Court Opinion

ID: 9893002
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-25 19:00:46.726559+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:51:30.056868
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                                                            FILED
                            FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
                                                                            OCT 25 2023
                                                                         MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                          U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
LAWRENCE ANDERSON, as trustee for                No.   23-35191
the Lawrence T. Anderson and Suzanne
M. Anderson Joint Revocable Living               D.C. No. 2:21-cv-00095-BMM
Trust; ROBERT ERHART; NORA
ERHART; TJARDA CLAGETT,
                                                 MEMORANDUM*
              Plaintiffs-Appellees,

 v.

BOYNE USA, INC.; BOYNE
PROPERTIES, INC.; SUMMIT HOTEL,
LLC,

              Defendants-Appellants.

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                            for the District of Montana
                     Brian M. Morris, District Judge, Presiding

                    Argued and Submitted September 13, 2023

Before: W. FLETCHER, R. NELSON, and COLLINS, Circuit Judges.

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      The order from which this appeal was taken prohibited Defendants-Appellants

from terminating Plaintiffs-Appellees’ Rental Management Agreements for a period

of 60 days beginning February 23, 2023. The parties agreed that the district court

orally extended the order at an April 12, 2023 telephonic conference that was not

transcribed, but they disagreed as to the length of the extension, and the court’s minute

order did not address the point. The district court has now clarified that the April 12,

2023 oral ruling only extended the order for an additional 60 days. The order was not

extended further and now “has expired and no longer is in effect.”

      The expiration of the district court’s order has mooted this appeal. Appellants

argue that we may nonetheless hear their appeal under the exception from mootness

for disputes that are capable of repetition, yet evading review. See Turner v. Rogers,

564 U.S. 431, 439 (2011). This exception requires there to be “a reasonable

expectation that the same complaining party [will] be subjected to the same action

again.” Id. at 440 (alteration in original) (quoting Weinstein v. Bradford, 423 U.S.

147, 149 (1975) (per curiam)). The district court has made clear that it issued the

order to address concerns about “the integrity of the class certification process” and

that its certification of the class in June 2023 “extinguished these concerns.”

Accordingly, this appeal is moot.

      DISMISSED.

                                           2