Fifth Circuit Court Cases - Case Law and Opinions from the 5th Circuit Federal Court - Court of Appeals

	ROMINGER LEGAL
		Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Opinions - 5th Circuit
					Need Legal Help?
					Need Legal Help?
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER			LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS	NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -CLICK HERE

This opinion or court case is from the Fifth Circuit Court or Appeals. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

LEGAL RESEARCH

COURT REPORTERS

PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS

PROCESS SERVERS

DOCUMENT RETRIEVERS

EXPERT WITNESSES

Find a Private Investigator

Find an Expert Witness

Find a Process Server

Case Law - save on Lexis / WestLaw.

Legal News - Legal Headlines

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
for the Fifth Circuit
_____________________________________
No. 92-1489
Summary Calendar
_____________________________________
MCI TELECOMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
VERSUS
CREDIT BUILDERS OF AMERICA, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee.
______________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
______________________________________________________
September 7, 1993
On Remand from the Supreme Court of the United States
Before JOLLY, DUHÉ and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
DUHÉ, Circuit Judge:
MCI Telecommunications Corporation (MCI) sued its customer,
Credit Builders of America, Inc. (Credit Builders), to collect
unpaid charges for telecommunications services. The district court
concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction, and dismissed
the case. We affirmed. MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. Credit
Builders of Am., Inc., 980 F.2d 1021 (5th Cir. 1993). The Supreme
Court granted certiorari, vacated our decision, and remanded the
case with instructions "consider the question of mootness." After
considering this issue, we conclude that the controversy is not
moot, and reinstate our previous opinion.

I.
At the outset, we note that neither party raised the issue of
mootness on appeal. However, we can surmise that the Supreme Court
was alerted to this possibility when counsel for Credit Builders,
in lieu of a brief, filed the following letter with the Clerk of
the Court:
I regret to inform you that neither my client nor my
firm can afford to file a response to this case. My
client is out of business and its representatives gone to
ground.... I cannot reasonably pursue this case without
my client's permission or support.1
We assume that, based on this letter, the Supreme Court concluded
that MCI may no longer have any meaningful remedy and that the case
is therefore moot.
II.
We have held that a case is not mooted by the fact that an
impecunious judgment debtor may lack the means to satisfy a
judgment. See Cox v. Sunbelt Sav. Ass'n, 896 F.2d 957, 959-60 (5th
Cir. 1990); Triland Holdings & Co. v. Sunbelt Serv. Corp., 884 F.2d
205, 208 (5th Cir. 1989); Ratner v. Sioux Natural Gas Corp., 770
F.2d 512, 516 (5th Cir. 1985). As we stated in Triland Holdings &
Co.:
The general rule is that "[c]laims for damages or other
monetary relief automatically avoid mootness, so long as
the claim remains viable. Damages should be denied on
the merits, not on grounds of mootness." FSLIC, however,
argues that Sunbelt Savings has no assets with which to
satisfy a judgment that might be rendered against it, and
thus even if Triland Holdings and Triland Investments are
successful in proving their claims in the district court
1 Likewise, when this case was first heard on appeal, Credit
Builders did not file any brief with this court.
2

they will be unable to collect. We have held that
"[d]ifficulties in formulating a remedy in an otherwise
living case do not evidence the absence of a case or
controversy." In Ratner, we went on to hold that "the
mere possibility that a judgment debtor lacks the means
to satisfy its monetary liability does not kill the
issues in a case. An indigent defendant otherwise could
defeat any lawsuit simply by asserting that his poverty
moots the claims against him."
884 F.2d at 208 (internal citations omitted).
On the record before us, we cannot say that MCI will never be
able to satisfy its claim against Credit Builders. Because "[w]e
are unable to conclude that all potential forms of relief are
permanently precluded," id., the controversy is not moot. See Cox
v. Sunbelt Sav. Ass'n, 896 F.2d at 960; Triland Holdings & Co., 884
F.2d at 208. Consequently, we reinstate our previous opinion,
which affirmed the district court's conclusion that it lacked
subject matter jurisdiction over MCI's suit to collect a delinquent
phone bill. See Marshall v. Local Union No. 639, Int'l Bhd. of
Teamsters, 593 F.2d 1297, 1301 n.16 (D.C. Cir. 1979) (If a case can
be disposed of on either jurisdictional or mootness grounds, "then
a court should not postpone decision while the other ground is
investigated.").
III.
For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the controversy
between the litigants is not moot. We reinstate our previous
opinion, MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. Credit Builders of Am.,
Inc., 980 F.2d 1021 (5th Cir. 1993).
PRIOR OPINION REINSTATED.
3