Request for a writ of superintending control; Mootness; Exception to the mootness doctrine for issues likely to recur but evade judicial review

The court held that the circuit court did not err in determining that plaintiff’s request for a writ of superintending control over defendant-district court was moot. And the exception to the mootness doctrine for issues likely to recur yet evade judicial review was not applicable given that the issue here became moot because he agreed to an order resolving the dispute. The case arose from plaintiff’s efforts to remove a tenant from a rental property he owned. He filed a complaint in the district court for termination of the tenancy. After a hearing and two adjournments in that matter, plaintiff filed this action in the circuit court. Eight days later, at a “hearing on the underlying eviction proceeding, the parties agreed to a stipulated order that the tenant and occupants would vacate the property by” a set date and plaintiff would withdraw the eviction complaint. The circuit court then concluded that “because plaintiff’s case was no longer pending in the district court, there was no case in controversy, and nothing to exercise superintending control over.” On appeal, the court found that “once the stipulated order was entered in the district court in the underlying eviction case, there ceased to be a controversy between plaintiff and the 36th District Court because the circuit court could no longer grant plaintiff any relief.” Further, to the extent he asserted the issue was “not moot because it is likely to recur but also likely to evade judicial review,” the court disagreed, noting the issue became moot due to “a matter entirely within his control” – his agreement to a settlement. The Supreme Court has held that “reviewing courts will not apply the exception to the mootness doctrine ‘when the party seeking review of an issue on appeal has rendered the issue moot by that party’s own volitional conduct . . . .’” Affirmed.