Yniguez v. State, s. 90-15546

• Decision Date: 16 September 1991
• Docket Number: 90-15581,Nos. 90-15546,s. 90-15546
• Citation: Yniguez v. State, 975 F.2d 646 (9th Cir. 1991)
• Parties: 59 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 41,764 Maria-Kelly F. YNIGUEZ; Jaime P. Gutierrez, Plaintiffs, v. STATE of Arizona, Defendant-Appellee. Robert D. Parks; Arizonans for Official English, Applicants in intervention-Appellants. Maria-Kelly F. YNIGUEZ; Jaime P. Gutierrez, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Rose MOFFORD, individually and as Governor of the State of Arizona; Robert Corbin, individually and as Attorney General of the State of Arizona, Defendants-Appellants. Robert D. Parks; Arizonans for Official English, Applicants in intervention-Appellees. . Suggestion of Mootness
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

Page 646

975 F.2d 646

59 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 41,764

Maria-Kelly F. YNIGUEZ; Jaime P. Gutierrez, Plaintiffs, v.STATE of Arizona, Defendant-Appellee.

Robert D. Parks; Arizonans for Official English, Applicants

in intervention-Appellants.

Maria-Kelly F. YNIGUEZ; Jaime P. Gutierrez, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v.Rose MOFFORD, individually and as Governor of the State of

Arizona; Robert Corbin, individually and as

Attorney General of the State of

Arizona, Defendants-Appellants.

Robert D. Parks; Arizonans for Official English, Applicants

in intervention-Appellees.

Nos. 90-15546, 90-15581.

United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit.

Suggestion of Mootness Sept. 16, 1991.

Decided Sept. 16, 1992.

Robert K. Corbin, Atty. Gen., Anthony B. Ching, Sol.Gen., Paula S. Bickett, Asst. Atty. Gen., Phoenix, Ariz., for appellants.

Robert J. Pohlman, Ryley, Carlock & Applewhite, P.A., Phoenix, Ariz., for plaintiffs-appellees.

Barnaby W. Zall, Williams & Jensen, Washington, D.C., James F. Henderson, Scult, Lazarus, French, Zwillinger & Smock, Phoenix, Ariz., for appellants, movants, intervenors.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona.

Before: TANG, REINHARDT, and FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

The facts of this case have been reviewed elsewhere, seeYniguez v. State of Arizona, 939 F.2d 727, 729-30(9th Cir.1991).In considering the State's suggestion of mootness, there is no reason to do more than mention them briefly.After Arizona voters amended their state constitution to include a provision requiring all state employees to speak only English, the plaintiffMaria-Kelly Yniguez, a state employee, brought an action alleging that the provision violated her federal constitutional rights.The district court agreed and granted her declaratory relief.The state decided not to appeal.Because of the state's decision, Robert D. Park, the sponsor of the state constitutional amendment, sought to intervene in the action for the purpose of appealing the district court's order.The district court denied his motion.We reversed, allowing Park to intervene in the action, and retained jurisdiction over the appeal.Seeid. at 740.

Following our decision, the state filed its suggestion of mootness.The state pointed out that the plaintiff has ceased to be a state employee and suggested that, as a result, the case is moot.We disagree with the state's suggestion; the case is not now moot.

Although the plaintiff may no longer be affected by the English only provision, that does not render her action moot.The plaintiff's constitutional claims may entitle her to an award of nominal damages.SeeCarey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247, 258-59, 98 S.Ct. 1042, 1050, 55 L.Ed.2d 252(1978).¹A plaintiff's pursuit of nominal damages provides a sufficiently concrete interest in the outcome of the litigation to confer standing to pursue declaratory relief and thereby prevents mootness.SeeLokey v. Richardson, 600 F.2d 1265, 1266(9th Cir.1979), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 884, 101 S.Ct. 238, 66 L.Ed.2d 110(1980);13A C. Wright, A. Miller & E. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure§ 3533.3, at 266 (2d ed. 1984);see alsoEllis v. Brotherhood of Ry., Airline and S.S. Clerks, 466 U.S. 435, 442, 104 S.Ct. 1883, 1889, 80 L.Ed.2d 428(1984)("[A]s long as the parties have a concrete interest, however small, in the outcome of the litigation, the case is not moot.").

We note that this is true even though the district court did not award nominal damages.Following our decision allowing intervention, Park is permitted to file a notice of appeal with the district court.SeeZuber v. Allen, 387 F.2d 862, 863(D.C.Cir.1967);Pellegrino v. Nesbit, 203 F.2d 463(9th Cir.1953).Yniguez may then file her own notice of appeal, seeFed.R.App.P. 4(a)(3), in which she may seek review of the district court's failure to award nominal damages.²The possibility that Yniguez may seek nominal damages on appeal is sufficient to prevent mootness.SeeCaroline T. v. Hudson School Dist., 915 F.2d 752, 757(1st Cir.1990)("[T]his court finds that the dismissal with prejudice does not render the case moot, because Caroline may seek judicial review of the dismissal order and may request that the district court remand the case to the Department of Education for a continued administrative hearing.").

If in the future it appears that Yniguez's own claim has become moot through failure to seek nominal damages, the district court should consider two further possibilities, both of which arise from the fact that Yniguez brought her suit in a quasi-representational capacity.The first is that mootness may be avoided by the intervention of a new plaintiff whose claim against the operation of the English only provision is not moot.SeeKennerly v. United States, 721 F.2d 1252, 1260(9th Cir.1983).The second is that if other individuals who are affected by the provision did not pursue their claims in reliance on Yniguez's continued pursuit of her own, Yniguez may have standing as a result of their reliance. ...