is a reasonable expectation that the same complaining party will be subjected to the same action again.’ ” United States v. Sanchez-Gomez, ___ U.S. ___, ___, 138 S.Ct. 1532, 1540, 200 L.Ed.2d 792 (2018), quoting Turner v. Rogers, 564 U.S. 431, 439-440, 131 S.Ct. 2507, 180 L.Ed.2d 452 (2011); see also State ex rel. Bechtel v. Cornachio, 164 Ohio St.3d 579, 2021-Ohio-1121, 174 N.E.3d 744, ¶ 11; State ex rel. Calvary v. Upper Arlington, 89 Ohio St.3d 229, 231, 729 N.E.2d 1182 (2000). The first element is easily satisfied, as it is the rarest of cases that can be fully litigated in a matter of weeks. The second element, however, has not been satisfied. {¶ 12} It is not enough for an issue to be capable of repetition between some parties; the issue must be capable of repetition between the “same” parties. Id. That 5 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO means that for the exception to apply, there must be a reasonable expectation of repeated actions between Olthaus and Niesen and White concerning the issue. But it is beyond unlikely that this issue will repeat itself between these parties. The TRO has already expired and can no longer be renewed. See Civ.R. 65(A). And in Shanahan, this court determined that Olthaus may not proceed anonymously and must proceed under his proper name. ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2022-Ohio-448, ___ N.E.3d ___, at ¶ 43. So there is no real possibility that this controversy will reoccur: any further effort by Olthaus to prevent the defendants from identifying him would be futile. {¶ 13} It is our duty to only “decide actual controversies between parties legitimately affected by specific facts.” Fortner, 22 Ohio St.2d at 14, 257 N.E.2d 371. Because the TRO at issue has expired, this appeal no longer concerns an actual controversy. Accordingly, this court is duty bound to dismiss this appeal as moot.