Dist. Ct. lacked jurisdiction to act on defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief that essentially challenged FINRA “Taping Rule” that required security firms, which employed plaintiff and others who had worked within past three years with prior “Disciplined Firms,” to establish certain monitoring procedures for tracking telemarketing activities of said individuals. Plaintiff’s lawsuit was moot because plaintiff (who had not sought any monetary relief) was no longer on Taping Rule list by time Dist. Ct. had granted defendant’s motion to dismiss case, and because Dist. Ct. could not grant him any other remedy since he was now off said list. Ct. rejected plaintiff’s claim that his lawsuit was not moot because his current securities firm had terminated him in effort to avoid expense of required monitoring procedures set forth in Taping Rule.