Building and Const. Dept. v. Rockwell Intern

7 Citing briefs

  1. San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority et al v. Jewell et al

    MOTION for SUMMARY JUDGMENT

    Filed September 15, 2016

    Id. (citing Building and Const. Dept. v. Rockwell Intern. Corp., 7 F.3d 1487, 1492 (10th Cir. 1993)). The fact that Reclamation expects to complete additional analysis and finalize a Long- Term Plan in a matter of months - and thus before any future FARs occur - supports the dismissal of Plaintiffs’ claims on prudential mootness grounds.

  2. Chie et al v. Reed Elsevier, Inc. et al

    MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint Pursuant to FRCP 12

    Filed June 14, 2011

    There is no reason to conclude that the result should be any different where an offer of full relief has been made prior to the actual initiation of litigation. E.g., Building & Constr. Dep’t v. Rockwell Int’l Corp., 7 F.3d 1487, 1491 (10th Cir. 1993) (“Constitutional mootness doctrine is grounded in the Article III requirement that federal courts only decide actual, ongoing cases or controversies.”).

  3. Bell et al v. 3M Company, The et al

    MOTION to Dismiss Medical Monitoring Claims

    Filed February 2, 2018

    The Tenth Circuit also found that employees’ medical monitoring claims recognized by Cook are for “personal injuries” and are precluded by the Colorado Workmen’s Compensation Act, but noted that the parties did not dispute the existence of medical monitoring claims under Colorado law. Bldg. & Const. Dep’t v. Rockwell Int’l Corp., 7 F.3d 1487, 1490 n.2 (10th Cir. 1993). 8 See also Cimino v. Raymark Indus., Inc., 151 F.3d 297, 314 (5th Cir. 1998) (federal court making an Erie prediction should not “create ‘innovative theories of recovery or defense’”) (citation omitted); Ball v. Joy Techs., Inc., 958 F.2d 36, 39 (4th Cir. 1991) (“The Erie doctrine permits federal courts ‘to rule upon state law as it presently exists and not to surmise or suggest its expansion.

  4. In Re: Chiquita Brands International, Inc., Alien Tort Statute and Shareholders Derivative Litigation

    RESPONSE in Opposition re

    Filed November 9, 2015

    Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) ...................................................................................................................................... 17 Ashley v. Illinois Central Railroad Co., 98 F.R.D. 722 (S.D. Miss. 1983) ................................................................................................................... 6 Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) ...................................................................................................................................... 17 Building & Construction Department v. Rockwell International Corp., 7 F.3d 1487 (10th Cir. 1993) ......................................................................................................................... 9 Burnett v. Al Baraka Investment & Development Corp., 274 F. Supp. 2d 86 (D.D.C. 2003) ............................................................................................................. 18 Burrell v. Board of Trustees of Georgia Military College, 970 F.2d 785 (11th Cir. 1992) ..................................................................................................................... 19 Cox v. Administrator United States Steel & Carnegie, 17 F.3d 1386 (11th Cir. 1994) .............................................................................................................. 18, 19 Cox v. Roth, 348 U.S. 207 (1955) ................................................................................................................................. 11,12 Doe v. Drummond Co., 782 F.3d 576 (11th Cir. 2015) ..............................

  5. Marsoft, Inc. v. United LNG, L.P. et al

    MOTION to Dismiss pursuant to Rule 12

    Filed March 17, 2014

    Such “injury” would be no more than an abstract interest effected by the relief available, without a tactile consequence that supports the cause for relief.26 21. Despite the absence of injury, the Magistrate’s Recommendation appears to be so broad as to actually require United LNG to negotiate with Freeport-McMoRan Energy for any future involvement in the MPEH, and to require United LNG to ensure that Marsoft has some type of role in any such negotiation and subsequent involvement.27 24 Compare Building and Const, Dept. v. Rockwell Intern. Corp., 7 F.3d 1487 (10th Cir. 1993) (determining application of procedural mootness doctrine to be inapplicable due to potential remedy available). 25 See Aetna Life Ins. Co., 300 U.S. at 240-41 (providing – in terms of Constitutional limitations on judicial power – that for the judicial function to be appropriately exercised, there must be a concrete case admitting an immediate and definitive determination of the legal rights of the parties) see also Rio Grande Silvery Minnow v. Bureau of Reclamation, 601 F.3d 1096, 1110 (10th Cir. 2010) (explaining as to mootness, “The crucial question is whether granting a present determination of the issues offered will have some effect in the real world.”)

  6. Bishop, et al v. Oklahoma, State of, et al

    RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion

    Filed August 16, 2013

    Tandy v. City of Wichita, 380 F.3d 1277, 1290 (10th Cir. 2004); see Building & Constr. Dep’t v. Rockwell Int’l Corp., 7 F.3d 1487, 1491 (10th Cir. 1993) (“Constitutional mootness doctrine is grounded in the Article III requirement that federal courts only decide actual, ongoing cases or controversies.”) (internal quotation marks omitted).

  7. USA v. Whitney Design, Inc.

    RESPONSE in Opposition re MOTION to Dismiss Case

    Filed March 24, 2010

    Moreover, “the conditions under which a suit will be found constitutionally moot are stringent.” Building & Constr. Dep’t v. Rockwell Int’l Corp., 7 F.3d 1487, 1491 (10 Cir. 1993). “Simplyth stated, a case is moot when the issues presented are no longer ‘live’ or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome,” Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 496 (1969), and only if it is impossible to grant any effectual relief even if it only partially redresses the appellant’s grievances, Church of Scientology v. U.S., 506 U.S. 9, 12 (1992) (stating also that an appeal is not to be dismissed merely because a court cannot restore the parties to the status quo ante).