State Of New York et al v. Scalia
| New York Southern District Court | |
| Judge: | Gregory H Woods |
| Case #: | 1:20-cv-01689 |
| Nature of Suit | 899 Other Statutes - Administrative Procedure Act/Review or Appeal of Agency Decision |
| Cause | 05:551 Administrative Procedure Act |
| Case Filed: | Feb 26, 2020 |
| Terminated: | Sep 08, 2020 |
| Last checked: Monday Aug 24, 2020 5:40 AM EDT |
|
ADR Provider
The Society for Human Resource Management
1800 Duke St
Alexandria, VA 22314 |
Represented By
|
|
Defendant
Eugene Scalia
|
Represented By
|
|
Defendant
United States of America
|
Represented By
|
|
Defendant
United States Department of Labor
|
Represented By
|
|
Intervenor Defendant
The Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America
1615 H Street, NW
Washington, DC 20062 |
Represented By
|
|
Intervenor Defendant
National Retail Federation
1101 New York Avenue NW Suite 1200
Washington,, DC 20005 |
Represented By
|
|
Intervenor Defendant
International Franchise Association
1900 K Street, NW, Suite 700
Washington, DC 20006 |
Represented By
|
|
Intervenor Defendant
HR Policy Association
1001 19th Street North, Suite 1002
Arlington, VA 22209 |
Represented By
|
|
Intervenor Defendant
Associated Builders and Contractors
440 1st St., N.W., Ste., 200
Washington, DC 20001 |
Represented By
|
|
Intervenor Defendant
American Lodging and Hotel Association
1250 Eye Street, N.W., Suite 1100
Washington, DC 20005 |
Represented By
|
|
Movant
Restaurant Law Center
2055 L St. NW Suite 700
Washington, DC 20036 |
Represented By
|
|
Plaintiff
State of Oregon
|
Represented By
|
|
Plaintiff
State of Washington
|
Represented By
|
|
Plaintiff
State of Vermont
|
Represented By
|
|
Plaintiff
State of Rhode Island
|
Represented By
|
|
Plaintiff
Commonwealth of Massachusetts
|
Represented By
|
|
Plaintiff
State of New Mexico
|
Represented By
|
|
Plaintiff
State of New Jersey
|
Represented By
|
|
Plaintiff
State of Minnesota
|
Represented By
|
|
Plaintiff
State of Michigan
|
Represented By
|
|
Plaintiff
State of Maryland
|
Represented By
|
|
Plaintiff
State of Illinois
|
Represented By
|
|
Plaintiff
State of Delaware
|
Represented By
|
|
Plaintiff
State of Colorado
|
Represented By
|
|
Plaintiff
State of California
|
Represented By
|
|
Plaintiff
State Of New York
|
Represented By
|
|
Plaintiff
District of Columbia
|
Represented By
|
|
Plaintiff
Commonwealth of Virginia
|
Represented By
|
|
Plaintiff
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
|
Represented By
|
| Docket last updated: 05/12/2025 11:59 PM EDT |
| Monday, December 20, 2021 | ||
| 143 | 143
appeal
USCA Mandate
Mon 12/20 8:23 AM
MANDATE of USCA (Certified Copy) as to139 Notice of Appeal, filed by American Lodging and Hotel Association, National Retail Federation, The Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, HR Policy Association, Associated Builders and Contractors, International Franchise Association,137 Notice of Appeal, filed by United States Department of Labor, Eugene Scalia, United States of America USCA Case Number 20-3806 L); 203816(Con). Defendants-Appellants move for a dismissal of their pending appeal as moot. Intervenors-Appellants oppose the motion. Intervenors-Appellants alternatively assert that, if the motion is granted, the order and judgment of the district court should be vacated, with which Defendants-Appellants agree. Upon due consideration, it is hereby ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED because the Department of Labor has rescinded the regulation from which injunctive relief was sought and, accordingly, there is no justiciable claim for relief. Video Tutorial Servs., Inc. v. MCI Telecomms. Corp ., 79 F.3d 3, 6 (2d Cir. 1996) (per curiam) (concluding that "[w]hen an appeal becomes moot" it must be dismissed because "we have no jurisdiction over moot controversies"). It is further ordered that the district court's order and judgment are VACATED, and the matter is REMANDED to the district court with instructions to dismiss the action as moot. Arizonans for Off. Eng. v. Arizona , 520 U.S. 43, 71 (1997) ("When a civil case becomes moot pending appellate adjudication, '[t]he established practice... in the federal system... is to reverse or vacate the judgment below and remand with a direction to dismiss.'" (quoting United States v. Munsingwear, Inc ., 340 U.S. 36, 39 (1950)). Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe, Clerk USCA for the Second Circuit. Issued As Mandate: 12/20/2021..(tp) |
|
|
appeal
Transmission of USCA Mandate/Order to District Judge
Mon 12/20 8:24 AM
Transmission of USCA Mandate/Order to the District Judge re:143 USCA Mandate. (tp) |
||