ORISKA INSURANCE COMPANY v. AVALON GARDENS REHABILITATION HEALTH CARE CENTER LLC LLC LLC LLC LLC LLC LLC LLC LLC LLC LLC LLC II LLC LLC LLC LLC LLC LLC LLC LLC LLC ASO LLC LLC LLC LLC (2020)

SUMMARY ORDER

Oriska Insurance Company appeals from the September 4, 2019 judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (Hurd, J.) affirming the November 21, 2018 decision and order of that same court (Peebles, M.J.) disqualifying attorney James Kernan from representing Oriska in the instant litigation. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history, and specification of issues for review.

We dismiss the appeal as moot. The federal claims in the complaint were dismissed for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), and the district court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. See Oriska Ins. Co. v. Avalon Gardens Rehab. & Health Care Ctr., LLC, 6:18-CV-1030, 2019 WL 4195267 (N.D.N.Y. Sept. 4, 2019). On appeal, Oriska makes arguments only regarding the district court's affirmance of the November 21, 2019 decision and order of the magistrate judge disqualifying Kernan from representing Oriska. By abandoning its appeal of all other issues, Oriska has mooted this appeal.

Article III limits federal-court jurisdiction to “cases and controversies,” which requires that “an actual controversy be extant at all stages of review, not merely at the time the complaint is filed.” Campbell–Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 577 U.S. 153, 136 S.Ct. 663, 669, 193 L.Ed.2d 571 (2016) (internal quotation marks, alteration, and citation omitted). For an appeal to “satisfy the case-or-controversy requirement,” an appellant must “have an actual injury which is likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision.” United States v. Mercurris, 192 F.3d 290, 293 (2d Cir. 1999). “If an intervening circumstance deprives the plaintiff of a personal stake in the outcome of the lawsuit, at any point during the litigation, the action can no longer proceed and must be dismissed as moot.” Campbell-Ewald, 136 S. Ct. at 669 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

By challenging only Kernan's disqualification, Oriska mooted its appeal. Even assuming this Court were to all of the relief sought on appeal—finding that Kernan was wrongly disqualified and allowing him to represent Oriska—that would leave the complaint dismissed for failure to state a claim. By failing to raise any argument as to any other issues Oriska leaves no avenue for this Court to change the underlying outcome for Oriska. See, e.g., United States v. Neumann, 556 F.2d 1218, 1219 (5th Cir. 1977) (“Because Neumann is challenging the denial of his chosen lay counsel in a trial that has already taken place, and because we could not now alter in any way the final judgment that issued from that trial, the matter of his representation in that trial is moot within the context of the present case.”).

We have considered the remainder of Oriska's arguments and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED as moot.