County of Los Angeles v. Davis

48 Citing briefs

  1. Shands Jacksonville Medical Center, Inc. et al v. Sebelius

    MOTION for Summary Judgment , MOTION to Vacate

    Filed April 28, 2017

    “The burden of demonstrating mootness is a heavy one.” Los Angeles Cty., 440 U.S. at 631. There is nothing with which the Secretary can shoulder his “heavy burden” of supporting his flawed position that this case is moot.

  2. Cause of Action Institute v. United States Department of Justice

    Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment & Resp. to Def.'s Mot. for Summ. J.

    Filed February 8, 2017

    Despite voluntary cessation, a case may still be moot if (1) “there is no reasonable expectation that the alleged violation will recur” and (2) “interim relief or events have completely and irrevocably eradicated the effects of the alleged violation.” Cnty. of Los Angeles v. Davis, 440 U.S. 625, 631 (1979) (alterations and citations omitted). Although government actors receive more leeway on this standard because it is presumed they will act lawfully, see, e.g., Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Wash. v. Secs.

  3. In Re: Bank of New York Mellon Corporation Foreign Exchange Transactions Litigation

    MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Opposition re: 427 MOTION to Dismiss in Part the Second Amended Class Action Complaint. . Document

    Filed August 18, 2014

    A defendant’s voluntary decision to cease its illegal conduct does not necessarily render a case moot. See Los Angeles Cty., 440 U.S. at 631, 99 S.Ct. at 1383 (citing W.T. Grant, 345 U.S. at 632, 73 S.Ct. at 897). If the plaintiff has an ongoing interest in the outcome of the litigation, his or her claim is not moot.

  4. Erica P John Fund Inc et al v. Halliburton Company et al

    RESPONSE AND OBJECTION

    Filed June 19, 2014

    For example, in County of Los Angeles v. Davis, the Supreme Court left “the decision of the Court of Appeals on the merits as the most pertinent statement of the governing law, even if that decision is not directly binding.” 440 U.S. at 646. The case Marathon Oil Co. v. A.G. Ruhrgas, also cited by Defendants, again involved a Case 3:02-cv-01152-M Document 537 Filed 06/19/14 Page 14 of 24 PageID 14072 11 completely different scenario.

  5. Evangeline Red et al v. Kraft Foods Inc. et al

    OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS SUPPLEMENTAL SUBMISSION IN SUPPORT OF re: MOTION to Certify Class 217

    Filed July 27, 2012

    Order at 1 (quoting Cnty. of Los Angeles, 440 U.S. at 631). As this Court was “inclined to find,” “the Cooper declaration is sufficient to support the reasonable expectation that the challenged labels will never be used again, which would eradicate the effects of the alleged violation . . . to the extent that an injunction against future label use . . . could remedy the alleged violation.”

  6. American Logistics International, L.L.C. et al v. Department of Homeland Security et al

    Second MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction

    Filed July 10, 2017

    A case is moot “when the issues presented are no longer ‘live’ or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome.” L.A. County v. Davis, 440 U.S. 625, 631 (1979) (quoting Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 496 (1969)). Here, “events [have] outrun the controversy such that the court can grant no meaningful relief, [and] the case must be dismissed as moot.”

  7. In the Matter of 381 Search Warrants Directed to Facebook, Inc., Facebook, Inc., Appellant,v.New York County District Attorney's Office, Respondent. (And Another Proceeding.)

    Brief

    Filed February 7, 2017

    A case is not moot when the Government makes a “voluntary cessation” of the challenged conduct but maintains its right to engage in the conduct in the future. See Los Angeles Cty. v. Davis, 440 U.S. 625, 631 (1979) (“[A]s a general rule, ‘voluntary cessation of allegedly illegal conduct does not deprive the tribunal of power to hear and determine the case, i.e., does not make the case moot.’” (citation omitted)).

  8. Hamilton v. General Mills, Inc. et al

    Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction , Motion to Strike Class Allegations and Motion to Dismiss. Oral Argument requested.

    Filed September 15, 2016

    A case is “moot” under Article III where “interim relief or events have completely and irrevocably eradicated the effects of the alleged violation.” Cty. of Los Angeles v. Davis, 440 U.S. 625, 631 (1979). Mootness, and an accompanying lack of subject matter jurisdiction, occurs where “an opposing party has agreed to everything the other party has demanded.”

  9. Liu et al v. the New York City Campaign Finance Board et al

    REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 53 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings . . Document

    Filed November 24, 2015

    Due to this repeal, the Court cannot grant effective relief concerning the catch-all phrase; plaintiffs' challenge to the superseded language is moot; and the Court should exercise its discretion to dismiss the complaint. County of Los Angeles v. Davis, Case 1:14-cv-01687-RJS Document 57 Filed 11/24/15 Page 5 of 13 440 U.S. 625,631,99 S. Ct. 1379 (1979) (o'a case is moot when the issues presented ¿tre no longer'live' or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome"); AmeriCredit l;'in. Servs.t,.

  10. Brady v. Basic Research, L.L.C. et al

    MEMORANDUM in Support re Notice of MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction

    Filed June 2, 2015

    of Trs. of State Univ. of N.Y., 42 F.3d 135, 140 (2d Cir. 1994) (quoting Cnty. of Los Angeles v. Davis, 440 U.S. 625, 631 (1979)). If something occurs during the course of a lawsuit that serves to remove a plaintiff’s personal interest in the outcome of the action, “the action can no longer proceed and must be dismissed as moot.”