IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF RIDGEWAY
Studs Per Second
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
MOTION TO DISMISS
RSC-CV-513
Plaintiff
against,
BPD_edgar
Defendant
MOTION TO DISMISS
Comes forth the Defendant, through the undersigned counsel, requesting the
aforementioned case be dismissed for lack of a justiciable claim.
ARGUMENT
The Ridgeway State Constitution provides the Superior Court the ability to hear “all
criminal and civil cases or controversies.” See Article 5 Section IV. This “cases or controversies”
requirement, mocks that of the Federal Judiciary’s ability to hear cases, thus requiring that there
be a valid “case or controversy.” This requirement demands that courts only hear “a real
controversy with real impact on real persons.” See American Legion v. American Humanist
Assn., 588 U. S. ___, ___ (2019) (GORSUCH, J., concurring in judgment) (slip op., at 10). It
serves to ensure that Courts do not overstep their “proper—and properly limited—role” in “a
democratic society.” See Warth v. Seldin, 422 U. S. 490, 498 (1975); see also TransUnion LCC v.
Ramirez, 594 U.S. __, __ (2021) (dissenting opinion by Kagan, J.). This requirement has been
named “justiciability.”
There can be no justiciable controversy where the case has been “mooted by subsequent
developments.” See Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 95 (1968). To prove this, the defendant must
show that it “is absolutely clear the allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be
expected to recur.” Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Inc., 528
U. S. 167, 190. This burden is met; there can be no reasonable belief that the, allegedly,
unlawfully conduct can occur. The Plaintiff concedes in their Civil Complaint that “the
defendant…is a former delivery driver for the company.” See Id. at 2. This is important for two
reasons. Firstly, only those in the Studs Per Second group can dispense company equipment, so
there is no physical way the, allegedly, wrongful conduct could occur. Secondly, the Plaintiff has
no reasonable interest in hiring someone who allegedly breached its handbook. This lawsuit
further compounds the lack of interest. What company would wish to rehire an individual who,
allegedly, committed misconduct? What company would reasonably wish to rehire an individual
who they are suing because of that alleged misconduct? The answer to both of these questions is
simple: no company.
With both of these facts in mind, it is clear that the Defendant cannot be reasonably
expected to repeat the actions, as he has no ability to. This is a case of “once bitten”, and the
Court cannot find a justiciable injury in someone who was once bitten. See Already, LCC v.
Nike, Inc. 568 U.S. 85 (2013)(rejecting a claim that a Plaintiff could pursue “declaratory relief
merely on the basis of being once bitten.”); See, e.g., Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U. S. 95, 109
(1983) (holding there is no justiciable controversy where plaintiff had once been subjected to a
chokehold).
Thus, there is no justiciable controversy in this case due to the doctrine of mootness.
When a mooted controversy is presented, the court must dismiss such claims. See Benton v.
Maryland, 395 U. S. 784, 788 (1969)(“courts may act only in the context of a justiciable case or
controversy.”); See also SEC v. Medical Committee for Human Rights, 404 U.S. 403, 407
(1971).
CONCLUSION
Thus, for the foregoing reasons, this court ought to dismiss the claims against the
Defendant.
Respectfully Submitted,
s/ HolyRomanRyan
HolyRomanRyan
Attorney At Law
R.W. Bar # 17105
Ryan!#8903
