r

Al 4
1185 AVENUE OF THE AMLOICAS 31ST flOOR
NEW YORK, NY 10036-2603
ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LL.P
212.704.9600 212 701.1256 i,< ww.k%r.cc
E3ARBARA S. JONES
Partner
(212 897-3437
Ii ones zuckerme n.co,n
September 10, 2014
VIA HAND DELIVERY AND ECF
Hon. Richard M. Berman
United States District Court
Southern District of New York
Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse
New York, NY 10007
Re: United States v. District Council, 90 Civ. 5722 (RMB)
Dear Judge Berman:
The New York City and Vicinity District Council of Carpenters (District Council) writes in
response to your order of September 8, 2014. Your Honor sought the views of the parties
regarding whether the Court retained jurisdiction over the matter, given the passage of time and
intervening events, and any views of the parties which may help to resolve the ambiguity
identified by the Second Circuit.
As an initial matter, the District Council agrees with the government that this matter is moot.
To qualify as a case fit for federal-court adjudication, an actual controversy must be extant at
all stages of review, not merely at the time the complaint is filed. Arizonans for OfJicial English
v. Arizona. 520 U.S. 43, 67 (1997). Specifically, under the general rule of mootness, courts
subject matter jurisdiction ceases when an event occurs during the course of the proceedings or
on appeal that makes it impossible for the court to grant any effectual relief whatever to a
prevailing party. Cnty. of SzJfolk, NY v. Sebelius, 605 F.3d 135, 140 (2d Cir. 2010). In the
WASHINGTON, DC NEW YORK TAMPA BALTIMORE
4623235.1
Case 1:90-cv-05722-RMB-RLE Document 1568 Filed 09/10/14 Page 1 of 3
Hon. Richard M. Berman
September 10, 2014
Page 2
instant matter, the intervening elections, during which Mr. Nee and Mr. Messinetti were elected
to office, leave no elected office to which this Court could restore them. There is no other
potential relief to be granted to Mr. Nec and Mr. Messinetti, and as such, it is impossible for the
court to grant any efIi.ctual relief whatever to these members if they prevailed. Id. This renders
the case moot, and strips the federal courts of subject matter jurisdiction.
As the District Council was under the Trusteeship of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters
(UBC) at the time the 2010 Stipulation and Order was entered, the Council itself- and none of
its current leadership - were involved in the negotiations of the parties and can shed no light on
the intent of the parties at the time of negotiation. The Council can, of course, look to the past
practice of the parties. As the Government and the RO note, there have been a number of vetoes
of office holders in past years with no objection from any party. This demonstrates a course of
conduct that suggests that the parties believed that the veto power of the Review Officer
extended to removal of individuals from elected office under the authority of the 2010
Stipulation and Order. Sec United States v. Broadcast Music, Inc., 275 F.3d 168, 175 (2d Cir.
2001).
Rcspectfhlly submitted,
Barbara S. Jones
4(2235.I
Case 1:90-cv-05722-RMB-RLE Document 1568 Filed 09/10/14 Page 2 of 3
1-Ion. Richard M. Berman
September 10, 2014
Page 3
cc: VIA EMAIL
Dennis M. Walsh, Esq.
Review Officer
The Law Office of Dennis M. Walsh
415 Madison Avenue, 11th Floor
NewYork,NY 10017
Bridget M. Rohde
Counsel to the Review Officer
Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, (ilovsky and Popeo, P.C.
666 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10017
Benjamin H. Torrance
Assistant United State Attorney
Office of the United States Attorney
Southern District of New York
86 Chambers Street
New York, NY 10007
James M. Murphy
Counsel to the New York City and Vicinity District Council of Carpenters
Spivak Lipton LLP
1700 Broadway
New York, NY 10019
4623235 I
Case 1:90-cv-05722-RMB-RLE Document 1568 Filed 09/10/14 Page 3 of 3