Turner v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc. , 314 F. App'x 712 ( 2009 )


Menu:
  •            IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT  United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    FILED
    March 13, 2009
    No. 08-30543                      Charles R. Fulbruge III
    Summary Calendar                            Clerk
    PATRICK JOSEPH TURNER, ET AL.,
    Plaintiffs,
    v.
    MURPHY OIL USA, INC.,
    Defendant–Appellee,
    v.
    WAYNE J. DUCHMANN,
    Movant–Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Eastern District of Louisiana
    USDC No. 2:05-CV-4206
    Before KING, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    Wayne Duchmann appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for a
    preliminary injunction. Duchmann’s motion sought to enjoin the sale of a fire
    *
    Pursuant to 5TH CIR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
    be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .
    R. 47.5.4.
    No. 08-30543
    station in St. Bernard Parish due to alleged violations of state law and the
    district court’s previous orders. Because the sale of the fire station has already
    occurred, Duchmann’s appeal is moot.1 “[W]e simply cannot enjoin that which
    has already taken place.” 2 Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal as moot and deny
    Duchmann’s other pending motions.
    DISMISSED.
    1
    See Seafarers Int’l Union of N. Am. v. Nat’l Marine Servs., Inc., 
    820 F.2d 148
    , 151-52
    (5th Cir. 1987) (“[O]nce the action that the plaintiff sought to have enjoined has occurred, the
    case is mooted because ‘no order of this court could affect the parties’ rights with respect to the
    injunction we are called upon to review.’” (quoting Marilyn T., Inc. v. Evans, 
    803 F.2d 1383
    ,
    1384 (5th Cir. 1986))), abrogated on other grounds by Litton Fin. Printing Div. v. NLRB, 
    501 U.S. 190
     (1991).
    2
    Harris v. City of Houston, 
    151 F.3d 186
    , 189 (5th Cir. 1998).
    2