David Hatchigian v.

BLD-027 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 22-2211
___________
IN RE: DAVID HATCHIGIAN AND JOAN RANDAZZO
____________________________________
On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(Related to Civ. No. 2:21-cv-03416)
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
November 10, 2022
Before: AMBRO, KRAUSE, and PORTER, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: December 8, 2022)
_________
OPINION*
_________
PER CURIAM
In March 2022, following an adverse jury verdict in a civil action, Petitioners
David Hatchigian and Joan Randazzo filed a motion in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania seeking a new trial or, in the alternative, to alter
or amend the judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59. In July 2022, Petitioners submitted a
*
This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
petition for a writ of mandamus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1651 with this Court, requesting
an order directing the District Court to rule on the Rule 59 motion. By order entered
September 6, 2022, the District Court denied the motion.
In light of the District Court’s action, Petitioners’ mandamus petition no longer
presents a live controversy. Therefore, we will dismiss it as moot. See Blanciak v.
Allegheny Ludlum Corp., 77 F.3d 690, 698-99 (3d Cir. 1996) (“If developments occur
during the course of adjudication that . . . prevent a court from being able to grant the
requested relief, the case must be dismissed as moot.”).
2