Paul C. Clark, Sr., et al. v. Council of Unit Owners of the 100 Harborview Drive Condominium

This Court has made it plain that “the Judiciary has a responsibility to decide cases properly before it, even those it ‘would gladly avoid.’” Zivotofsky ex rel. Zivotofsky v. Clinton, 566 U.S. 189, 194 (2012). The unbridled reliance on the non-statutory doctrine of “equitable mootness” to sustain a challenged but consummated Chapter 11 bankruptcy reorganization plan, particularly when civil rights violations (as well as private property rights) are implicated, contravenes the responsibility of an Article III court. The first question presented is: whether review of a civil rights discrimination violation holding from an Article I bankruptcy tribunal is precluded by an Article III court based on the judicially-originated “equitable mootness” doctrine? The second question presented is: whether review of a property rights violation holding from an Article I bankruptcy tribunal is precluded by an Article III court based on the judicially-originated “equitable mootness” doctrine? The third question presented is: whether reliance on the doctrine of “equitable mootness” by an Article III Court is proper to avoid review of the non-Article III court in the absence of a motion to stay a bankruptcy reorganization plan six months prior to entry of a final appealable order?