METRO WIRE & CABLE CO V MARK STEVEN BOGGESS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
METRO WIRE & CABLE COMPANY,
UNPUBLISHED
October 15, 1996
Plaintiff-Appellant/
Cross-Appellee,
v
No. 179853
LC No. 94-3064-CK
MARK STEVEN BOGGESS,
Defendant-Appellee/
Cross-Appellant.
Before: Hood, P.J., and Holbrook, Jr., and G. S. Buth,* JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff appeals from an order converting a preliminary injunction to a permanent injunction in
this action alleging a breach of an employment contract. Defendant cross-appeals from the same order.
The preliminary injunction entered by the court on August 5, 1994, enjoined defendant from
engaging in certain acts “for the remainder of the two-year period June 3, 1994 through June 2, 1996.”
By stipulation of the parties, the preliminary injunction was converted to a permanent injunction which
was entered by the court on October 7, 1994. Because the two-year period set out in the injunction
has now expired, we conclude that this appeal must be dismissed as moot. See, e.g., Curtis Industries,
Inc v Livingston, 30 F3d 96 (CA 8, 1994).
As a general rule, a case becomes moot when the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the
outcome of the case. While the question whether to enjoin defendant Boggess from working for a
competitor of plaintiff’s is now moot, an exception to the general rule is recognized under circumstances
where the underlying conduct is “capable of repetition, yet evades review." Mead v Batchlor, 435
Mich 480, 487; 460 NW2d 493 (1990). The exception applies where the following two factors exist:
(1) the challenged action was incapable of being fully litigated before its expiration, and (2) there was a
reasonable expectation that the same complaining party would be subjected to the same action again.
See Weinstein v Bradford, 423 US 147, 149; 96 S Ct 347; 46 L Ed 2d 350 (1975). Because the
* Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.
-1
injunction in this case has expired, defendant can no longer be held in breach of his employment
agreement with plaintiff. See Vencor, Inc v Webb, 33 F3d 840 (CA 7, 1994). Thus, the issues
presented in this appeal are not capable of recurrence, and therefore the case is moot.
Plaintiff did not seek damages at law in the court below, therefore, we detect no reason to
remand this matter to the trial court for further proceedings.
Appeal dismissed as moot.
/s/ Harold Hood
/s/ Donald E. Holbrook, Jr.
/s/ George S. Buth
-2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
