Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 716 views

    Barbra Jones Submission On 9-10-14

    Uploaded by

    Latisha Walker
    This letter responds to a court order seeking the parties' views on whether the court retains jurisdiction over a 1990 case regarding the New York City District Council of Carpenters. The District Council agrees with the government that the case is now moot because the individuals in question are no longer in elected office and no relief could be granted to them. The letter also notes that in similar past situations, no party objected to the review officer's veto power over removing individuals from elected office under the relevant court order.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Barbra Jones Submission On 9-10-14

    Uploaded by

    Latisha Walker
    716 views3 pages
    This letter responds to a court order seeking the parties' views on whether the court retains jurisdiction over a 1990 case regarding the New York City District Council of Carpenters. The District Council agrees with the government that the case is now moot because the individuals in question are no longer in elected office and no relief could be granted to them. The letter also notes that in similar past situations, no party objected to the review officer's veto power over removing individuals from elected office under the relevant court order.

    Original Description:

    Barbra Jones Submission on 9-10-14

    Original Title

    Barbra Jones Submission on 9-10-14

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This letter responds to a court order seeking the parties' views on whether the court retains jurisdiction over a 1990 case regarding the New York City District Council of Carpenters. The District Council agrees with the government that the case is now moot because the individuals in question are no longer in elected office and no relief could be granted to them. The letter also notes that in similar past situations, no party objected to the review officer's veto power over removing individuals from elected office under the relevant court order.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    716 views3 pages

    Barbra Jones Submission On 9-10-14

    Uploaded by

    Latisha Walker
    This letter responds to a court order seeking the parties' views on whether the court retains jurisdiction over a 1990 case regarding the New York City District Council of Carpenters. The District Council agrees with the government that the case is now moot because the individuals in question are no longer in elected office and no relief could be granted to them. The letter also notes that in similar past situations, no party objected to the review officer's veto power over removing individuals from elected office under the relevant court order.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 3

    r

    Al 4
    1185 AVENUE OF THE AMLOICAS 31ST flOOR
    NEW YORK, NY 10036-2603
    ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LL.P
    212.704.9600 212 701.1256 i,< ww.k%r.cc
    E3ARBARA S. JONES
    Partner
    (212 897-3437
    Ii ones zuckerme n.co,n
    September 10, 2014
    VIA HAND DELIVERY AND ECF
    Hon. Richard M. Berman
    United States District Court
    Southern District of New York
    Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse
    New York, NY 10007
    Re: United States v. District Council, 90 Civ. 5722 (RMB)
    Dear Judge Berman:
    The New York City and Vicinity District Council of Carpenters (District Council) writes in
    response to your order of September 8, 2014. Your Honor sought the views of the parties
    regarding whether the Court retained jurisdiction over the matter, given the passage of time and
    intervening events, and any views of the parties which may help to resolve the ambiguity
    identified by the Second Circuit.
    As an initial matter, the District Council agrees with the government that this matter is moot.
    To qualify as a case fit for federal-court adjudication, an actual controversy must be extant at
    all stages of review, not merely at the time the complaint is filed. Arizonans for OfJicial English
    v. Arizona. 520 U.S. 43, 67 (1997). Specifically, under the general rule of mootness, courts
    subject matter jurisdiction ceases when an event occurs during the course of the proceedings or
    on appeal that makes it impossible for the court to grant any effectual relief whatever to a
    prevailing party. Cnty. of SzJfolk, NY v. Sebelius, 605 F.3d 135, 140 (2d Cir. 2010). In the
    WASHINGTON, DC NEW YORK TAMPA BALTIMORE
    4623235.1
    Case 1:90-cv-05722-RMB-RLE Document 1568 Filed 09/10/14 Page 1 of 3
    Hon. Richard M. Berman
    September 10, 2014
    Page 2
    instant matter, the intervening elections, during which Mr. Nee and Mr. Messinetti were elected
    to office, leave no elected office to which this Court could restore them. There is no other
    potential relief to be granted to Mr. Nec and Mr. Messinetti, and as such, it is impossible for the
    court to grant any efIi.ctual relief whatever to these members if they prevailed. Id. This renders
    the case moot, and strips the federal courts of subject matter jurisdiction.
    As the District Council was under the Trusteeship of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters
    (UBC) at the time the 2010 Stipulation and Order was entered, the Council itself- and none of
    its current leadership - were involved in the negotiations of the parties and can shed no light on
    the intent of the parties at the time of negotiation. The Council can, of course, look to the past
    practice of the parties. As the Government and the RO note, there have been a number of vetoes
    of office holders in past years with no objection from any party. This demonstrates a course of
    conduct that suggests that the parties believed that the veto power of the Review Officer
    extended to removal of individuals from elected office under the authority of the 2010
    Stipulation and Order. Sec United States v. Broadcast Music, Inc., 275 F.3d 168, 175 (2d Cir.
    2001).
    Rcspectfhlly submitted,
    Barbara S. Jones
    4(2235.I
    Case 1:90-cv-05722-RMB-RLE Document 1568 Filed 09/10/14 Page 2 of 3
    1-Ion. Richard M. Berman
    September 10, 2014
    Page 3
    cc: VIA EMAIL
    Dennis M. Walsh, Esq.
    Review Officer
    The Law Office of Dennis M. Walsh
    415 Madison Avenue, 11th Floor
    NewYork,NY 10017
    Bridget M. Rohde
    Counsel to the Review Officer
    Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, (ilovsky and Popeo, P.C.
    666 Third Avenue
    New York, NY 10017
    Benjamin H. Torrance
    Assistant United State Attorney
    Office of the United States Attorney
    Southern District of New York
    86 Chambers Street
    New York, NY 10007
    James M. Murphy
    Counsel to the New York City and Vicinity District Council of Carpenters
    Spivak Lipton LLP
    1700 Broadway
    New York, NY 10019
    4623235 I
    Case 1:90-cv-05722-RMB-RLE Document 1568 Filed 09/10/14 Page 3 of 3

    You might also like