The Eleventh Circuit wrote an opinion chiefly explaining the difference between equitable and constitutional mootness in the appellate context. One is jurisdictional, and the other is not, the court said.
A creditor appealed to district court from an order confirming a chapter 11 plan. The district court dismissed the appeal when the creditor failed to file a timely appellate brief.
When the creditor appealed to the circuit court, the debtor filed a motion to dismiss the appeal as both constitutionally and equitably moot, basing both theories on the notion that the plan had been consummated for lack of a stay pending appeal.
In an unpublished, per curiam opinion on March 30, the Eleventh Circuit explained that equitable mootness is a discretionary doctrine justifying dismissal when giving effective relief is impossible. Citing a dissent by then-Circuit Judge Samuel A. Alito, Jr. in the Third Circuit’s 1996 Continental Airlines decision, the appeals court said that equitable mootness does not present a jurisdictional issue.
In contrast, constitutional mootness derives from the Article III requirement of a case or controversy and results “only when it is impossible for a court to grant any effectual relief whatever to the prevailing party.”
In the case at bar, the appeal was not constitutionally moot because the debtor was arguing that the appeals court should not unwind mortgage modifications and require disgorgement of disbursed money. “The very fact that it could be so imprudent to disturb the plan is a testament to the fact that there is indeed a live controversy,” thus showing that the appeal was not constitutionally moot, the Eleventh Circuit said.
Concluding that it had jurisdiction because the case was not constitutionally moot, the circuit court turned to the merits and held that the district court properly exercised discretion in dismissing the appeal because the appellant had been late in filing his brief. The circuit never reached the question of equitable mootness.