The Leiser Law Firm, PLLC v. Gaylord Finch, Jr.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:15-cv-00834-CMH-IDD. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999953437].. [16-1245]

Appeal: 16-1245

Doc: 31

Filed: 10/24/2016

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1245

THE LEISER LAW FIRM, PLLC; PHILLIP B. LEISER, ESQ.,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
THE HONORABLE GAYLORD L. FINCH, JR.,
Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
Claude M. Hilton, Senior
District Judge. (1:15-cv-00834-CMH-IDD)

Submitted:

September 30, 2016

Decided:

October 24, 2016

Before MOTZ, WYNN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Phillip Ben-Zion Leiser, THE LEISER LAW FIRM, PLLC, Tysons
Corner, Virginia, for Appellants.
Mark R. Herring, Attorney
General, Rhodes B. Ritenour, Deputy Attorney General, Nicholas
F. Simopoulos, Erin R. McNeill, Assistant Attorneys General,
Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-1245

Doc: 31

Filed: 10/24/2016

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Appellants

appeal

the

district

court’s

order

dismissing

their complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 12(b)(6).

We dismiss the appeal as moot.

“If a live case or controversy ceases to exist after a suit
has been filed, the case will be deemed moot and dismissed for
lack of standing.”

Pender v. Bank of Am. Corp., 788 F.3d 354,

368 (4th Cir. 2015) (citation omitted).

“Mootness principles

derive from the requirement in Article III of the Constitution
that federal courts may adjudicate only disputes involving a
case or controversy.”

Williams v. Ozmint, 716 F.3d 801, 808

(4th Cir. 2013) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
“The case-or-controversy requirement applies to all stages of a
federal case.”

Id.

“To establish Article III standing, a plaintiff must show
(1)

an

injury

in

fact,

(2)

a

sufficient

causal

connection

between the injury and the conduct complained of, and (3) a
likelihood
decision.”

that

the

injury

will

be

redressed

by

a

favorable

Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, 134 S. Ct. 2334,

2341 (2014) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
“The federal courts are without power to decide questions that
cannot affect the rights of litigants in the case before them.”
CVLR Performance Horses, Inc. v. Wynne, 792 F.3d 469, 474 (4th
Cir. 2015) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
2

“A

Appeal: 16-1245

Doc: 31

Filed: 10/24/2016

Pg: 3 of 4

case becomes moot when the issues presented are no longer live
or

the

parties

outcome.”

lack

a

Williams,

legally

716

F.3d

cognizable

at

809

interest

(citation

and

in

the

internal

quotation marks omitted).
“A

change

in

factual

circumstances

can

moot

a

case

on

appeal, such as when the plaintiff receives the relief sought in
his

or

her

claim,

or

when

an

event

occurs

that

makes

it

impossible for the court to grant any effectual relief to the
plaintiff.”
omitted).

Id.

(citations

“Courts

recognize

and
an

internal

quotation

exception

to

the

marks

mootness

doctrine when (1) the challenged action is in its duration too
short to be fully litigated prior to cessation or expiration;
and

(2)

there

is

a

reasonable

expectation

that

the

same

complaining party will be subject to the same action again.”
Id. at 809-10 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
“However,

courts

also

have

cautioned

that

this

is

a

narrow

exception, which is limited to the exceptional situation.”
at 810 (citations and internal quotations omitted).
“a

party

doctrine

seeking
bears

to

the

invoke

burden

of

this

exception

showing

its

to

Id.

Therefore,

the

mootness

application.”

Id.

(citations omitted).
In this action, Appellants sued Appellee, who was the judge
presiding over a state court lawsuit against them.

They claimed

Appellee violated their rights under the Fourteenth Amendment
3

Appeal: 16-1245

Doc: 31

Filed: 10/24/2016

Pg: 4 of 4

when he overruled their demurrer based on absolute privilege and
they were forced to defend the suit.

They sought a declaratory

judgment that Appellee’s actions were in violation of 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 (2012).

The district court dismissed the complaint based

on judicial immunity.

After the court’s order issued, the state

court lawsuit was nonsuited.
moot.

Appellants

constitutional
disputes

contend

rights

capable

of

fall

Appellee contends this appeal is
the

alleged

within

repetition

yet

the

violations

mootness

evading

of

their

exception

review.

We

for
have

reviewed the record and the parties’ briefs, and we conclude
that Appellants fail to sustain their burden of showing that the
exception is applicable.
We therefore dismiss the appeal.

We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

4