green
Positive treatment
Hot · 70 in 5y
Quoted verbatim 21×
105.4 score
G Cite
cited 3× by 3 distinct cases, 2019–2024 · 2 courts ·
…f events subsequent to the filing of the case resolve the parties' dispute, we must dismiss the case as moot.
at p. 1087
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 2011 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2011
2018
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
In re: Alexander Von Neitsch AND Elena Von Neitsch
if events subsequent to the filing of the case resolve the parties' dispute, we must dismiss the case as moot
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Larsen v. PTT, LLC
a plaintiff may voluntarily abandon a claim even though his decision may affect the 9 jurisdiction of a federal court; after all, the claim he abandons-once dismissed with prejudice- 10 is the price he pays.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Blas v. Bank of America, N.A.
f events subsequent to the filing of the case resolve the parties' dispute, we must dismiss the case as moot.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
In re: Cecil Fred Motley
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
f events subsequent to the filing of the case resolve the parties' dispute, we must dismiss the case as moot . . . .
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Estavillo v. Cortese
the doctrine of mootness, which is embedded 16 in article iii's case or controversy requirement, requires that an actual, ongoing controversy exist 17 at all stages of federal court proceedings.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Ros v. Peters
a case becomes moot when the issues presented are no longer live or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome of the litigation.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Singh v. Jaddou
f events subsequent to the filing of the case 23 resolve the parties' dispute, we must dismiss the as moot
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Anderson v. Safe Streets USA LLC
has told -as he told the district court-that 28 he will not pursue his flsa claims.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Manvi v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Service
f events subsequent to the filing of the case resolve the parties' dispute, we must 23 dismiss the as moot
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Ray v. Cuccinelli
f 3 events subsequent to the filing of the case resolve the parties' dispute, we must dismiss the 4 as moot
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
In re: Cecilia P. Mangaoang
f events subsequent to the filing of the case resolve the parties' dispute, we must dismiss the case as moot.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
In re: WILLIAM MICHAEL NICHOLSON (Deceased) and JOAN KAY NICHOLSON
f events subsequent to the filing of the case resolve the parties' dispute, we must dismiss the case as moot.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
AL Otro Lado, Inc. v. Nielsen
the distinction between issues that have become moot and parties whose interest in the issue may have become moot is especially visible in the context of class actions.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
In re: Fareed Sepehry-Fard
f events subsequent to the filing of the case resolve the parties' 28 dispute, we must dismiss the case as moot.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Elie Mamboleo v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
litigant may abandon a claim by communicating his desire to do so to the district court.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
In re: Joseph P. Palmisano and Amy K. Palmisano
f events subsequent to the 22 filing of the case resolve the parties' dispute, we must dismiss 23 the case as moot.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
In re: Joseph P. Palmisano and Amy K. Palmisano
f events subsequent to the 22 filing of the case resolve the parties' dispute, we must dismiss 23 the case as moot.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
In re: Gigi Ellis
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
f events subsequent to 8 the filing of the case resolve the parties' dispute, we must 9 dismiss the case as moot.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Hernandez v. MGM Resorts International
nevada courts will not construe a statute as eliminating a common law 16 cause of action unless the statute unambiguously requires that result.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Haddock v. United States
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
o the extent that defendants may avoid a class action by 'picking off' the named plaintiffs, the class claims are 'inherently transitory' and evade review, making an exception to the mootness rule appropriate.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Weitzner v. Sanofi Pasteur, Inc.
