Commer v. District Council 37 & Local 375

Second Circuit

Commer v. District Council 37 & Local 375

96 F. App'x 777

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedMay 13, 2004

DocketNo. 03-7970

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 96 F. App'x 777 (Commer v. District Council 37 & Local 375) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Commer v. District Council 37 & Local 375, 96 F. App'x 777 (2d Cir. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

Roy Commer appeals from a judgment of the District Court dismissing his claim that District Council 37 violated the Labor Management and Disclosure Act of 1959 (“LMRDA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 401 et seq. The District Court concluded that the claim is moot.

For substantially the reasons stated by the District Court, we agree that the dispute between the parties has dissolved. Because Commer seeks only to enjoin ratification and enforcement of contracts that have already expired, it is no longer possible to grant him the relief he seeks. See Russman v. Bd. of Educ., 260 F.3d 114, 118-19 (2d Cir.2001). Moreover, because a subsequent dispute involving another agreement between District Council 37 and the City of New York could be fully litigated prior to the expiration of that agreement, this dispute is not capable of repetition yet evading review. See id. at 119.

We have considered all of plaintiffs claims on appeal and we hereby AFFIRM the judgment of the District Court.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

SUMMARY ORDER

Roy Commer appeals from a judgment of the District Court dismissing his claim that District Council 37 violated the Labor Management and Disclosure Act of 1959 (“LMRDA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 401 et seq. The District Court concluded that the claim is moot.

For substantially the reasons stated by the District Court, we agree that the dispute between the parties has dissolved. Because Commer seeks only to enjoin ratification and enforcement of contracts that have already expired, it is no longer possible to grant him the relief he seeks. See Russman v. Bd. of Educ., 260 F.3d 114, 118-19 (2d Cir.2001). Moreover, because a subsequent dispute involving another agreement between District Council 37 and the City of New York could be fully litigated prior to the expiration of that agreement, this dispute is not capable of repetition yet evading review. See id. at 119.

We have considered all of plaintiffs claims on appeal and we hereby AFFIRM the judgment of the District Court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

96 F. App'x 777, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commer-v-district-council-37-local-375-ca2-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack