moot claim in North Carolina

2019Rule 12(b)(1).” Yeager v. Yeager, 228 N.C.

2015As a result, the Court need not consider the effect of the hypothetical situation where Mission forgives the debts of other self-pay patients who bring litigation against Mission on a similar basis as Hefner. {22} “Because a moot claim is not justiciable, and a trial court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over a non-justiciable claim, mootness is properly raised through a motion under [Rule 12(b)(1)].” Yeager v. Yeager, 228 N.C.

2018App. 524, 528 , 776 S.E.2d 329, 333 (2015), for the proposition that “a moot claim is not justiciable, and a trial court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over a non-justiciable claim[.]” He then cites to N.C.

2017Grant Co., 345 U.S. 629, 632 (1953)) (declining to dismiss a moot claim because, although the defendant voluntarily ceased its illegal conduct, it conceivably could have resumed the illegal conduct after the claim was dismissed); see also, e.g., City of Mesquite v. Aladdin’s Castle, Inc., 455 U.S. 283, 289 (1982) (explaining that a moot claim was not dismissed because “the city’s repeal of the objectionable language would not preclude it from reenacting precisely the same provision if the District Court’s judgment were vacated”). 39.

2017Grant Co., 345 U.S. 629, 632 (1953)) (declining to dismiss a moot claim because, although the defendant voluntarily ceased its illegal conduct, it conceivably could have resumed the illegal conduct after the claim was dismissed); see also, e.g., City of Mesquite v. Aladdin’s Castle, Inc., 455 U.S. 283, 289 (1982) (explaining that a moot claim was not dismissed because “the city’s repeal of the objectionable language would not preclude it from reenacting precisely the same provision if the District Court’s judgment were vacated”). 39.