Ct. of Appeals remanded matter back to Dist. Ct. for determination as to whether plaintiff-union’s section 1983 action that challenged plaintiff’s ordinance on First Amendment grounds was moot, where: (1) instant ordinance precluded plaintiff from posting private signs on public way; (2) plaintiff wanted to post derogatory inflatable rat and cat near construction project during its labor dispute with entity using non-union labor at said construction project; and (3) at time Dist. Ct. entered summary judgment in favor of defendant, construction project that led to use of instant signs had been completed and plaintiff was no longer picketing job site. While plaintiff argued that case was not moot since it might use signs at future construction sites, remand was required since record lacked any evidence regarding number of construction projects built with non-union labor in defendant's town and/or number of such projects that were actually planned. Ct. further noted that plaintiff did not seek monetary damages in instant lawsuit, and that defendant had amended instant ordinance and changed definition of “sign”, which could have impact on outcome of instant case. Ct. also observed that should this case remain live controversy, Dist. Ct. should address plaintiff’s argument that defendant had selectively enforced ordinance. (Partial Dissent filed.)
Federal 7th Circuit Court
Civil Court
Mootness Doctrine