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
holding extends beyond flsa collective actions.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Jason Wilson, individually and for others similarly situated v. Safeway Inc., a Delaware corporation
The mootness doctrine is to be applied “flexibly, particularly where the issues remain alive, even ‘if the plaintiff’s personal stake in the outcome has become moot.’” Pitts v. Terrible Herbst, Inc., 653 F.3d 1081, 1087 (9th Cir. 2011) (citation omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Gerald Ross Pizzuto, Jr. v. Bree Derrick, Director, Idaho Department of Correction, in her official capacity; Timothy Richardson, Warden, Idaho Maximum Security Institution, in his official capacity; Liz Neville, Chief of Prisons, Idaho Department of Corrections, in her official capacity
Mootness “A case becomes moot when the issues presented are no longer ‘live’ or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome of the litigation.” Pitts v. Terrible Herbst, Inc., 653 F.3d 1081, 1086 (9th Cir. 2011).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State of Washington v. Trump
Typically, if a district court certifies a class before the class representative’s claim becomes moot, “mooting the putative class representative’s claim will not moot the class action.” Pitts v. Terrible Herbst, Inc., 653 F.3d 1081, 1090 (9th Cir. 2011).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Skipper v. CareFirst Blue Choice
Thus, the fact that the payment was made before the Skippers filed their state court action should not affect our application of Frazier to this case. 20 merits of the case because the plaintiff has been offered all that he can possibly recover through litigation. 653 F.3d at 1092 (citations omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Pinson v. Federal Bureau of Prisons
(Id. at 14-15.) 7 The doctrine of mootness—part of the case or controversy requirement of Article 8 III of the Constitution—“requires that an actual, ongoing controversy exist at all stages of 9 federal court proceedings.” Pitts v. Terrible Herbst, Inc., 653 F.3d 1081, 1086 (9th Cir. 10 2011).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Beyard v. Pentagon Federal Credit Union
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Co., 819 F.3d 1136, 1143 , 1148–49 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting 12 Pitts v. Terrible Herbst, Inc., 653 F.3d 1081, 1091 (9th Cir. 2011) (other citations and quotation 13 marks omitted). “[R]equiring multiple plaintiffs to bring separate actions, which effectively 14 could be ‘picked off’ by a defendant’s tender of judgment before an affirmative ruling on class 15 certification could be obtained, obviously would frustrate the objectives of class actions.” Id. 16 (quoting Deposit Guar.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Beyard v. Pentagon Federal Credit Union
“However, the mootness doctrine is applied flexibly, particularly where the 24 issues remain alive, even if the plaintiff’s personal stake in the outcome has become moot” and 25 this is “particularly appropriate in the context of class actions.” Id. (quoting Pitts v. Terrible 26 Herbst, Inc., 653 F.3d 1081, 1086 (9th Cir.2011) (internal punctuation omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Pattison v. HP Inc.
Ray 15 McDermott & Co., 651 F.2d 1030, 1050 (5th Cir. 1981) (holding defendant's "tendering to 16 the named plaintiffs the full amount of their personal claims" does not moot putative class 17 action); Pitts v. Terrible Herbst, Inc., 653 F.3d 1081, 1091 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing favorably 18 to Zeidman) (declining to adopt "rule allowing a class action to become moot simply 19 because the defendant has sought to buy off the individual private claims of the named 20 plaintiffs") (internal quotation and citation omitted); Chen v. Allstate Ins.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Artisan and Truckers Casualty Company v. TMT Development Co., LLC
Pitts v. Terrible Herbst, Inc., 653 F.3d 1081, 1087 (9th Cir.2011).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Lewis v. United States Parole Commission
Ray McDermott & Co., Inc., 651 F.2d 1030, 1050 (5th Cir. 1981) (holding that the relation-back exception encompasses scenarios where named plaintiffs “could individually be ‘picked off’ before class certification”); Wilson v. Gordon, 822 F.3d 934 , 947–51 (6th Cir. 2016) (discussing and applying the “picking off” exception); Pitts v. Terrible Herbst, Inc., 653 F.3d 1081, 1091 (9th Cir. 2011) (holding that the relation back exception applies where “a defendant seeks to ‘buy off’ the small individual claims of the named plaintiffs”); Richardson v. Bledsoe, 829 F.3d 273, 286…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Jeffrey Nielsen v. Ryan Thornell
