Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals Holds Narrow Exception to Mootness Doctrine for Cases Capable of Repetition Yet Evading Review did Not Apply

This post was authored by Matthew Loeser, Esq.

Adams Housing, LLC leased a single-family house in Salisbury to two brothers and an unrelated friend.  Adams received an “Order to Reduce Occupancy” from the city based on a local ordinance restricting housing in certain areas. Adams challenged the order in a hearing before the Salisbury Housing Board of Adjustments and Appeals (“HBAA”). Even though the HBAA found Adams to be in violation of the Ordinance, it allowed the current tenants to finish their one year lease. Adams filed a complaint in federal court against the City, and while the City’s motion to dismiss was pending, the lease at issue expired, and the tenants vacated the property. The district court declared the Ordinance unconstitutionally vague as applied, granted summary judgment in favor of Adams, and dismissed the remainder of the claims. The City appealed, and the court vacated the district court’s decision and remanded the case to the district court because it improperly converted the motion to a motion for summary judgment. In this case, Adams appealed the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of the City of Salisbury and dismissing Adams’ constitutional challenge to a provision in the City’s property code preventing more than two unrelated persons from occupying single-family dwellings in certain residential zones.

The court found that the central issue presented in this appeal, whether the Ordinance was vague as applied to a specific occupancy, was no longer a live controversy. Here, the lease between Adams and the tenants had expired, and the occupancy no longer existed. While Adams initially asked for damages for tortious interference, that claim was no longer before the court. In this case, Adams only sought a declaratory judgment that the Ordinance was unconstitutionally vague as applied to the now-expired occupancy. Accordingly, there was no longer an actual controversy between Adams and the City. Adams alleged that the City’s interpretation was incorrect and further alleged that the City has arbitrarily and inconsistently enforced the Ordinance in the past and would continue do to so in the future. The court found that these contentions alone did not demonstrate a reasonable expectation that the same action would recur. Accordingly, no exception to the mootness doctrine applied.

Adams Housing, LLC v City of Salisbury, 726 Fed. Appx. 942 (4th Cir. CA 3/12/2018)