Arkansas State Highway & Transportation Department v. O.J.'s Service Two, Inc. , 2015 Ark. LEXIS 598 ( 2015 )

a
2015 Ark. 388
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS
No. CV-15-27
ARKANSAS STATE HIGHWAY AND Opinion Delivered October 29,2015
TRANSPORTATI ON DEPARTMENT;
DIRECTOR SCOTT BENNETT; APPEAL FROM THE PULASKI
ARKANSAS STATE HIGHWAY COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
COMMISSION; CHAIRMAN JOHN INO. 60CV- 1 4- 1,231,]
ED REGENOLD; DICK TRAMMEL;
TOM SCHUECK; ROBERT MOORE; HONORABLE ALICE S. GRAY,
JR.; AND FRANK SCOTT, JR. JUDGE
APPELLANTS
APPEAL DISMISSED.
,S
SERVICE TWO, INC.
APPELLEE
COURTNEY HUDSON GOODSON, Associate Justice
This is an interlocutory appeal fror.n thc Ptrlaski Counly Circuit Court's denial of a ntotion
to disnriss on sovereiqn-inrnrurriry erounds filed by appellants, Arkansas Statc Hiehrvay and
Tmnsportatiolr 1)e partnlclrt; its director Scott Bennett; Arkansas Statc Highrvay Conrnrission; its
chairnran-fohn Ed l\cgcnold; and Dick Tranrnrcl, Tonr Schucck. Robert Moore,-fr., and Frank
Scott, -f r. in their capacities as nrenrbers oFthc Arkansas Statc Hiehway Conrnrission ("thc State
Dcfendants"). The undcrlyine lawstrit involvcs a contract fbr janitorial and clcaning scrvices
bctween the Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Dcpartnrcr-rt ("thc Higliway
I)cpartnrent") and a third part), IlazorClean. Becausc the contract at issue in the lalvsuit has bcen
ftrlly perfornred, the nrattcr is now nloot. Accordingly, rvc disnriss thc appeal.
The relcvant lacts in this appeal :lre as lollorvs. h-rJanuary 2014, the Highway l)epartnrcnt
2015 Ark. 388
issued a bid invitation for a janitorial and cleaning-services contract for February 19,2074, through
February 18,201,5. Appellee, OJ." Service Two, Inc. ("OJ.'s"), submitted a bid for the contract,
but the Highway Department ultimately awarded the contract to another bidder, RazorClean, on
February 1.0,2074. OJ.'r filed a formal protest ofthe contract award, arguing that RazorClean's
bid did not conform to the specifications in the bid invitation and should not have been accepted
because the references RazorClean provided were invalid. The Highway Department issued a
letter denying OJ.'r protest, stating that there was no procedure for reevaluating the award of a
contract and that the Highway Department had followed its bid process by inquiring about the
reGrences provided.
On March 25, 2014, OJ.'r filed suit against the State Defendants requesting a writ of
mandamus compelling the deGndants to follow the Arkansas procurement laws and regulations,
as well as requiring the defendants to declare the contract with RazorClean null and void and to
award the contract to OJ.'s. The State Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that OJ.'s
claims were barred by sovereign ininiuniry. OJ." responded that sovereign immunity did not
apply because the suit was one to enforce a purely nrinisterial dury, and because the Highway
Departnrent had acted illegally in awarding the contract without properly following Arkansas
procllrenrent laws. The circuit court der-ried the r-notion, and the State Defendants have f-iled this
ir-rterlocutory appeal pllrsuant to Rule 2(a)(10) of the Arkansas Rules of Appellate
Procedure-Civi1.
Before reaching the merits of thc appeal, we nlust first address the State Defendants'
threshold argument that the case has become moot because the contract at issue has now expired,
as it was for services fronr February 19,2014, through February 18,2015. As a general rule, the
cv-t5-27
2015 Ark. 388
appellate courts of this state will not review issues that are moot. City of Clinton u. S. Paramedic
Serus., lnc.,201.2 Ark.88,387 S.\V.3d137. To do so would be to render advisory opinions,
which this court will not do. Id. We have generally held that a case becomes moot when any
judgment rendered would have no practical legal effect upon a then-existing legal controversy.
Id. In other words, a moot case presents no justiciable issue for determination by the cotrt. Cen.
