Joshua Harman v. Trinity Industries, Inc., et al, No. 15-40459 (5th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 15-40459 Document: 00513263835 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/09/2015 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED No. 15-40459 Summary Calendar November 9, 2015 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ex rel, JOSHUA HARMAN Plaintiff - Appellee v. TRINITY INDUSTRIES, INCORPORATED; TRINITY HIGHWAY PRODUCTS, L.L.C., Defendants - Appellees v. THE CENTER FOR AUTO SAFETY; THE SAFETY INSTITUTE, INCORPORATED, Movants - Appellants Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 2:12-CV-89 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, ELROD, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. * Case: 15-40459 Document: 00513263835 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/09/2015 No. 15-40459 Appellants The Center for Auto Safety and The Safety Institute, Inc. appeal the district court’s denial of their second motion to intervene. As explained in our decision affirming the denial of their first motion to intervene, 1 Appellants seek to intervene for the limited purpose of unsealing the record. The district court concluded that Appellants’ motion was moot because it had already granted Relator Joshua Harman’s motion to unseal the record. Appellants counter that their motion is not moot because the district court’s order granting this relief was neither final nor unappealable—and has been appealed by Appellees Trinity Industries, Inc. and Trinity Highway Products, L.L.C. Assuming without deciding that Appellants are correct, the district court’s order has since become final and unappealable, as this Court recently granted Appellees’ motion to voluntary dismiss their interlocutory appeal of the unsealing order. 2 As a result, Appellants’ second motion to intervene is now indisputably moot, 3 and we DISMISS this appeal. See United States ex rel. Harman v. Trinity Indus., Inc., 599 F. App’x 193, 193 (5th Cir. 2015). 2 No. 15-40337, Dkt. 83. 3 Jackson v. Johnson, 217 F.3d 360, 364-65 & n.20 (5th Cir. 2000) (recognizing that a “case becomes moot on appeal once appellant has received all of the relief requested”). 1
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.
