Summary
This Second Circuit opinion addresses an appeal of a district court's order remanding a zoning dispute to state court. The defendant hotel had removed the case to federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1443(1), alleging that the town's enforcement action violated Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by discriminating against asylum seekers. Because the underlying state court action was voluntarily discontinued with prejudice while the appeal was pending, the court found the case moot. Consequently, the Second Circuit vacated the district court's remand order and dismissed the appeal.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the appeal from the district court's remand order remained a live case or controversy after the underlying state-court action was discontinued with prejudice.
- Whether the district court's remand order should be vacated after the appeal became moot through circumstances not caused by the appellant.
Holdings
- The appeal was moot because permanent termination of the underlying state-court action eliminated the parties' cognizable stake in whether that action was removable to federal court.
- The court vacated the district court's remand order because the appeal became moot through circumstances not caused by the appellant.
Key quotations
“Because the underlying state court action has been permanently terminated, the parties no longer have a cognizable stake in the removability of that action, and this appeal is moot.” (3)
“The Town (appellee), not the Hotel (appellant), mooted this appeal by successfully moving to discontinue the underlying state court case with prejudice.” (12)
Factual background
The Hotel agreed to house asylum seekers under a New York City program that transported asylum seekers to counties outside New York City. Newburgh officials responded with emergency measures and enforcement of municipal zoning and occupancy restrictions, and the Town sued to prevent the Hotel from operating as long-term housing. The Hotel alleged that the Town was selectively enforcing its ordinances for racially discriminatory reasons and removed the action under 28 U.S.C. § 1443(1). The housing program ended, all asylum seekers left the Hotel, and the state court discontinued the Town's action with prejudice.
Procedural history
The Town sued the Hotel in New York Supreme Court, Orange County, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief concerning the Hotel's provision of long-term housing to asylum seekers and alleged violations of municipal zoning and occupancy ordinances. The Hotel removed under 28 U.S.C. § 1443(1), asserting that the Town's enforcement action was racially motivated and implicated Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The district court remanded the case to state court, and the Hotel appealed. During the appeal, the state court discontinued the action with prejudice after the asylum-seeker housing program ended; the Second Circuit held the appeal moot, vacated the remand order, and dismissed the appeal.