Pub. Co. u. Erxleben, 283 Ark. 136,671S.W.2d 1,82 (1984). We have recognrzed that when a
state contract has been fully performed, a challenge to the grant of the contract to a particular parry
is rendered moot. Id.
'We
agree that this appeal is moot because the contract at issue in the litigation has been
perfornred. Our decision rn Erxleben is instructive on this issue. In that case, the State ofArkansas
invited bids for publication of certain volumes of the Arkansas Reports. The contract was awarded
to United Services of Arkansas, and General Publishing Cor-npany cl'rallenged the award of the
contract, arguing that at the tinrc the contract was awardcd, [Jnited Scrvices ofArkansas was not
a propcr applicant. Thc circtrit court disnrissed the casc, rulins that no justiciable controversy
cxisted becausc the contract had been lully pcrfornrcd. Or-r appcal, r,vc aflimred the ruling of the
trial court and held that thc casc was nroot. Sir-nilarly. in Fris61, 17. .!rrorl3 Sr/rool District,282 Ark.
81, 666 S.W.2d 391 (1984), wc aflirnred thc trial corlrt's disnrissal of a case as nloot rvherc rr
te achcr cl-rallcnged the nonrencwal of hcr tcachins contract. Becalrsc the contract year had er-rdcd,
we held that the teacher's request lor a writ olmandanrus to conrpel thc school board to hire her
for tltc ycar was rl nloot issrrc.
In this case, the janitorial contract betwcen the Highway Dcpartr-nent an'd RazorClean
covercd the period from February 19,2014, through Fcbruary 18,2015. Like the contracts in
cv-15-27
2015 Ark. 388
Erxleben and Frisby, the contract in this case has expired. Accordingly, the case is moot because
there is no reliefthat the court could give OJ.'s on its petition for a writ ofmandamus. Although
the contract does provide for the possibility of renewal upon the mutual written agreement of
both parties, OJ.'s has provided no evidence of any such renewal. Because the record does not
demonstrate that the contract has been renewed, it fails to show that a justiciable controversy
between the parties exists. The record contains only one contract, and that contract expired in
February 201,5. Thus, because the instant contract forjanitorial services has been fully performed,
there is no longer any justiciable controversy between the parties.
'We have recognized two exceptions to the mootness
doctrine, but neither exception
applies in this case. The first exception involves issues that are capable of repetition, yet evading
review. City oJ Creentuood u. Shatlout Lake Ass'n, lnc.,2015 Ark. 143,459 S.W.3d 291. This
exception does not apply here because the instant case trlrns on distinct facts that are unlikely to
be rcpcatcd. /d. Specifically, this case involves an isolatcd contract forjanitorial services that has
expircd and OJ.'s claitls that the Highway Departnrcnt awarded thc contract in violation of the
procurcl])cnt lar,vs of Arkansas. Bccause there is no wlly for this corlrt to forecast rvhcther the
Hiehrvay Departtnent rvill enter into :rnother contract fbr jar-ritorial scrvices, or rvhat thc ternrs of
sttch a contract r,vould [rc, the first exception to the nrootness doctrir"rc is inapplicablc.
The second cxccption to thc nlootl)ess doctrinc conccrlls issucs that raise considerations
oisrtbstantial public interest which, if addressed, rvotrld prevent futtrrc litigation. Bd. ttf Dirs. of
City Ltf Hot Springs u. Pritchett,2015 Ark. 17,454 S.W.3d 223. Thls exccption is also inapplicable
in this case becattse "a deternrirration o[the issue presented would be dependent or-r thc specific
arrd trnique facts presented." City oJCreenruood,2015 Ark. 143, at7,459 S.W.3d Thus,
^t296.
cv-15-27
2015 Ark. 388
"any decision by this court would not serve to prevent ltrture litigation." Id. Accordinel;,, we
disnriss the instant appeal as rlloot.
Appeal dismissed.
Leslie Rutledge, Att'y Gen., by: Gary L. Sullivan, Ass't Att'y Gen., for appellants.
Tiffany F. Flock; and
Hope, Trice, O'Dwyer & Wilson, P.A., by: Ralph "Win" Wilson III, and Ronald A. Hope, for
appellee.
cv-15-27