United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
GINA THOMPSON and KAREN MCCABE, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
REDFLEX TRAFFIC SYSTEMS, INC., et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
L. WHITE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter is before the Court on Defendant Redflex Traffic
Systems, Inc.'s ("Redflex") Motion to Dismiss
Count I of Plaintiff s Complaint for Lack of Subject-Matter
Jurisdiction (ECF No. 97). Plaintiffs have not filed a
response to the motion, and the time for doing so has
expired. For the reasons set forth below, the Court will
grant Redflex's Motion to Dismiss.
case stems from Ordinances enacted in St. Peters, Missouri,
allowing the automated enforcement of traffic regulations by
using cameras at red lights to photograph traffic violations.
The Court previously set forth the background and underlying
facts of this case in its Memorandum and Order of October 24,
2016 and Memorandum and Order of November 1, 2016, and the
Court incorporates by reference those facts as if set forth
herein. (ECF Nos. 92, 94) On October 24, 2016, the Court
granted Defendant City of St. Peters' Motion for Summary
Judgment and dismissed Counts I, II, III, IV, VI, VIII, and
IX of Plaintiff s Class Action Complaint with prejudice. (ECF
Nos. 92, 93) Likewise, on November 1, 2016, the Court granted
Defendant Redflex's Motion for Partial Judgment on the
Pleadings and Supplemental Motion for Partial Judgment on the
Pleadings and dismissed counts V, VI, VII, VIII, and IX with
prejudice. (ECF No. 94) Thus, the only remaining claim is
Count I for declaratory judgment against Redflex. On February
13, 2017, Redflex filed the present Motion to Dismiss for
Lack of Subject-Matter Jurisdiction.
contends that it no longer has an active role in the Red
Light Camera Program such that the sole remaining claim for
declaratory relief is now moot. Plaintiffs have not filed a
response in opposition to Redflex's motion to dismiss.
is akin to the doctrine of standing because the
'requisite personal interest that must exist at the
commencement of the litigation (standing) must continue
throughout its existence (mootness).'"
Phelps-Roper v. City of Manchester, Mo., 697 F.3d
678, 687 (8th Cir. 2012) (quoting McCarthy v. Ozark Sch.
Dist., 359 F.3d 1029, 1035 (8th Cir. 2004)). In a case
for declaratory judgment, the question "is whether the
facts alleged, under all the circumstances, show that there
is a substantial controversy, between parties having adverse
legal interests, of sufficient immediacy and reality to
warrant the issuance of a declaratory judgment."
Golden v. Zwickler, 394 U.S. 103, 108 (1969)
(internal quotations and citation omitted). "When a law
has been amended or repealed, actions seeking declaratory or
injunctive relief for earlier versions are generally moot
unless the problems are 'capable of repetition yet
evad[ing] review.'" Phelps-Roper, 697 F.3d
at 687 (quoting McCarthy, 359 F.3d at 1036).
"The doctrine that federal courts may not decide moot
cases 'derives from the requirement of Article III of the
Constitution under which the exercise of judicial power
depends upon the existence of a case or
controversy.'" Comfort Lake Ass 'n, Inc. v.
Dresel Contracting, Inc., 138 F.3d 351, 354 (8th Cir.
1998) (quoting Liner v. Jafco, Inc., 375 U.S. 301,
306 n. 3 (1964)).
Plaintiffs seek declaratory judgment pertaining to Ordinances
which implemented the Photo Red Light Enforcement Program in
St. Peters. Redflex avers that the contract between Redflex
and St. Peters was terminated by a new Ordinance and a
termination agreement executed nearly two years
(Def.'s Ex. A, ECF No. 98-1) Indeed, Ordinance 6342
essentially repealed the prior Ordinances and ended the Red
Light Program. (Id.) There is no indication that the
Red Light Program will be reenacted such that Plaintiffs can
demonstrate a substantial controversy of sufficient immediacy
to warrant declaratory relief. "If there is no such
immediate controversy, a claim for declaratory relief is moot
and must be dismissed." Whitehead v. City of St.
Louis, No. 4:09CV483 CDP, 2009 WL 4430699, at *3 (E.D.
Mo. Nov. 24, 2009). Thus, the Court will dismiss
Plaintiffs' claims against Redflex for declaratory
judgment in Count I as moot. See Traditionalist Am.
Knights of the Ku Klux Klan v. City of Desloge, Mo., No.
4:13-CV-810 NAB, 2016 WL 705128, at *2 (E.D. Mo. Feb. 23,
2016) (finding that challenges to a repealed ordinance were
moot); Comfort Lake, 138 F.3d at 354 ("A claim
for injunctive relief may become moot if challenged conduct
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Redflex Traffic Systems,
Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss Count I of Plaintiff s Complaint
for Lack of Subject-Matter Jurisdiction (ECF No. 97) is
GRANTED. A separate Judgment shall accompany this Memorandum
 Redflex's Exhibit A contains the
Ordinance and the Termination Agreement between St. Peters
and Redflex, which are part of the public record. Thus, the
Court will consider the exhibit. Mickelson v. Cty. of
Ramsey,823 F.3d 918, 923 (8th Cir. 2016) (citation
omitted); Blair v. City of Hannibal, No. ...