David Hatchigian v.

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
• Decided: December 8, 2022
• Docket: 22-2211
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

BLD-027 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________

No. 22-2211 ___________

IN RE: DAVID HATCHIGIAN AND JOAN RANDAZZO ____________________________________

On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Related to Civ. No. 2:21-cv-03416) ____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P. November 10, 2022

Before: AMBRO, KRAUSE, and PORTER, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: December 8, 2022) _________

OPINION* _________

PER CURIAM

In March 2022, following an adverse jury verdict in a civil action, Petitioners

David Hatchigian and Joan Randazzo filed a motion in the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania seeking a new trial or, in the alternative, to alter

or amend the judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59. In July 2022, Petitioners submitted a

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. petition for a writ of mandamus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1651 with this Court, requesting

an order directing the District Court to rule on the Rule 59 motion. By order entered

September 6, 2022, the District Court denied the motion.

In light of the District Court’s action, Petitioners’ mandamus petition no longer

presents a live controversy. Therefore, we will dismiss it as moot. See Blanciak v.

Allegheny Ludlum Corp., 77 F.3d 690, 698-99 (3d Cir. 1996) (“If developments occur

during the course of adjudication that . . . prevent a court from being able to grant the

requested relief, the case must be dismissed as moot.”).