Opinion ID: 2672257
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The State’s appeal must be dismissed as moot.

Text: In Edwards v. Mortg. Elec. Registration Sys., Inc., 154 Idaho 511, ___, 300 P.3d 43, 47 (2013), we explained the doctrine of mootness: “An issue becomes moot if it does not present a real and substantial controversy that is capable of being concluded through judicial decree of specific relief.” Ameritel Inns, Inc. v. Greater Boise Auditorium Dist., 141 Idaho 849, 851, 119 P.3d 624, 626 (2005). The issue of mootness can be raised at any time, including for the first time on appeal. McLean v. Cheyovich Family Trust, 153 Idaho 425, 431, 283 P.3d 742, 748 (2012). “Mootness ... applies when a favorable judicial decision would not result in any relief. This Court may only review cases in which a judicial determination will have a practical effect on the outcome.” Fenn v. Noah, 142 Idaho 775, 779, 133 P.3d 1240, 1244 (2006). Idaho Code § 6-602 provides that usurpation actions may be brought by a prosecuting attorney (or the attorney general, when the position relates to the state) or an individual claiming entitlement to hold office. Idaho Code §§ 6-605 and 6-606 provide the remedies available to individual plaintiffs. Idaho Code § 6-608 provides as follows: When a defendant against whom such action has been brought is adjudged guilty of usurping or intruding into or unlawfully holding any office, franchise or privilege, judgment must be rendered that such defendant be excluded from the office, franchise or privilege, and that he pay the costs of the action. The court may also, in its discretion, in actions to which the people of the state are a party, impose upon the defendant a fine not exceeding five thousand dollars, which fine, when collected, must be paid into the treasury of the state. In this case, no defendant remains in office. Consequently, no defendant may be found to be “usurping or” “unlawfully holding office” which would trigger the district court’s obligation to “exclude” them from office, impose a fine, or to pay the costs of the action. As the district court is without power to grant affirmative relief against any defendant, this action is moot. B. The Directors are not entitled to attorney fees.
The Directors argue that they are entitled to attorney fees incurred before the trial court and on appeal pursuant to I.C. § 12-117(1) because the State brought this action without a reasonable basis in fact or law or a reasonable extension thereof. Although the Directors assert that this Court exercises free review of a trial court’s decision whether to award attorney fees 5 pursuant to I.C. § 12-117, shortly before their brief was filed, this Court noted its inconsistent approach to the standard of review and determined that future appeals would apply an abuse of discretion standard to such decisions. City of Osburn v. Randel, 152 Idaho 906, 908, 277 P.3d 353, 355 (2012). The district court stated that it was “declining to grant attorney’s fees,” suggesting that it recognized that the decision was committed to its discretion. The court stated that it was unable to find that the action was initiated without a reasonable basis in fact or law. This is a recitation of the standard that we have applied to a request for attorney fees under I.C. § 12-117. Koch v. Canyon Cnty., 145 Idaho 158, 163, 177 P.3d 372, 377 (2008). The decision was within the boundaries of the court’s discretion. The district court explained that its decision was based upon the prosecutor’s duty to pursue a usurpation action and that the action was initiated due to irregularities occurring over four election cycles, although the district court differed with the State as to whether the irregularities were substantial or de minimis. As the district court’s decision was the product of reason, we affirm the decision to deny the Directors’ request for attorney fees. As to this appeal, although the Directors have prevailed because we dismiss the appeal on grounds of mootness, we are unable to conclude that this appeal was not reasonably grounded in law or fact. Accordingly, we deny the Directors’ request for an award of attorney fees on appeal. 2. The Directors are not entitled to attorney fees under I.R.C.P. 11(a)(1). The Directors argue that they are entitled to attorney fees under I.R.C.P. 11(a)(1) because the State brought this action without foundation in law. First, we note that on appeal the governing rule is I.A.R. 11.2, not I.R.C.P. 11(a)(1). See Campbell v. Kildew, 141 Idaho 640, 651, 115 P.3d 731, 742 (2005). Pursuant to that rule, this Court may, sua sponte, award attorney fees if we deem it appropriate. I.A.R. 11.2. However, I.A.R. 11.2 and I.R.C.P. 11(a)(1) have the same purposes in the proceedings to which they apply. Rule 11 sanctions are not intended to replace statutes providing for attorney fees. Sun Valley Shopping Ctr., Inc. v. Idaho Power Co., 119 Idaho 87, 95-96, 803 P.2d 993, 1001-1002 (1991); Landvik by Landvik v. Herbert, 130 Idaho 54, 61, 936 P.2d 697, 704 (Ct. App. 1997). Rather than a means for a broad compensatory award for attorney fees, I.R.C.P. 11(a)(1) is a court-management tool, meant to focus on discrete pleading abuses or other types of litigation misconduct. Kent v. Pence, 116 Idaho 22, 23, 773 P.2d 290, 291 (Ct. App. 1989). 6 Here, the Directors are seeking to use Rule 11(a)(1) as an alternative to I.C. § 12-117 under the theory that because the State brought this action without legal basis the Directors should be awarded the legal fees incurred in defending this action. I.A.R. 11.2 does not function that way. Further, “fees will not be awarded under Rule 11.2 unless the Court can conclude that ‘the appeal was interposed for an improper purpose.’ ” Bettwieser v. New York Irrigation Dist., 154 Idaho 317, ___, 297 P.3d 1134, 1147 (2013) (quoting Funes v. Aardema Dairy, 150 Idaho 7, 13, 244 P.3d 151, 157 (2010)). We are unable to discern an improper purpose underlying this appeal. Accordingly, we decline to award attorney fees under I.A.R. 11.2.