Supreme Court Declines to Rule on Equitable Mootness

The Supreme Court declined to rule on the validity of the doctrine of equitable mootness, most frequently invoked to dismiss appeals from confirmation orders that were not stayed pending appeal.

Yesterday, the high court denied the petition for certiorari in Bennett v. Jefferson County, Alabama, 18-1018 (Sup. Ct.). Sewer customers were seeking a final appeal from the order of the bankruptcy court in November 2013 confirming the chapter 9 municipal debt reorganization of Jefferson County, Alabama.

Sewer customers had appealed from confirmation, objecting to provisions in the plan locking in rate increases to be paid every year for 40 years and giving the bankruptcy court continuing jurisdiction to compel rate increases.

The district court denied the county’s motion to dismiss the appeal, holding that equitable mootness was not available in chapter 9. The district court authorized an interlocutory appeal to the Eleventh Circuit.

In August, the Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court and dismissed the appeal as equitably moot, finding “no respect in which [the] principles [of equitable mootness] are bound to come into play any less in the chapter 9 context than in the contexts of chapters 11 or 13.” Bennett v. Jefferson County, 899 F.3d 1240, 1250 (11th Cir. Aug. 16, 2018). To read ABI’s report on the Eleventh Circuit opinion, click here.

Sewer customer filed a petition for certiorari in January. A week later, Jefferson County waived the right to file an opposition to the petition. The justices considered the petition at a conference on March 1.

The Supreme Court denied the petition yesterday without citing reasons.