Cohen v. Federal Aviation Administration

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: December 4, 2023
• Docket: 3:23-cv-00913
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 Case No.: 23-CV-0913-DMS-BLM JONATHAN COHEN, 12 ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S 13 Plaintiff, MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DISMISSING 14 v. CASE AS MOOT 15 FEDERAL AVIATION ADMIN., 16 Defendant. 17

18 Pending before the Court is Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 19 18). Plaintiff filed an opposition, (ECF No. 22), and Defendant filed a reply (ECF No. 18). 20 Plaintiff subsequently filed a motion for oral argument. (ECF No. 25). For the following 21 reasons, the Court denies Defendant’s motion for summary judgment and dismisses the 22 case as moot. 23 I. 24 BACKGROUND 25 On April 10, 2023, Plaintiff sent three requests to access documents from the 26 National Guard Bureau, the United States Coast Guard, and the Federal Aviation 27 Administration respectively pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”). 28 1 Defendants failed to respond within 20 days of the request as required by FOIA. 5 U.S.C. 2 § 552(a)(6)(A)(i). Thus, on May 18, 2023, Plaintiff initiated separate suits against the 3 agencies requesting compliance with his FOIA requests. Cohen v. Nat’l. Guard Bur., 4 3:23-cv-00910-DMS-BLM (S.D. Cal. filed May 18, 2023); Cohen v. U.S. Coast Guard, 5 3:23-cv-00912-DMS-BLM (S.D. Cal. filed May 18, 2023. Since such date, the agencies 6 have fully complied with Plaintiff’s FOIA requests and Plaintiff does not seek any 7 additional information. Each agency filed a motion for summary judgment asserting the 8 same arguments and requesting a judgment on the merits in their favor. The claims are 9 sufficiently related, and the Court dismisses all claims as moot, including the instant 10 claim. 11 II. 12 LEGAL STANDARD 13 Article III of the Constitution limits the jurisdiction of federal courts to live “Cases” 14 or “Controversies.” U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cl. 1. “The doctrine of mootness, which is 15 embedded in Article III’s case or controversy requirement, requires that an actual, 16 ongoing controversy exist at all stages of federal court proceedings.” Pitts v. Terrible 17 Herbst, Inc., 653 F.3d 1081, 1086–87 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing Burke v. Barnes, 479 U.S. 18 361, 363 (1987)). A case becomes moot “when the issues presented are no longer ‘live’ 19 or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome” of the litigation. Pitts, 20 653 F.3d at 1086–87. “If the controversy is moot, both the trial and appellate courts lack 21 subject matter jurisdiction.” In re Burrell, 415 F.3d 994, 998 (9th Cir. 2005). 22 III. 23 DISCUSSION 24 It is undisputed that Defendant has fully complied with Plaintiff’s FOIA request 25 and Plaintiff does not seek any additional information. “For specific FOIA request claims, 26 after the agency produces all non-exempt documents . . .the specific FOIA claim is moot 27 because the injury has been remedied.” Hajro v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Servs., 28 811 F.3d 1086, 1103 (9th Cir. 2016). Thus, the case is moot and must be dismissed 1 || because the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Burrell, 415 F. 3d at 998. “Lack of 2 || subject matter jurisdiction is properly a matter in abatement, and not properly disposable 3 a motion for summary judgment . . . It is therefore error to rule on a summary judgment 4 ||motion or any other matter going to the merits where a court determines that it lacks 5 || jurisdiction over the subject matter.” O’Donnell v. Wien Air Alaska, Inc., 551 F.2d 1141, 6 (9th Cir. 1977). 7 IV. 8 CONCLUSION 9 For the foregoing reasons, the Court DISMISSES this case with prejudice and 10 || DENIES Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Additionally, the Court DENIES 11 || Plaintiffs motion for oral argument as moot.! 12 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 15 ||Dated: December 4, 2023 16 2 ins Yn: L4\ 17 Hon. Dana M. Sabraw, Chief Judge 18 United States District Court 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ' Civil Local Rule 7.1(d)(1) states “A Judge may in the judge’s discretion, decide a motion without oral argument.” The Court exercised its discretion to decide the motion without oral argument.