A California Court of Appeal just came down with an interesting case regarding mootness.
In Coalition for a Sustainable Future in Yucaipa v. City of Yucaipa, ___ Cal.App.4th ___ (4th Dist. No. E047624, 8/25/11), plaintiff sued the city, Target, and the developer to enjoin its approval of a new shopping center. Plaintiff claimed that the project violated state requirements on affordable housing and on environmental requirements.
The trial court ruled for the City, and plaintiff appealed. During the appeal, however, the project was abandoned - because of litigation between Target and the developer. The City then moved to dismiss the appeal, claiming mootness.
On its face, dismissing for mootness makes sense. No more project to stop, so why bother with plaintiff's appeal, right?
Not so fast, held the Court of Appeal. A dismissal of the appeal constitutes an affirmance of the trial court's ruling. We don't want to do that, because we've never looked at the merits of the appeal. And maybe - just maybe, as the law is not settled on this - "the less-than-fully-litigated judgment might have a preclusive effect on subsequent litigation."
The solution? Reverse because of mootness, with directions to the trial court to dismiss the complaint. That should make everyone happy - or minimally unhappy - given the circumstances.
Pretty clever. Nice to see our appellate courts taking such care on procedural matters.
By: Myron Moskovitz