Nielsen and Boudreau contend that, even though no class was certified, their claims fall within a mootness exception for claims that are “so inherently transitory that the trial court will not have even enough time to rule on a motion for class certification before the proposed representative’s individual interest expires.” Pitts v. Terrible Herbst, Inc., 653 F.3d 1081, 1090 (9th Cir. 2011).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Pizzuto v. Tewalt
Accordingly, “an actual controversy must be extant at all stages of review, not merely at the time the [amended] complaint is filed.” Id. “[I]f a plaintiff’s stake in a lawsuit falls away, so too does [the court’s] subject-matter jurisdiction.” Shemwell v. City of McKinney, Texas, 63 F.4th 480, 483 (5th Cir. 2023); see also Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 170 (2000) (“Courts have no license to retain jurisdiction over cases in which one or both of the parties plainly lacks a continuing interest[.]”); Pitts v. Terrible Herb…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Jeffrey Nielsen v. Ryan Thornell
Nielsen and Boudreau contend that, even though no class was certified, their claims fall within a mootness exception for claims that are “so inherently transitory that the trial court will not have even enough time to rule on a motion for class certification before the proposed representative’s individual interest expires.” Pitts v. Terrible Herbst, Inc., 653 F.3d 1081, 1090 (9th Cir. 2011).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Coombes v. Washoe County School District
“Nevada courts will not construe a statute as eliminating a 22 common law cause of action unless the statute unambiguously requires that 23 result.” Pitts v. Terrible Herbst, Inc., 653 F.3d 1081, 1094 (9th Cir. 2011).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Alcantara v. Archambeault
(2×)
Specifically, Defendants argue the case is now moot “due to the 8 existence and availability of the vaccine and the end of the COVID-19 emergency.” (ECF 9 No. 227 at 5.) Plaintiffs respond that their claims are not moot because although they “no 10 longer seek release,” they are still seeking “to remedy failures in the COVID-19 11 protection policies and procedures within the facility.” (ECF No. 244 at 7.) 12 II. 13 DISCUSSION 14 “The doctrine of mootness, which is embedded in Article III’s case or controversy 15 requirement, requires that an actual, ongoing controversy exist a…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority v. Biden
Indeed, it appears that Plaintiffs are seeking from the D.C. district court much the same relief that this Court previously denied them—that is, an order directing the federal government to proceed not only with leasing at ANWR, but also directing the federal government to proceed with “exploration” and “development” at ANWR, which is 48 Docket 89 at 6. 49 Leigh v. Salazar, 677 F.3d 892, 896 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Pitts v. Terrible Herbst, Inc., 653 F.3d 1081, 1086 (9th Cir. 2011)); see also Arizonans for Off.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
David A. Hamill v. Denis McDonough
Cir. 2020)). 48 Godsey, 31 Vet.App. at 219 (quoting Pitts v. Terrible Herbst, Inc., 653 F.3d 1081, 1091 (9th Cir. 2011)). 49 Godsey, 31 Vet.App. at 219 (quoting County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 500 U.S. 44, 51-52 (1991)). 50 Godsey, 31 Vet.App. at 219 (quoting Pitts, 653 F.3d at 1091 ). 51 Pitts, 653 F.3d at 1091 . 52 Petitioner’s RCA at 7-8. 7 2021 decision to moot Mr. Hamill’s petition and avoid litigation.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
GEO Group Inc v. Inslee
“A case becomes moot ‘when the issues presented are 14 no longer “live” or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome’ of the 15 litigation.” Pitts v. Terrible Herbst, Inc., 653 F.3d 1081, 1086 (9th Cir. 2011).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
James M. Kernz v. Denis McDonough
As we explain in Section D below, appellant's case became moot well before a class action was likely to happen. 117 Freund, 35 Vet.App. at 484. 118 Id. (quoting Pitts v. Terrible Herbst, Inc., 653 F.3d 1081, 1089 (9th Cir. 2011) (alterations in original)). 16 representative may have [his or] her claim become moot, but the claim concerning the class may remain" a live controversy.119 We have considered the inherently transitory exception to mootness in several opinions under our relatively new class action authority. 120 In Freund, we explained that an inherently transitory claim is one that is…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Fisk v. Board of Trustees of the California State University
But an 6 “exception to this rule exists for claims that ‘are so inherently transitory that the trial court 7 will not have even enough time to rule on a motion for class certification before the 8 proposed representative’s individual interest expires.’” Id. (quoting Pitts v. Terrible 9 Herbst, Inc., 653 F.3d 1081, 1090 (9th Cir. 2011)); see County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 10 500 U.S. 44, 52 (1991) (“That the class was not certified until after the named plaintiffs’ 11 claims had become moot does not deprive us of jurisdiction.”).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In re: Bernard Ancheta Carbonell
(2×)
A case becomes constitutionally moot "when the issues presented are no longer 'live' or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome of the litigation." Pitts v. Terrible Herbst, Inc., 653 F.3d 1081, 1086 (9th Cir. 2011) (cleaned up).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Casa Libre Freedom House v. Alejandro Mayorkas
In such instances, “even if the district court has not yet 1 addressed the class certification issue, mooting the putative class representative’s 2 claims will not necessarily moot the class action.” Pitts v. Terrible Herbst, Inc., 3 653 F.3d 1081, 1090 (9th Cir. 2011).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Moreland v. The Prudential Insurance Company of America
Those claims, therefore, are not now moot.”); 8 see also, Pitts v. Terrible Herbst, Inc., 653 F.3d 1081, 1091-92 (9th Cir. 2011) (“[W]e hold that an 9 unaccepted Rule 68 offer of judgment—for the full amount of the named plaintiff's individual 10 claim ... does not moot a class action.” (emphasis added)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Carl Petrick
Article III “requires that an actual, ongoing controversy exist at all stages of federal court proceedings.” Bayer v. Neiman Marcus Grp., Inc., 861 F.3d 853, 862 (9th Cir. 2017) (quoting Pitts v. Terrible Herbst, Inc., 653 F.3d 1081, 1086 (9th Cir. 2011)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Throw v. Mayorkas
Claims “become[] moot ‘when the issues presented are no longer live or the parties 15 lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome’ of the litigation.” Pitts v. Terrible Herbst, Inc., 16 653 F.3d 1081, 1086 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 496 (1969)). 17 Where an agency has already provided the specific relief requested by a plaintiff, a claim for a 18 writ of mandamus is moot.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Jimenez v. Storey Hotel Management Group, LLC
Pitts v. Terrible 4 Herbst, Inc., 653 F.3d 1081, 1086 (9th Cir. 2011).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
D.O. v. Escondido Union School Dist.
“The doctrine of mootness, which is embedded in Article III’s case or controversy requirement, requires that an actual, ongoing controversy exist at all stages of federal court proceedings.” Pitts v. Terrible Herbst, Inc., 653 F.3d 1081, 1086 (9th Cir. 2011).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In re The Bright Ideas Co.
Nat’l Bank v. Roper, 445 U.S. 326, 339 (1980) (“To deny the right to appeal simply because the defendant has sought to ‘buy off’ the individual private claims of the named plaintiffs would be contrary to sound judicial administration.”); see also Wilson v. Gordon, 822 F.3d 934, 951 (6th Cir. 2016); Lucero v. Bureau of Collection Recovery, Inc., 639 F.3d 1239, 1250 (10th Cir. 2011); Pitts v. Terrible Herbst, Inc., 653 F.3d 1081, 1091 (9th Cir. 2011); Weiss v. Regal Collections, 385 F.3d 337, 347 (3d Cir. 2004), abrogated on other grounds by Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 577 U.S. 153 (2…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Mark Freund and Mary S. Mathewson v. Denis McDonough
Grant Co., 345 U.S. 629, 632 (1953). 116 See Friends of the Earth, 528 U.S. at 190 . 117 Pitts v. Terrible Herbst, Inc., 653 F.3d 1081, 1089 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting U.S. Parole Comm'n v. Geraghty, 445 U.S. 388, 402 (1980)). 118 Cnty. of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 500 U.S. 44, 51-52 (1991); Pitts, 653 F.3d at 1091 . 17 "'acutely susceptible to mootness'"119 because a "trial court will not have enough time to rule on a motion for class certification before the proposed representative's individual interest expires."120 The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has noted that the st…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
JUVENILE MALE, Defendant-Appellant.
v.
JUVENILE MALE, Defendant-Appellant.
07-30290.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Aug 8, 2011.
Stephen Reinhardt, A. Wallace Tashima, and M. Margaret McKeown, Circuit Judges.
Cited by 3 opinions | Published
Richard A. Hosley, III, Esqire, USGF-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Great Falls, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Anthony R. Gallagher, Federal Public Defender, Federal Defenders of Montana, Great Falls, MT, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: STEPHEN REINHARDT, A. WALLACE TASHIMA, and M. MARGARET McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
ORDER
In light of the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Juvenile Male, ___ U.S. ____, 131 S.Ct. 2860, 180 L.Ed.2d 811 dated June 27, 2011, this appeal is DISMISSED as moot.